|
|
Post by comeheroften on Aug 24, 2012 7:08:09 GMT -5
I've been wondering if teachers in Pennsylvania get federal social security in retirement as well as their PA state-funded pensions. If so, that seems like it could result in a fairly cushy retirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Aug 24, 2012 11:43:20 GMT -5
I've been wondering if teachers in Pennsylvania get federal social security in retirement as well as their PA state-funded pensions. If so, that seems like it could result in a fairly cushy retirement. My mother was not a teacher but she was employed by the school district. Between my mother and father's social security (sole income for my dad) and her pension from the state-funded pension their total income last year was $23,000. Hardly what I would call a cushy retirement. My mother's retirement pension is enough to pay their additional insurance which covers beyond medicare. For that alone she is grateful. If I'm not mistaken, in some cases your social security benefits may actually be less depending on your pension benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Aug 24, 2012 14:33:21 GMT -5
If they have paid into the state teachers retirement program, and have paid into Social Security they will get both. But please bear in mind when you say “could result in a fairly cushy retirement”, that they have paid into both systems throughout their career. This is money they did not have to live with while they were working. This is much the same as someone else putting extra money into their IRA, or Roth or other retirement system.
Also like many other employers, they do not get to take their insurance into their retirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by comeheroften on Aug 24, 2012 15:39:06 GMT -5
Thanks Lifesaver and FMB for you input. I'm really trying to understand how the system works, rather than make assumptions on what I read. Are you two saying that teachers and school district employees pay into the state pension system? On retirement, is it possible for them to get more out of the school pension system than they put in (if they live long enough)?
Also, does anyone know the average annual salary for Gettysburg School district teachers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Aug 24, 2012 16:27:17 GMT -5
Thanks Lifesaver and FMB for you input. I'm really trying to understand how the system works, rather than make assumptions on what I read. Are you two saying that teachers and school district employees pay into the state pension system? On retirement, is it possible for them to get more out of the school pension system than they put in (if they live long enough)? Also, does anyone know the average annual salary for Gettysburg School district teachers? Some of your questions may be answered at www.psers.state.pa.us/about/about.htmBut yes I do believe it is possible to draw more than you have invested if you live long enough. But remember every penny they contributed has been drawing interest from the first day. If you have a retirement program, Roth, IRA or what ever, it is drawing interest, and you should get more out of it than you invested. |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Aug 24, 2012 16:40:10 GMT -5
Thanks Lifesaver and FMB for you input. I'm really trying to understand how the system works, rather than make assumptions on what I read. Are you two saying that teachers and school district employees pay into the state pension system? On retirement, is it possible for them to get more out of the school pension system than they put in (if they live long enough)? Also, does anyone know the average annual salary for Gettysburg School district teachers? You'll have to get someone from the district to weigh in on pensions and teacher's salaries for facts. I know that many companies are changing the way their pension plans are run to allow employees to also contribute to their pensions and match a percentage of contributions in lieu of a pension. If you are young and start your investments early it is extremely likely that you can retire with a very nice income. Even if the school district doesn't offer this kind of retirement pension you could start a retirement fund yourself, such as a Roth IRA. |
|
|
|
Post by getysbg on Aug 24, 2012 18:31:38 GMT -5
My daughter is a teacher in Biglerville and is in the high 30's. Son-in-law is in another school district and is in low 40's. Good wages but not exactly cushy in today's economy. I'm retiring from being a state employee in NJ and will get a very small pension, but I think I shouldn't get one ( No, I won't refuse it) In NJ, you qualify for a pension from day one. So, in my case, my ten years service will net me about 600 a month. The only ones that I am aware of that lose SS are those that were covered under the RR Retirement Act but can't be many more of those souls left. Lifesaver is right - save, save often, save a lot and start young. Never too late to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fire Marshal Bill on Aug 25, 2012 11:19:40 GMT -5
My daughter is a teacher in Biglerville and is in the high 30's. Son-in-law is in another school district and is in low 40's. Good wages but not exactly cushy in today's economy. I'm retiring from being a state employee in NJ and will get a very small pension, but I think I shouldn't get one ( No, I won't refuse it) In NJ, you qualify for a pension from day one. So, in my case, my ten years service will net me about 600 a month. The only ones that I am aware of that lose SS are those that were covered under the RR Retirement Act but can't be many more of those souls left. Lifesaver is right - save, save often, save a lot and start young. Never too late to start. Anyone who was under a retirement system where Social Security was not withheld, does not get Social Security. This also includes Federal Employees were were under the CSRS system. They don't necessarily lose it completely but are penalized very heavy in what they can get from Social Security, even if they paid into it with other jobs. With what I have paid into Social Security, I should get 1200 a month. but since I am retired CSRS, I will only get 40% of that. Even though I have had jobs paying into Social Security for most of my life, I will only get 40% of what another person with the same contributions will get. |
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Sept 7, 2012 20:06:51 GMT -5
Teachers in PA get social security and PSERS pension. PSERS pension from the handbook appears to be 2.5% per year of service. A teacher coming out of school and going directly to work would be eligible for full unreduced retirement at age 57 or 58 with a pension benefit equal to 87.5% of the average of their highest three years.
At this point, the contribution rate looks like it's around 7.5% of pay, with those contributions refundable at retirement (and probably offsetting the benefit by whatever is returned as a lump sum).
You can't get close to that kind of pension in the private sector. At 62, a retired teacher could begin social security and receive salary greater than their teaching salary was.
The 7.x % contribution rate doesn't fund the entire benefit, so the teacher's aren't "paying for their own benefits" entirely, but they are paying part of them. The big catch is that as a PSERS employee, you put your contribution into the plan to get guaranteed dollars at retirement. Someone else bears the risk of bad market returns (and we've seen those in the last 10 or 11 years). It's a pretty good trade for the participant, and not so good for the taxpayer. With bad market returns, you continue to pay for the cost of benefits of the teacher long after they've retired.
Whether future benefits are cut will depend on returns, but if market returns don't get better, they will almost have to be. Dollars in the trust to pay benefits have to come either from returns on the assets in the trust, or from additional contributions from taxes or teachers. Nobody likes to make additional contributions, especially when they're really paying for underfunded benefits of people who are already retired (and not their own).
A teacher's pension is extremely valuable. To be able to retire at age 57 with no reduction is about twice as valuable as retiring with the same amount at age 65 (which is what most private sector pensions call for). Even at that, most private sector pensions provide a benefit at age 65 of about half or less of the 87.5% mentioned above.
As far as the comment above about people being able to contribute toward their pensions (as teachers do), it generally doesn't occur in the private sector. You contribute toward your retirement account (like a 401k or a 403b), but not toward a pension, and the reason for that is twofold:
1) it's a nuisance to track and administer
2) contributions toward a pension plan are taxed federally and the tax is deferred below qualified limits for 401k plans. That means you don't pay tax on the pension contribution at retirement, and you do for the 401k withdrawals, but you have to track all that stuff, and with the tax burden as high as it is, nobody really likes to make contributions after tax to anything other than a roth.
But the answer to the original question, yes PSERS employees get both state pension and social security, and if they have the financial wisdom to stick around for a full career, they get quite a handsome benefit in total, possibly more than their salary was at age 57 once they're age 62.
That's in the rearview mirror (as in the people who have just recently retired have done awfully well, because they have not always had to contribute at as high of a level as current levels), whether or not you think that'll stick around in that form and whether or not teachers have job security like they used to, time will tell. So far it looks like in the future, benefits will be less and job security won't be as good. There just isn't enough money to keep it up, especially when property values stay flat and the market doesn't return well enough to keep the trust value of the pension increasing steadily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Sept 8, 2012 11:07:23 GMT -5
Davew,
Thank you for that explanation.
It all sounds like a Ponzi Scheme to me!
Those who got in early enough will benefit - those latecomers will end up holding the bag.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Sept 8, 2012 12:33:52 GMT -5
It definitely pays to be in the plan while the asset returns are good, especially if there is a reason to use the plan for political leverage. You get to bank those returns in the form of your high benefit, and someone else takes the risk on of whether or not the returns in the trust will occur (those returns are needed to continue to pay the benefits).
It's sort of a win win situation for the teacher, because if the assets in the trust balloon due to a soaring market, they will likely get a benefit adjustment (increase) in future years. If the market busts, so far the teachers have seen no cut in benefits, and someone else (current teachers and taxpayers) make up the difference.
It wouldn't be a bad system if there was a mechanism to adjust the retiree's benefits based on what actually happens with the asset experience.
Pensions in the US are going to go the way of the dodobird if there isn't a way to start sharing the risk among employees and get the liability for the plans off the books of the employers, states and local municipalities.
It's a shame, too, because most people will never be able to manage their own retirement effectively, at least not without a severe drop in standard of living, and most products that allow you to mitigate risk as an individual (e.g., purchasing an annuity with your 401k dollars) are much more costly to do on an individual basis than they are with large groups.
In 35 years, social security is projected to be able to fund only about 65% of the current benefit levels, and more than half of retirees won't have any other cash.
Couple that with the current debt levels, which would suggest either inflation or higher taxes, and it's going to be a real problem.
|
|
Dexter
Supreme Poster
Posts: 261
|
Post by Dexter on Sept 8, 2012 12:33:53 GMT -5
Davew, Thank you for that explanation. It all sounds like a Ponzi Scheme to me! Those who got in early enough will benefit - those latecomers will end up holding the bag. Just like social security!!!  |
|
dspitz17325
Need to Get a Life!
I came to chew bubblegum and kick some ass and i am all out of bubblegum .
Posts: 543
|
Post by dspitz17325 on Sept 11, 2012 10:14:55 GMT -5
I've been wondering if teachers in Pennsylvania get federal social security in retirement as well as their PA state-funded pensions. If so, that seems like it could result in a fairly cushy retirement. My mother was not a teacher but she was employed by the school district. Between my mother and father's social security (sole income for my dad) and her pension from the state-funded pension their total income last year was $23,000. Hardly what I would call a cushy retirement. My mother's retirement pension is enough to pay their additional insurance which covers beyond medicare. For that alone she is grateful. If I'm not mistaken, in some cases your social security benefits may actually be less depending on your pension benefits. But Lifesaver that was when teachers worked their asses off for a little of nothing now it's sad they make more money than a RN , remember they do get paid better in some districts but in general not bad for a half of years work . |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Sept 11, 2012 11:49:27 GMT -5
My mother was not a teacher but she was employed by the school district. Between my mother and father's social security (sole income for my dad) and her pension from the state-funded pension their total income last year was $23,000. Hardly what I would call a cushy retirement. My mother's retirement pension is enough to pay their additional insurance which covers beyond medicare. For that alone she is grateful. If I'm not mistaken, in some cases your social security benefits may actually be less depending on your pension benefits. But Lifesaver that was when teachers worked their asses off for a little of nothing now it's sad they make more money than a RN , remember they do get paid better in some districts but in general not bad for a half of years work . I don't begrudge teachers and the salaries they make, for the dedicated teachers they earn every penny and probably deserve more for teaching today's kids. I couldn't do it. A dedicated teacher works far beyond the actual time they spend in class. What infuriates me are the slackers that are protected by the teacher's union and will continue to do a piss poor job of educating our kids. |
|
|
|
Post by getysbg on Sept 11, 2012 16:01:32 GMT -5
Lifesaver, I think that is what irritates the crap out of many of us - the union attitude that all their members must be protected, no matter what, and that once a benefit is gained, it can never, ever be changed, altered or recinded. Oh, it can be improved upon, but never go back.
|
|
davew
Poster Child
Posts: 308
|
Post by davew on Sept 12, 2012 6:49:08 GMT -5
I've been wondering if teachers in Pennsylvania get federal social security in retirement as well as their PA state-funded pensions. If so, that seems like it could result in a fairly cushy retirement. My mother was not a teacher but she was employed by the school district. Between my mother and father's social security (sole income for my dad) and her pension from the state-funded pension their total income last year was $23,000. Hardly what I would call a cushy retirement. My mother's retirement pension is enough to pay their additional insurance which covers beyond medicare. For that alone she is grateful. If I'm not mistaken, in some cases your social security benefits may actually be less depending on your pension benefits. I missed this. I don't know anything about Gettysburg's admin and support staff, so that is more a comment about others that I've seen. The teachers will get the PSERS plan and quite often a highly subsidized retiree medical plan (and sometimes not, the latter depends on the district). The admin and support staff not only gets paid (a lot) less, but they sometimes get almost nothing in retirement benefits or retiree medical benefits. There is often such an enormous disparity between what teachers aides and admin and support staff get that I wonder with the message that teachers usually push, how they are ethically OK with what they get vs. what the admin and support staff gets. Maybe it's an issue where they see that support staff isn't contributing to their union, so they don't care (i.e, "if you don't pay dues, I don't worry about what you get") sort of thing. I doubt the adams county districts are quite so rich even for teachers with their retiree medical benefits, but I don't know what they get. Adams co. teachers pay is not too high compared to a lot of the suburban districts in the state, likely because the tax base won't tolerate it and obviously the market doesn't need to have pay that high to keep teachers fully staffed there. There's probably a paper box full of resumes every time there's an opening. The education in gettysburg schools is probably still not a good value even with low salaries. It was *immediately* evident to me when I went to college that the quality of the education provided there was shameful for a county seat town that supposedly has everything to offer. I think the last ranking I saw put Gettysburg right around the cutoff line for the lowest third of schools in the state, and the rest of the area schools are scraping around near the bottom with them. Not that there weren't good teachers there, there were (Mr. (tony) Bushey, Mr. Vanderau and Mrs. Suran come to mind ...thanks guys!), but the overall balance is unacceptably poor in a district and area that isn't poor when you start to compare it to rural areas upstate and old coal towns. The schools around there need to get their act together. (when I mention admin and support staff above, the superintendents and higher up admin are taken care of separately, it's the support staff below the teachers on the districts ladder who really get shafted). |
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Sept 12, 2012 12:28:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on Sept 12, 2012 13:21:17 GMT -5
]But Lifesaver that was when teachers worked their asses off for a little of nothing now it's sad they make more money than a RN , remember they do get paid better in some districts but in general not bad for a half of years work . What? Why is it sad? The only thing I can think is that you were drunk when you posted this. |
|
|
|
Post by nilegrazowski on Sept 12, 2012 17:52:26 GMT -5
]But Lifesaver that was when teachers worked their asses off for a little of nothing now it's sad they make more money than a RN , remember they do get paid better in some districts but in general not bad for a half of years work . What? Why is it sad? The only thing I can think is that you were drunk when you posted this. ' Not speaking for spitz at all but i guess he sees more value in nursing than teaching. Personally I rank them nearly equal with nursing slightly ahead but both valuable. I've needed both at various times while a far smaller % of people have utilized what I do. Someone with a different ranking is not necessarily wrong. Question - Is it true that chicago teachers average $76 grand per year plus benefits? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Blonde on Sept 13, 2012 8:00:07 GMT -5
Not speaking for spitz at all but i guess he sees more value in nursing than teaching. Personally I rank them nearly equal with nursing slightly ahead but both valuable. I've needed both at various times while a far smaller % of people have utilized what I do. Someone with a different ranking is not necessarily wrong. Question - Is it true that chicago teachers average $76 grand per year plus benefits? You need teachers to have nurses. I have no idea about your question concerning Chicago teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by getysbg on Sept 13, 2012 19:22:56 GMT -5
I have heard in the media numbers ranging from 71K to 74K. Nice work if you can get it. But then, look at some of the little monsters they have to "teach". How much time do they spend just trying to maintain law and order?
|
|
|
|
Post by nilegrazowski on Sept 14, 2012 13:05:36 GMT -5
Not speaking for spitz at all but i guess he sees more value in nursing than teaching. Personally I rank them nearly equal with nursing slightly ahead but both valuable. I've needed both at various times while a far smaller % of people have utilized what I do. Someone with a different ranking is not necessarily wrong. Question - Is it true that chicago teachers average $76 grand per year plus benefits? You need teachers to have nurses. I have no idea about your question concerning Chicago teachers. and you have to have nurses to have teachers.......... |
|
