The proposed $2,500 is stupid. The windfall should be eliminated . regardless of income.
Of course, as usual we are probably being lied to by the politicians. They have no integrity.
]]>Similar legislation has been proposed over the last 5 years or more with substantial bipartisan support (in fact cosponsoring it) to no avail. The bills never leave committee, thus there is no reason to worry about passing it.
Every cosponsor (304 & 29) can go home and point to these bills as fighting for the people, but they obviously are not.
I hope it passes, but I am tired of the PR positioning of our politicians.
You can see my post on the subject at my blog – The Educator’s Retirement – that points to several facts involved.
]]>A. Barry Rand, CEO
AARP National Office
601 E. Street NW, Fax #: 1-202-434-7710
Washington, DC 20049
Dear Mr. Rand;
As you know, two bills have recently been presented to our legislators, one to the House (H.R. 235) and one to the Senate (S.484). These bills, if passed, would repeal two unjust laws that have financially disadvantaged teachers for decades. The Windfall Elimination and the Government Pension Offset Provisions are discriminatory towards teachers.
They dictate that teachers may not collect social security from deceased spouses, or collect social security at levels other participants in the system do — even when they paid into social security from another job prior to, or during their teaching career. These discriminatory laws also impact the pool of qualified people who may enter teaching; they discourage people from entering teaching because many would lose previously earned social security.
The involvement of AARP is vital to repealing these provisions that penalize educators and public service employees in fifteen states. For that reason, there is no justification for entangling the straightforward matter of repealing these unfair offsets with any other Social Security issues.
AARP has an obligation to help make sure no educator or public sector employee loses benefits they or their spouses have earned. Please let me know specifically what you are doing to achieve the long-overdue elimination of the GPO and WEP.
Cordially,
]]>http://www.socialsecurityfairness.com/Home_Page.html
What a bold and gutsy approach this woman is taking. The site is very informative and extremely helpful especially the boiler-plate letters which will help you to GET INVOLVED!
]]>Basically, for teachers, the Social Security office computes what one will receive using a formula based on what one gets from STRS and one’s own Social Security entitlement, and this formula leaves one next to no Social Security.
I did end up with just under $100, and of course every bit counts… but it would have been $663 per month or something otherwise…. and it was money I had earned, like anyone else entitled to Social Security.
If I had worked only as a teacher for all of my working years I would have received considerably more retirement money from STRS itself. Instead for many years I worked places that paid into Social Security (and some that didn’t, eg ISNV!), and I was penalized for the Social Security years.
My colleagues who worked say 30 years for the school district received retirement income for all 30 of those years from STRS.
If I, or someone like me, worked 15 years for the school district and 15 years somewhere else paying into and earning Social Security, we are penalized through the Social Security formula for the benefits of those other 15 years of work, and we earn only 15 years of retirement income through STRS.
That means that there is a huge discrepancy between the benefits that I or someone like me earns for our 30 years of work compared to someone who worked for 30 years as a state employed teacher for the same period of time. Grossly unfair.
Beyond that, any state employed teacher is completely denied spousal entitlement – which for us would have been maybe $600+/- per month- and which anyone who did not pay into STRS would have automatically received. [Actually, I think that benefit - which I never even knew about until I was told that I was denied it - is probably sexist, because it may only apply to wives, not to husbands.] Teachers are also denied income available to others after the death of a spouse receiving Social Security.
The $90 something that I do get from Social Security turned out to just about cover what one is required to pay for Medicare (Part B?)… who knew that one had to pay for Medicare! And the amount due to Medicare will likely go up too.
Sheesh.
]]>