ShareThis Page
Teachers to blame for state pension woes |

Teachers to blame for state pension woes

Letter To The Editor
| Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:00 p.m

The key to correcting our state’s finances is correcting our public retirement imbalance. Eight percent of the general fund is spent on pensions. Worse, as Gov. Tom Corbett stated in 2013, 60 percent of all new state tax money goes to retirement payments.

The Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System is a huge part of this dysfunction because it works against teachers retiring. The system encourages them to teach well after the usual retirement age of 55, allowing many to be paid more than $100,000 in salaries. At 30 years they get 80 percent of their top salaries, at 40 years 100 percent. Many teachers make more in retirement than most of the taxpayers supporting them make at the height of their own careers.

Well-educated recent college graduates are scraping by while repaying tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and waiting for old teachers to finally retire. But the retirement disincentive has created a young teacher backlog. Last year for one elementary position in the Carlynton School District there were more than 600 applicants.

In 2002 each school district had to pay 5 percent of each of its teacher’s salary toward the PSERS fund. That forced contribution has grown to over 30 percent in 2016 and will surpass 35 percent in just a few years to pay the system’s $37 billion in unfunded debt!

The blame for high property taxes belongs on old teachers refusing to retire and selfishly denying teaching positions to their young potential replacements.

George Honchar


The writer is a Carlynton School District board member.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.