Bad for teachers, too: Better pension options |

Bad for teachers, too: Better pension options

Sean Stipp | Tribune-Review
A view from the rooftop at the Pennsylvania State Capitol.

If $63 billion in unfunded public pension liabilities aren’t reasons enough for Pennsylvania lawmakers to pass pension-reform legislation, a peer-reviewed journal offers a different but equally compelling case to correct the state’s course.

The Education Next article projects that nearly two-thirds of Pennsylvania teachers — who need 10 years’ service for vesting — will never collect full pension benefits under the existing defined-benefit system. And needing 25 years’ service for their pension benefits to exceed their contributions (plus rate of return on that money), fewer than three in 10 will break even.

That perversely incentivizes less effective teachers to remain in classrooms and more effective teachers to leave after 25 to 30 years, when their pensions’ value stops growing.

Thus, the pension status quo, already bad for taxpayers, is also “a bad deal for teachers,” according to the Commonwealth Foundation, which maintains that this revenue sinkhole is “crowding out other state programs” and is “the number one driver of school property taxes, and of teacher layoffs.”

It’s time to pass Senate Bill 1, which would give new public employees better options for themselves and for taxpayers — “hybrid” plans combining aspects of traditional defined-benefit and 401(k)-style defined-contribution plans, as well as an entirely 401(k)-style plan.

As Commonwealth says, the longer pension reform takes, “the greater the taxpayer-funded debt and the longer employees are trapped in restrictive retirement plans.”

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.