Comments on: Double dip day

By: jeff wright

jeff wright — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:03:56 +0000

Interesting. No teachers came back. Guess they’re all gone for the long weekend. Would’ve like to have heard more from them defending this practice.

By: Mark Odell

Mark Odell — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:58:51 +0000

What Fletcher said.

By: jeff wright

jeff wright — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:28:35 +0000

Teachers, you don’t really understand the real world. If I, covered by social security, kick off before she does, my wife, also covered by social security (a retirement just like you have through teaching), gets nothing based on my contributions because her retirement income will exceed the spousal benefit. Zip. Nada. Nothing. This addresses Mike’s savings account parallel: I put it in all those years, am entitled to the max, but she won’t see it. No double-dipping allowed.

So exactly what is it that entitles someone covered by another retirement plan to spousal benefits, which, as I mentioned in an earlier post, were designed for non-working spouses, with no retirement income of their own? Are the taxpayers just supposed to forget about your other retirement income?

This is a rip-off, pure and simple.

By: Mike in Texas

Mike in Texas — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:56:26 +0000

Ok, then let me put it in terms you may understand.

Your spouse has a savings account he/she regularly puts money in. You however do not have a savings account at that bank so when your wife dies the bank punishes you for not having an account with them by taking 2/3 of the money your spouse had saved. This is what the govt is doing to some teachers.

By: TexasTeacher

TexasTeacher — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 12:41:45 +0000

And the fact that his same “windfall” provision strikes at the lowest paid workers in education is particularly unconscienable. The non-certified employee (secretary, bus drivee, janitor, etc) is the least likely to make a career working only for school districts. Imagine the financial screwing they end up with at retirement.

By: h

Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:06:55 +0000

Rita C. — I don’t mean to insult you, but when I hear people say (or insinuate) that it’s not the money but the principle…it’s usually the money. Sorry if I got the wrong impression, but in your initial post you said that you would gladly work as a janitor for one day if it meant being able to draw spousal benefits. I believe your closing words were “good for that school district.” I see no reason to do something so drastic or to hold such views other than for the money involved. Wanting money doesn’t detract from your desire to teach or dedication to teaching. If it did, we’d all be in trouble. As far as the whole teaching being more than a school building. I was being intentionally over-the-top. Sorry if it created confusion. You’re right when you say that I know you have to get into teaching for reasons other than the money. I’m also glad to hear that you have prepared for your future. Perhaps things will change to suit both our needs in the future. Until then, it looks like we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

TexasTeacher — You win this round, my friend. No, seriously, I hadn’t considered the idea that school districts treat all employees the same. On that note, you make an excellent point.

By: Rita C.

Rita C. — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:06:06 +0000

h — TexasTeacher is right — non-licensed employees in my district are in PRS, not social security. In any case, I’m interested in why you think my entire professional life revolves around the issue of money. Obviously, I knew about this problem before I went into teaching. I’m not happy about it. I don’t like paying for nothing. Stating this does not mean I’m not happy with my choice to be a teacher. Being a teacher is about much more than working in a school building. Sheesh. If you are a teacher, you of all people should know that.

And anyway, I have other investments for my retirement. You should, too.

By: TexasTeacher

TexasTeacher — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:51:49 +0000

h — You are fundamentally wrong. Whatever the school district does it does for ALL employees, not just the teachers. Thus the school secretaries are not covered by SS either, but by TRS. Only if the district makes an affirmtive decision to opt into SS does a single employee pay in — but in such cases ALL pay in. A few, such as the ones mentioned, pay into both, which is how the exception worked.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:31:15 +0000

Obviously everone exempt from Social Security should be forced to join. Also, indexing benefits to inflation, not wages, would save trillions of dollars in the future.

By: Fletcher

Fletcher — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:10:58 +0000

Social security is a welfare program, it is definitely not an insurance program.
People collecting benefits now are taking money out of the pockets of people who are working now.
The money is not what they paid in. It’s never what they paid in. It’s always a tax on people currently working.
So people on SS now will collect more than they ever paid in, and young working people who are paying their way will never see a fraction of what they are paying now.
It’s a pyramid scheme and unless it is privatized and put on a sound basis it’s going broke.
People who try to stiff the system, as in Texas, are helping it go broke all the faster.