Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T22:59:19.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distributional effects of the Social Security windfall elimination provision*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2013

JEFFREY R. BROWN  and
SCOTT J. WEISBENNER
JEFFREY R. BROWN
Affiliation:
University of Illinois and NBER (e-mail: [email protected])
SCOTT J. WEISBENNER
Affiliation:
University of Illinois and NBER (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over five million state and local government employees have lifetime earnings that are divided between employment that is covered by the Social Security system and employment that is not covered. As Social Security benefits are a nonlinear function of covered lifetime earnings, the simple application of the standard benefit formula to covered earnings only would provide a higher replacement rate on those earnings than is appropriate given the individuals' total (covered plus uncovered) lifetime earnings. The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), established in 1983, is intended to correct this situation by applying a modified benefit formula to earnings of individuals with non-covered employment. This paper analyzes the distributional implications of the WEP and finds that it reduces benefits disproportionately for individuals with lower lifetime covered earnings. It discusses an alternative method of calculating the WEP that comes closer to preserving the intended redistribution of the system. In recognition of historical data limitations that prevent the Social Security Administration (SSA) from being able to implement this alternative method at present, the paper also analyzes two alternative ways of calculating the WEP that use the same information as the current WEP, are budget neutral, and come closer to maintaining the individual-level, cross-sectional progressivity of Social Security than does the existing WEP formula.

Keywords

windfall elimination provisionWEPSocial Securityretirementstate and local public pensions
Type
Issues and Policy
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 415 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by the U.S. Social Security Administration through grant no. 10-P-98363-1-05 to the National Bureau of Economic Research as part of the SSA Retirement Research Consortium. The findings and conclusions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of SSA, any agency of the Federal Government, or the NBER. We are grateful to Steve Goss, Bert Kestenbaum, and Alice Wade of the Social Security Administration for providing us with data and for helpful discussions. We are grateful to Courtney Coile, Alan Gustman, Olivia Mitchell, Josh Rauh and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. We thank Chichun Fang for excellent research assistance.

References

Brown, Jeffrey R., Coronado, Julia Lynn and Fullerton, Don (2009) Is Social Security part of the safety net? In Brown, Jeffrey R. and Poterba, James M. (eds), Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 23. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Jeffrey R., Kapteyn, Arie and Mitchell, Olivia S. (2011) Framing Effects and Expected Social Security Claiming Behavior. NBER Working Paper No. 17018.Google Scholar
Cohen, Lee, Steuerle, C. Eugene and Carasso, Adam (2001) Social Security Redistribution by Education, Race and Income: How Much and Why. Urban Institute Research Paper. Available online at http://www.urban.org/publications/1000626.htmlGoogle Scholar
Coronado, Julia Lynn, Fullerton, Don and Glass, Thomas (2011) The progressivity of Social Security. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11(1): 1–43.Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter A. and Orszag, Peter R. (2003) Reforming the GPO and WEP in Social Security. Tax Notes, November 3, 2003, 647–649.Google Scholar
Gustman, Alan L. and Steinmeier, Thomas L. (2001) How effective is redistribution under the Social Security benefit formula? Journal of Public Economics, 82: 1–28.Google Scholar
Liebman, Jeffrey B. (2002) Redistribution in the current U.S. Social Security system. In Feldstein, M. and Liebman, J. (eds), The Distributional Effects of Social Security Reform. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press for NBER, 11–41.Google Scholar
Lingg, Barbara A. (2008) Social security beneficiaries affected by the windfall elimination provision in 2006. Social Security Bulletin, 68(2): 21–39.Google Scholar
Munnell, Alicia H., Aubry, Jean-Pierre, Hurwitz, Joshua and Quinby, Laura (2011) Comparing Wealth in Retirement: State-Local versus Private Sector Workers. Boston College Center for Retirement Research Issue Brief. Available online at http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/slp_21_508.pdfGoogle Scholar
Scott, Christine, (2013) Social Security: the windfall elimination provision. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress 7–5700.Google Scholar
Social Security Administration (2005) Testimony of Frederick Streckewald, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Disability and Income Security Programs. Hearing Before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. June 9, 2005. Available online at http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_060905.htmlGoogle Scholar
Social Security Administration (2013) Windfall Elimination Provision. SSA Publication No. 05-10045. January. ICN 460275.Google Scholar
United States Government Accountability Office (2003) Social Security: Issues Relating to Noncoverage of Public Employees. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Statement of Barbara D. Bovbjerg. GAO-03-710T. May 1, 2003.Google Scholar
United States Government Accountability Office (2007) Social Security: Issues Regarding the Coverage of Public Employees. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. Statement of Barbara D. Bovbjerg. GAO-08-248T. November 6, 2007.Google Scholar