creators home lifestyle web
tom margenau


The So-Called 'New' Social Security Rules Are Actually the Old Rules There is just so darn much misinformation out there about new Social Security rules. These rules have to do with the eventual elimination of the maximizing strategies known as "file and restrict" and "file and suspend." Every single day, I get …Read more. How to Deal With the Social Security Earnings Penalties I've gotten more than a few emails recently from Social Security beneficiaries who are under age 66 and still working and who are trapped in the web of Social Security's convoluted earnings penalty rules and the way they are administered. Those …Read more. Long Gone Husband May Mean Extra Social Security to Some I gave a couple women very nice Christmas presents over the recent holiday season. And I'm not talking about the lingerie I got my wife or the coffee maker I got my daughter. I'm talking about the gift of extra Social Security benefits I got for two …Read more. The Lights Are Still Shining Brightly at SSA About a month ago, I wrote a column about possible declining service at the Social Security Administration. I pointed out that I get frequent emails from readers who complain about overflowing waiting rooms, generally unpleasant surroundings, and …Read more.
more articles

A Social Security Lesson for Teachers


It's once again time for me to turn the tables on my old teachers by asking them to take a seat and pay attention as I deliver my semiannual lecture on the Social Security offset.

This lesson isn't directed at all teachers — just those in states where teachers do not pay into Social Security. The two biggest such states are California and Texas, but there are a few others. And teachers really are not the only audience for this lecture. Anyone who works at a job that is not covered by Social Security (that's a little less than 10 percent of the population) is impacted by the same rules. But for some reason, it seems to be teachers who are most confused by the law. I can tell by the e-mails I get that many teachers incorrectly assume that they have been singled out for Social Security offsets that they believe impact no one else.

The law in question is the government pension offset law. In a nutshell, that law says that an amount equal to two-thirds of a non-Social Security-covered pension must be deducted from any Social Security dependent's benefits a person might be due. In effect, the law prevents most teachers (and other folks who work at jobs not covered by Social Security) from collecting wife's, widow's, husband's or widower's benefits from a spouse's Social Security record.

What these teachers don't realize is that the government pension offset law simply treats them in the same way that all other working people have always been treated. In other words, if a woman who worked at a job that was covered by Social Security gets a Social Security retirement pension, that pension has always offset any spousal benefits she might have been due. Before the GPO law went into effect, teachers were among the few working people in this country who could get their own retirement pension AND a dependent's benefit from Social Security.

And the GPO law actually gives teachers a bit of a break. Social Security retirement pensions offset spousal benefits dollar for dollar. But a teacher's retirement pension causes only a three-for-two offset. In other words, for each $3 you receive in a teacher's pension, you lose only $2 from Social Security spousal benefits.

To help illustrate the law, I'd like you to meet Bob and Carol — and their neighbors Ted and Alice. They live in a nice suburb of Dallas. Their stories explain why the pension offset is fair.

Bob and Carol both worked all their lives. And they worked at jobs that were covered by Social Security. In other words, Social Security taxes were deducted from both their paychecks.

Neighbor Ted also worked at a job covered by Social Security.

But his wife, Alice, was a teacher in Dallas. Texas teachers pay into a state teachers' retirement system, but they do not pay into Social Security.

Bob retired and is getting $1,200 per month in Social Security retirement benefits. Carol actually made a little more than Bob most of her life, so she's getting a Social Security retirement pension of about $1,500 per month. Carol can't get (and frankly, doesn't expect) any wife's benefits on Bob's record because her own Social Security benefit precludes any spousal payments. In other words, Carol's own retirement benefit offsets any wife's benefits she might have been due on her husband's record. And for that matter, Bob can't get a husband's benefit on Carol's record because his own retirement benefit would offset it.

Across the street, Ted is receiving roughly the same Social Security benefit as Bob, about $1,200 per month. His wife, Alice, is getting a $3,000 monthly Texas teacher's pension. Before the pension offset law was in place, Alice would have been eligible for a $600 dependent wife's benefit from Social Security in addition to her teacher's pension. But now, the government pension offset law prevents that from happening. Alice thinks she and other teachers are being singled out for Social Security penalties. What she doesn't understand is the law treats her the same way her neighbor Carol has always been treated. Again, it says that neither woman will get a dependent wife's benefit from Social Security because she is getting her own retirement pension.

For years, teachers and their unions have been "fighting to change this unjust law." And every year, they find some pandering politician who needs a few votes from educators to introduce a bill to eliminate the government pension offset. And every year, the bill goes down to defeat because, as Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice have shown you, the law is eminently fair.

Having said that, I will admit there is a selfish side of me that hopes these fighting mad teachers prevail. Because you see, I am also impacted by the offset. I get a civil service retirement pension that offsets any husband's benefits I might potentially be due on my wife's Social Security record. That's the selfish side of me. But the practical side of me wonders why in the world I should be able to get my comfortable civil service retirement pension AND a dependent's Social Security benefit — especially when the law prevents more than 90 percent of the population from doing the same.

To learn more about the government pension offset, and a related law called the windfall elimination provision, send an e-mail to and ask for a free copy of my pension offset fact sheet.

If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has the answer. Contact him at To find out more about Tom Margenau and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



7 Comments | Post Comment
I you are on social security disability in you 40's , when I turn 65 will the pay be the same?
Comment: #1
Posted by: rex
Fri Oct 8, 2010 11:22 AM
i paid social security and teacher retirement for 25 years. why again am not rightfully allowed to get my full social security?
Comment: #2
Posted by: rick
Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:18 PM
Some teachers I work with say that they have been advised to take social security early by their "financial advisors" at age (62) because its not subject to the "offset" until they start receiving their pensions from STIRS. (California) I paid into SS for over 20 years, and have been teaching for the past 13. Not smart for retirement but rewarding personally... I'm turning 62. Any advice
Comment: #3
Posted by: Sherman Fairbairn
Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:59 PM
I understand the above article. However what is unfair is that California Teacher's don't get survivor social security benefits but New York Teachers do. If Social Security is a federal program then it should be a uniform system. Which state I live in should not matter. My husband and deceased husband both paid in and I get no benefits. But if I die he gets my pension and his SS benefits. This is wrong! A part of his benefits should be available to me upon his death
Comment: #4
Posted by: michele elkin
Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:56 AM
I am a teacher that began as a second career when I was 42. I paid into social security since I was 14, beginning full time when I was 21. There were years as an engineer when I maxed out social security deductions. When I began teaching in Maine, I essentially gave up most of my social security benefits--not for a spouse or anything--I lost my own benefits that I had paid into for over 20 years. I don't know of any other profession where when someone collects a pension (that I pay more than 8% of my salary to) that they lose their own social security benefits. I do not see how this is fair or even legal. I would be happy at this point with a refund of the money I actually paid in when I retire.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Al Carp
Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:12 AM
Two wrongs don't make a right. The government is taking social security benefits EARNED by people. A teacher can retire then work and pay into social security for another 15 years and should be entitled to those benefits too because they were earned. The term double dipping is ridiculous. Just because the government is stealing from Bob and Carol does not mean it should steal from anyone else as in the example in the article above. The government should quit penalizing people to suit its own ends. There is no argument for denying anyone their spouses social security benefit (some potion of it) and their is no argument for requiring retired teachers to pay into social security for their second career (or night jobs they did while teaching) and then give them nothing back. This is bad behavior on the part of government. And when you look across all states and situations (see military also) these cuts and denials do not apply to everyone. It is completely unfair and irresponsible of our government.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Martha Scruggs
Tue Aug 5, 2014 4:09 PM
If I hadn't worked a day in my life, I would be able to collect my spousal benefits, but because I work as a teacher I can't? If I had stayed in my corporate job that had a private retirement system (probably not anymore) I would have also been able to collect social security? I don't consider it double dipping, if you have earned it through contribution. What is fair about the government spending our contributions before we ever retire in the first place? Shouldn't the government set the standard for their constituents by being a good steward of our money?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Nancy Good
Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:56 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Tom Margenau
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month