Let's stop the 'spin' on teacher pensions

I am responding to Dave Urbanek's Nov. 22 letter on the benefits of teacher pensions. Neither one of his arguments bears up under closer scrutiny.

His first claim is that taxpayers benefit from the state pension plans that they help fund because the spending of retired teachers provides an economic stimulus. This argument is only valid if retiree spending is providing an incremental stimulus that could not be achieved by having taxpayers spend the funding allocated to the pension plan themselves.

He then makes the statement that teachers pay for a greater portion of their pensions (9.4 percent of salary) than non-teachers pay by comparing the contribution percentage to the social security deduction (6.2 percent). Like the majority of private sector employees, I do not receive a pension and am expected to rely on my own 401(k) contributions to supplement social security if I hope to sustain a modest standard of living upon retirement.

Using a conservative estimate of 8 percent over the course of my career, the total percentage comes to 14.2 percent. And my benefit is not guaranteed at 75 percent of my final salary after 25 years of service if the stock market performs poorly I cannot rely on taxpayers to fund a guaranteed benefit. Rather I'll have to increase my contributions, work longer or accept a reduced standard of living.

No one is arguing that teachers are not entitled to a pension. But let's stop with the spin by “public information officers” and pursue a more transparent dialogue about the sustainability of the pension benefit levels given the economic climate and the extent to which it is appropriate for a taxpayer to fund guaranteed benefit levels that they themselves do not receive.

Rick Avgerinos

Itasca