I Have Something To Say, And I Want To Make It Perfectly Clear

@greenmountaingal True, but if you are married or widowed you can take half of their spouse's benefit when you reach the age where you would have received 100% of your benefit. Even if you are divorced if you were married for 10 years or more you can take half his amount. For a lot of women taking half of hubby's is more than 100% of theirs.

@katielass Thanks for the info. As a never married person, I admit I didn't think of this.

Now...if only I could figure out how to overcome the absolute misery of the Windfall Provision Act which took 80% of the Soc.Sec. money I earned with 21 years of my labor. Infuriating!

@greenmountaingal My hubby is a CPA so I'll ask him about that. He might have some ideas.

@katielass Thank you!!! I need all the help I can get. I keep hoping that they'll repeal the WPA. Or fix it to account for those of us who became teachers, nurses, paramedics, etc. after the age of 30 or so.

OK, I knew about this but didn't recognize it by that name. I hate to tell you but they will never repeal that. But it applies to persons who worked and had SS deducted from their pay less than 30 years and/or persons who worked for someone who did not deduct SS withholdings and are eligible for a retirement /pension from that employer. Does this fit your situation?

@katielass I have read news articles saying that both Republicans and Democrats are working on fixing the Windfall Provision.

When younger, I worked on various jobs under Soc. Sec. for about 20 years. (I then spent several years not working; caring for elderly parents). Later, in my late 30s, I got a teaching credential and worked for LA County as a teacher in Juvenile Hall for about 15 years. Then I worked for the State of CA for 10 years as a State teacher in a State hospital. Because I took a teacher pension and a state employees pension, I lost most of my Soc.Sec. Since I paid into that system for over 20 years, it doesn't seem right to lose that money. The Windfall law was passed to prevent overpaid political public servants (like retired senators) from double dipping with two pensions (federal and state) for doing one job. I don't think it's purpose was to take retirement money from teachers, fire fighters, nurses, paramedics or police officers.

yes, I agree it was intended to keep people from double dipping. But suppose you work n a job that deducts SS for 29 years. You are not eligible for SS whether you have another pension or not. That doesn't seem fair either. But most people can draw half of their spouses. Since you never married there is nothing else for you to draw upon. I agree, it doesn't seem fair. You should be able to draw a SS retirement even if you worked only 5 or 10 years. Granted, it would be almost nothing but at least it's something. What will make the difference is the number of people affected y this. If the number is negligible, doesn't look good. But if there is a large number of constituents affected by this you might have a chance. Remember how it was after they passed that asinine minimum wage tax. It didn't hit people for a number of years and when it did it hit the very people it was not intended to hurt. congress is so freaking stupid. They only care about what they get out of it.