4 ms·

> That many teacher’s pensions require one to give up social security benefits Patently untrue unless maybe you work for the Dept of Defense or something. Teac

> That many teacher’s pensions require one to give up social security benefits Patently untrue unless maybe you work for the Dept of Defense or something. Teachers can collect SS like any other employee.

MarcusGunnz 4y ago
[flagged]
justin66 4y ago
There are many ways to compensate teachers [1], but in general, you really shouldn't make categorical statements on matters you are completely unfamiliar with. I help manage the finances of someone who is in the position of being unable to collect any social security benefits from the relatively brief time she had a regular job which paid into social security prior to becoming a teacher, and is also unable to collect her spouse's Social Security survivor benefits (she literally receives zero dollars from Social Security, though if she had never worked a day in her life, she's be able to collect her spouse's survivor's benefits). You've made quite a few comments in this thread: how many of them are as badly informed as this? "Windfall Elimination Prevention" and "Government Pension Offset" are things you can google if you're interested in learning a bit about this stuff. [1] States whose teachers participate in their own pension plans instead of Social Security include California and Texas, so it's not like these are rare concerns https://www.socialsecurityintelligence.com/teachers-retirement-and-social-security/ https://www.socialsecurityintelligence.com/teachers-retireme...
- lr4444lr 4y ago
  I'm not above learning something. Texas seems to be district-dependent, and CA is statewide: https://www.trs.texas.gov/Pages/active_member_social_security_at_trs.aspx https://www.trs.texas.gov/Pages/active_member_social_securit... https://www.calstrs.com/social-security https://www.calstrs.com/social-security This is not the case for NY, and not in WI and PA as I have heard from teachers there. In cases where they don't receive it though, they're not paying into it either. I can't comment as to whether that is a good or bad thing, because I don't know those cases. Maybe the union membership by in large doesn't want to? For the benefit of others, I post this authoritative link from the USDOE: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/mapED/storymaps/TeacherSocialSecurity/index.html https://nces.ed.gov/programs/mapED/storymaps/TeacherSocialSe...
  - justin66 4y ago
    > In cases where they don't receive it though, they're not paying into it either. If the "it" you're referring to is social security, this is, to use your phrase from above, "patently untrue." It would be comforting if that were the case, but there are cases where a person who has paid into social security will not receive anything from it, and will not receive their spouse's Social Security survivor's benefits, under WEP and GPO rules. As I explained above, I know one of these people and help her manage her money. To the original point in my grandparent post: just having to do the math on this stuff could be deterrent to someone trying to make a decision about whether teaching is a smart career move. > Maybe the union membership by in large doesn't want to? WEP and GPO are a matter of federal law, although "maybe the unions want this thing that is obviously hostile to their members" is certainly... a thought a person could have. As it happens the American Federation of Teachers is lobbying to eliminate WEP and GPO, and I assume there are other unions who are acting similarly: https://www.aft.org/resolution/repeal-windfall-elimination-provision-wep-and-government-pension-offset-gpo https://www.aft.org/resolution/repeal-windfall-elimination-p... https://sports.yahoo.com/congressional-bill-may-soon-end-194009302.html https://sports.yahoo.com/congressional-bill-may-soon-end-194... (some potential disinformation in the second link, but the point is, this is a pretty active debate) edit: It occurs to me that maybe you meant "maybe they do not want to pay into Social Security," which is probably true. To keep this in perspective, these teacher pensions which were considered an alternative/supplement to Social Security are a lot older than the WEP and GPO, which came along to kick those with these pensions in the nuts in the late seventies and early eighties. The teachers and their unions were already committed to the path they were on when the federal government changed the rules on them.
    - lr4444lr 4y ago
      Not disagreeing with what you just wrote above,but do you have a source for > If the "it" you're referring to is social security, this is, to use your phrase from above, "patently untrue." ? Because everything I am reading suggests those states whose teachers whose work years only go to pension and not SS eligibility are not having their teachers pay into SS.
jwlato 4y ago
This depends on the state. For example, teachers in CA and TX aren't eligible for SS. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/10/07/why-does-social-security-leave-out-teachers-in-the.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/10/07/why-does-social-s...

MarcusGunnz 4y ago

[flagged]

justin66 4y ago

There are many ways to compensate teachers [1], but in general, you really shouldn't make categorical statements on matters you are completely unfamiliar with. I help manage the finances of someone who is in the position of being unable to collect any social security benefits from the relatively brief time she had a regular job which paid into social security prior to becoming a teacher, and is also unable to collect her spouse's Social Security survivor benefits (she literally receives zero dollars from Social Security, though if she had never worked a day in her life, she's be able to collect her spouse's survivor's benefits). You've made quite a few comments in this thread: how many of them are as badly informed as this? "Windfall Elimination Prevention" and "Government Pension Offset" are things you can google if you're interested in learning a bit about this stuff. [1] States whose teachers participate in their own pension plans instead of Social Security include California and Texas, so it's not like these are rare concerns https://www.socialsecurityintelligence.com/teachers-retirement-and-social-security/ https://www.socialsecurityintelligence.com/teachers-retireme...

lr4444lr 4y ago
I'm not above learning something. Texas seems to be district-dependent, and CA is statewide: https://www.trs.texas.gov/Pages/active_member_social_security_at_trs.aspx https://www.trs.texas.gov/Pages/active_member_social_securit... https://www.calstrs.com/social-security https://www.calstrs.com/social-security This is not the case for NY, and not in WI and PA as I have heard from teachers there. In cases where they don't receive it though, they're not paying into it either. I can't comment as to whether that is a good or bad thing, because I don't know those cases. Maybe the union membership by in large doesn't want to? For the benefit of others, I post this authoritative link from the USDOE: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/mapED/storymaps/TeacherSocialSecurity/index.html https://nces.ed.gov/programs/mapED/storymaps/TeacherSocialSe...
- justin66 4y ago
  > In cases where they don't receive it though, they're not paying into it either. If the "it" you're referring to is social security, this is, to use your phrase from above, "patently untrue." It would be comforting if that were the case, but there are cases where a person who has paid into social security will not receive anything from it, and will not receive their spouse's Social Security survivor's benefits, under WEP and GPO rules. As I explained above, I know one of these people and help her manage her money. To the original point in my grandparent post: just having to do the math on this stuff could be deterrent to someone trying to make a decision about whether teaching is a smart career move. > Maybe the union membership by in large doesn't want to? WEP and GPO are a matter of federal law, although "maybe the unions want this thing that is obviously hostile to their members" is certainly... a thought a person could have. As it happens the American Federation of Teachers is lobbying to eliminate WEP and GPO, and I assume there are other unions who are acting similarly: https://www.aft.org/resolution/repeal-windfall-elimination-provision-wep-and-government-pension-offset-gpo https://www.aft.org/resolution/repeal-windfall-elimination-p... https://sports.yahoo.com/congressional-bill-may-soon-end-194009302.html https://sports.yahoo.com/congressional-bill-may-soon-end-194... (some potential disinformation in the second link, but the point is, this is a pretty active debate) edit: It occurs to me that maybe you meant "maybe they do not want to pay into Social Security," which is probably true. To keep this in perspective, these teacher pensions which were considered an alternative/supplement to Social Security are a lot older than the WEP and GPO, which came along to kick those with these pensions in the nuts in the late seventies and early eighties. The teachers and their unions were already committed to the path they were on when the federal government changed the rules on them.
  - lr4444lr 4y ago
    Not disagreeing with what you just wrote above,but do you have a source for > If the "it" you're referring to is social security, this is, to use your phrase from above, "patently untrue." ? Because everything I am reading suggests those states whose teachers whose work years only go to pension and not SS eligibility are not having their teachers pay into SS.

jwlato 4y ago

This depends on the state. For example, teachers in CA and TX aren't eligible for SS. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/10/07/why-does-social-security-leave-out-teachers-in-the.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/10/07/why-does-social-s...