Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe to the 74 newsletter

Did you know that 40% public school teachers and other education employees are not covered by social security? This is bad for affected workers, who miss out on potential benefits. But it also complicates the schedule for the rest of us.

But instead of solving this problem, the House of Representatives may soon consider a bill that would repeal two provisions intended to preserve fairness in the Social Security formula. If adopted, the measure would constitute a financial windfall for retirees such as former teachers and school principals who already have a good pension to fall back on. And it would be cost to taxpayers $196 billion over the next 10 years.

The rules are complicated, so an example might help. Imagine a hypothetical Californian professor. Like most educators in states like Ohio, Texas, and Massachusetts, and more two thirds police officers and firefighters, California Teachers do not participate in social security. Our hypothetical teacher does not pay Social Security’s 6.2% payroll tax on income, and her school district does not pay the employer share either.

Instead, these workers rely solely on their state-paid retirement benefits. This deal works well for people who are willing to stay for the 20 or 30 years it takes to invest in the system, but most workers won’t.

Let’s say our Californian teacher lasts 25 years. She will not be entitled to a social security benefit, but her state pension will be paid. half the salary she earned as an educator. Depending on her age, she could live as many years in retirement as she taught, meaning her retirement benefits could easily net her more than $1 million by the time she passes away.

But let’s say our hypothetical professor doesn’t completely retire. Suppose she works for another 10 years as a yoga teacher. She earns less than she did as a teacher, and she and her yoga studio must pay payroll taxes on her income.

From now on, she is entitled to social security in addition to her teacher’s pension. When she applies for benefits, the Social Security Administration asks whether she has a government pension and, if so, how much it is worth.

If she didn’t ask, the Social Security Administration would assume that the former teacher was just a relatively low-paid yoga instructor, not a retiree. Because Social Security is progressive and replaces a higher percentage of income for lower-income workers, she could potentially qualify for the same benefits as someone with much more limited means — and without a pension to fall back on.

Starting in the 1970s and 1980s, Congress decided that wasn’t fair. In response, he created the windfall elimination clause for workers who split their careers in and out of Social Security. A separate provision, government pension offset, applies to spouses in households with shared coverage.

Congress also put in place protections ensuring that all employees with shared coverage will not be penalized. For example, the the provision for exceptional profits cannot reduce a person’s Social Security benefits make up more than half of their government pension.

This rule in fact protects the vast majority of workers benefiting from shared coverage. When the Social Security Administration I did the numbers in 2019, it found 19.6 million retirees who had worked part of their careers in state and local government jobs without Social Security coverage. But thanks to this rule, 18 million of them (92%) were not subject to any sanctions.

This left around 1.6 million retirees who were penalized. Like our hypothetical professor, these people might be surprised – and angry – when they file for Social Security and discover that their benefits will be reduced. But remember, these are people who are already entitled to a substantial pension thanks to their years of government service. They’re not billionaires, but they’re not really poor either. It would not be fair to give them the same Social Security benefits as a low-income worker without a pension.

Legislation to repeal both provisions has 62 co-sponsors in the Senate, and House members have already filed a petition to have their version removed from committee and put to a vote. Given Congress’ busy schedule, a Federal News Network article suggests that likely it might not happen before November.

But repealing these two provisions would be an unfair and costly mistake. And there is a better option: making social security coverage mandatory for everyone. This would simplify the program for everyone and remove the need for both provisions.

The unions representing teachers and others workers affected by the windfall provisions are behind recent pressure to repeal them. At the same time, these groups oppose efforts to make social security coverage compulsory in the public sector, as for all private sector employees.

But extending Social Security coverage to all state and local government employees would help workers who need it most. Search by myself And others found that many employees without coverage, particularly low-income workers, would be better off if they participated in Social Security rather than relying solely on their public retirement plan.

If Congress wants to help teachers and other public employees, it should extend mandatory Social Security benefits to the public sector. No more split Social Security coverage, no more provision or windfall compensation. Full participation in social security – including taxes and benefits – for all.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe to the 74 newsletter