<p>Is it any wonder why property taxes are so high. See through NY has the following information posted.</p>
<p>For members of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, final average salary is defined as “the average of your highest three consecutive years of salary earned whenever they occurred in your salary history.” Under federal rules, the “pensionable” salary limit for 2010-11 is $245,000. </p>
<p>For members of the New York State and Local Retirement System, final average salary is the average of the wages you earned during any 36 consecutive months of service when your earnings were highest. </p>
<p>In both cases, salary includes overtime, longevity payments and stipends for extra work, such as coaching. Excluded from the calculation are salaries exceeding 10% of the average of the previous two years’ salaries.</p>
<p>It is INSANE the pension calculation for teachers is based only THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS. Just outrageous.</p>
<p>Do,you wish you had this benefit? Then become a teacher. Work the requisite number of years to be able to get full retirement benefits. Then you too can be on this mysterious gravy train. </p>
<p>I don’t know ONE teacher anywhere whose average of their best three years is $245,000. Do you?</p>
<p>“Under federal rules, the “pensionable” salary limit for 2010-11 is $245,000.”</p>
<p>That is the limit. Doesn’t mean any teacher in NY State earns anything even approaching that. </p>
<p>That being said, there are definitely public sector employees for whom their pension would be based on that amount. The Chancellor of SUNY who earns $545K/yr and the Presidents of State Universities, for example, who earn $385K/yr.</p>
<p>The pension amount is NOT the average of the best three years of earnings. There is also a multiplier based on the number of years of service. The OP neglected to include THAT part. This is a %age number based on years of service. The retirement amount is a %age of that best three years of service and number of years of service. I don’t know about NY, but in CT, teachers are not entitled to full retirement benefits until either 35 years of service or age 60. And teachers here do not contribute to or collect social security. And NO we don’t have free health insurance for life either.in fact there are some retirees who began teaching before 1988 who have never contributed to SS or Medicare…and are therefore Medicare ineligible.</p>
<p>I am not bashing teachers. You are making a huge leap. Surely, you can you understand the difference between teacher bashing and being outraged by a pension calculation. I have every right to voice my disgust, as I will be paying for your pension, while you will not be paying for mine.</p>
<p>Let me be clear the SUNY Chancellor is over paid by a long shot.</p>
<p>I copied and pasted what appears on the site. I neglected nothing.</p>
<p>Yes, you will be paying for my pension (based on last three years’ salary times years of service times a multiplier). That’s why we have public employees that we can pay crap wages to for years - by offering them a lifetime monthy salary at the end.</p>
<p>I make less than half of what my husband makes. We both are registered engineers (same professional license). His pension (the “beer” pension) will be about $200/month while mine will be oh, about $4k/month. But my retirement income will be so much less than his, because he has a great deal from his employer on matching 401k contributions, and well, he has worked there for a bunch of years too.</p>
<p>He will make more over his career and have a larger monthly income in retirement. And yet you are bitter about paying my pension? </p>
<p>Maybe you could’ve chosen a better degree and better private sector job or gone into public service. You make the choices you make. You also pay taxes. Congrats on being a citizen of this country.</p>
<p>The OP mentioned New York State and Local Retirement system, also. The Chancellor would fall under that system, as would the Presidents of the various SUNY schools. Also, NYS and local municipality employees. </p>
<p>I believe almost all public employee pension systems use an average of only a few years of one’s highest salary to compute pensions. </p>
<p>If you are unhappy with your property taxes in NY you are free to move to a state with lower property taxes.</p>
<p>I work in the pension industry. This calculation and language is fairly standard in any Defined Benefit plan. It isn’t a teacher thing or a NY state thing. The Compensation cap is the same cap used in 401 k Plans.</p>
<p>“I don’t know about NY, but in CT, teachers are not entitled to full retirement benefits until either 35 years of service or age 60. And teachers here do not contribute to or collect social security. And NO we don’t have free health insurance for life either.”</p>
<p>Teachers in NY get both SS and medicare. My mom started her teaching career in CT, but the majority of her teaching career was in NY and she gets both.</p>
<p>See Through NY has a listing of State pensions [SeeThroughNY</a> :: Pensions-NYS TEACH](<a href=“SeeThroughNY :: Expenditures”>SeeThroughNY :: Expenditures)
They are public record
You can look up how much a person is receiving.
In 2010 there were 16 retired educators with pensions over $200,000
With the top pension being $316,245/ year and second is $ 290,669/year
But…Just from looking at the names, I recognize Superintendents and Administrators.
The teachers have more modest pensions. The 136,644 retired teachers average pension was under $39,400. (that includes the top 16 )</p>
<p>This is a big issue for municipalities and one that is covered in the media quite often. Pensions are not offered for many private sector jobs anymore, and 401K’s are often not very large. It may be a reason for resentment, yes, but it is also a big factor in economic challenges before towns and cities, along with generous health care benefits. And not just for teachers.</p>
<p>I have worked hard on local political campaigns to raise local property taxes to fund schools, and won, but in recent years have had mixed feelings. Especially after my spouse had a stroke and was let go from his job with no income whatsoever, after decades of work at the same place.</p>
<p>Tenure is another big issue: what other positions are guaranteed in that way. Unfortunately, there are teachers who coast once they have tenure, who give other teachers a bad name. The coasters get the same benefits and pensions as everyone else.</p>
Thank you, richs73cas, for a very informative link. I googled the guy who is receiving the top pension ($316K) - James H. Hunderford, a Long Island school district superintendent who retired in 2008. He receives 8 times more than the average teacher pension in New York! I’m a supporter of public schools and public school teachers, but I think it’s nuts to pay a district superintendent that kind of salary. The voters in his district must have signed off on it, no?</p>
<p>The entire pension system needs to be abolished. Save for your own retirements like everyone else. The number of teachers and state/municipal employees milking the system here in Illinois is insane. It will bankrupt our state and/or drive away the citizens to other states. On my real estate tax bill, I pay over $1,000 per year for someone else’s retirement. Nobody else but me pays one thin dime for my own retirement.</p>
<p>And I contributed the max to a TSA for well over 30 years. The company that I used had MY money which was invested not only to help ME (I’m not collecting yet), but also retirees who WERE collecting. Do you think your IRA or TSA contributions are all in an account JUST for you? They are not.</p>
<p>Surprise surprise…teachers also pay those taxes AND contribute to the state TRB every pay check.</p>
<p>“Pensions are not offered for many private sector jobs anymore, and 401K’s are often not very large.”</p>
<p>The 401K was originally never intended to replace the defined pension plan - it was created so highly paid corp. executives could shelter some of their income in an era when the top tax rate was 70%. But the law passed said it had to be offered to all employees and corporations figured out pretty quickly it was much cheaper for them to fund all retirements this way. Of course, they marketed it so it made people believe it would be much more beneficial to them economically to control their own retirement investments (which, for most people it is not.) The only winners in this game have been corporations and financial institutions. </p>
<p>The same ruse that is being used to get people to believe getting rid of Social Security will be better for them, too.</p>