Why can't teachers/cops live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions?

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do you know what kind of return they get on those contributions? I read that baby-boomers will ee about a 1.9% average annual return on what they paid into social security, which is a lousy rate of return. .

That's in nominal terms.

If you consider real inflation ... you're getting a negative return.

[179]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"It surely isn't a path to wealth"

Yes, it surely is...at least here in CT it is...

My 2 best friends are a married couple who are public teachers in CT. They are each 41 years old, they have each been working for 17 years with masters degrees. Their combined income is about $160,000, and of course on top of that, they get insane healthcare and retirement benefits. You'd have to make a lot more that $160,000 in the private sector to equal their purchasing power, because of their benefits. In most towns in CT, public teachers can earn more than $85,000, and again, with ridiculous benefits. Also, here in CT, teachers don't participate in Social Security, which is a huge benefit. I wish I could have my social security taxes given back to me, because as it is, I pay into social security, and I don't expect to get much back (I'm 41 years old). That alone is a huge, huge benefit.

My only first cousin is a police officer. He started at age 21 in the city of New Haven, worked for 23 years, retired with a full pension ($paying $62,000 a year, for the rest of his life) at AGE 44. Then, he took a job as a detective in another town. So between his paycheck and his pension, he makes about $130,000.

In my opinion, those 2 situations represent wealthy folks. In my opinion, both of those scenarios are indescribably crazy, totally irrational, completely fiscally irresponsible, and not sustainable.

I'm not saying I want to pull the rug out from underneath those who are too close to retirement to make changes. But we need to cut back on benefits for those workers who are young enouogh to absorb the change. Again, everyone in the private sector went through the same exact switch 20 years ago, and we all managed to survive somehow.

As for the contracts...you will see some governmengts (towns or states) file bankruptcy in the next couple of years, which gives them legal recourse to re-negotiate the contracts.

Bingo we have somebody who actually gets it. I will tell you I am a local government worker here in NC and our benefit package and pention package are nothing like what is the norm up in RI/CT. The unions through corruption have managed bury the average taxpayer with these gold platter pension plans.

[fishpoopoo]

Interesting that folks mention pensions.

While this thread has been addressing mostly state and local situations, a lot of people also benefit from double dipping the federal pension plan.

Put in your 20 with the fed.gov, get pension, then work in a lucrative related (e.g., IT or defense contractor for the fed.gov) private sector job.

[The Dad Fisherman]

If I'm not mistaken, you the federal governemnt goes 25/55 or 20/60.....in other words to retire you need 25 years of service AND have to be 55 years old to retire.

a lot of the guys that are contracting w/ the government are ex-military...where the age rule does not exist. do 20 and collect, then contract out.

the federal government has also changed, where now the retirement plan is more of a 401k format. not a pension. people are grandfathered in depending on start of service date whether they qualify for pension or savings plans

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If I'm not mistaken, you the federal governemnt goes 25/55 or 20/60.....in other words to retire you need 25 years of service AND have to be 55 years old to retire.

a lot of the guys that are contracting w/ the government are ex-military...where the age rule does not exist. do 20 and collect, then contract out.

the federal government has also changed, where now the retirement plan is more of a 401k format. not a pension. people are grandfathered in depending on start of service date whether they qualify for pension or savings plans

not just law enforcement ... IT and systems folks (=nerds) with security clearances likely outnumber LEO double dippers.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

not just law enforcement ... IT and systems folks (=nerds) with security clearances likely outnumber LEO double dippers.

That would be me...

I actually work as a contractor in the IT department in DOD and what I described is how it is in our department. I'm looking to cross over to Government, and we've had a few already do so. What I described is how it is now-a-days. 401k for new hires going forward....been that way for probably 5 years

[Chesapeake Bill]

Swimmer,

It doesn't do any good to try and change mindsets. Just use the forum as a tool for culling those that you would rather not offer an invite to fish with because they would have to tell you exactly where you can stand, what bait to use, and who you should thank for the fish (them of course).

They're the first ones to complain when someone tells them what to do yet they want to do the same. They are stuck where they are so we have to hear why we should suffer. I personally don't fall for that misery loves company routine. I tried to be cordial...

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Swimmer,

It doesn't do any good to try and change mindsets. Just use the forum as a tool for culling those that you would rather not offer an invite to fish with because they would have to tell you exactly where you can stand, what bait to use, and who you should thank for the fish (them of course).

They're the first ones to complain when someone tells them what to do yet they want to do the same. They are stuck where they are so we have to hear why we should suffer. I personally don't fall for that misery loves company routine. I tried to be cordial...

Bill,
Post of the day

[zimmy]

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.

I can't wait to see the answer to this one...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.

Hi Zimmy.

"I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits"

That's pretty honest, I respect that...

"are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching."

I live in Southington, and I have been a parft of the last 2 union contracts. Both times, the teachers tjhreatened to quit en masse if we cut their compensation. That tells me that in my town, teachers are pretty motivated by money, rather than by a calling to teach. I hear that a lot, teachers threatening to leave for the private sector. Just my observation. They all say they're in it for the kids, until we ask them to share the pain...

"Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage?"

First, let's talk about total compensation, not salary, because benefits are where unions get crazy. I don't know where you teach, somewhere in Fairfield County I guess. The average household income in CT is about $68,000, the average home price is around $275,000. In my opinion, public servants total compensation (salary plus benefits) should be just below the average of the citizens they claim to serve. I say just below because public servants are spared the significant stress of those in the private sector, the stress of being under presure to create wealth.

Zimmy, if you earned $100k in the private sector, yuo would work hundreds more hours each year than you do now. You would not have a guaranteed pension. You would pay twice as much for your healthcare as you do now. You would pay into social security, which is a ripoff. No week off at Xmas, February, April, no 7 weeks off in the summer. And finally, no guarantee that as long as you are breathing, your job is still there.

I believe I answered your question directly. Can I askyou a question Zimmy? As you know, here in CT, we have about the highest tax rates in the nation. Yet here in CT, the unfunded obligations for retirement and healthcare benefits is exactly $10,000 per citizen (recently reported in the Courant). That's $50,000 for my family of 5.

So here is my question...if my taxes are already just about the highest in the nation, and my family STILL owes another $50,000 to pay for union compensation, doesn't that PROVE that the spending is insane?

You asked me what's a fair wage, and I answered. Let me ask you, what tax level do you think is fair, to burden my family with? I pay 5% income tax, 6% sales tax, $8,000 propetry tax, and my family still owes your unions another $50k that I simply don't have. Is it fair that I get a seciond job so you and your ilk can cling to insane, antiquated benefits?

You thought you asked me a "gotcha" question. Please answer mine. How many of my bi-weekly paychecks do you think you're entitled to, so that you can have a guaranteed pension, and healthcare that's better than mine? How much of my kids' college fund should they have to sign over to the teachers union, because somehow you guys haven't realized that pensions simply don't work?

If you are a man of science, like me, you should know that you simply cannot spend what you don't have. In the near future, some muncipalities are going to start bouncing checks. The math is what it is. We need to start facing reality, and stop kicking the can down the road.

[Jim in CT]

In my town, teachers max out at about $80k I think. So a married couple who both teach are earning $160,000, with benefits that dwarf anything that are available in the private sector. So those teachers have a private-secor equivalent of probably somewhere around $190k. And they work hundreds fewer hours per year, no matter what teachers say...they just do not work 2,000 hours a year, no way.

To me, that is insane. Not only does it "feel" crazy, the debt that states and towns are facing prove it.

You can't spend what you don't have. Business leaders get that. Heads of households get that. Only unionized public employees are immune to that law, and I don't understand why.

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.



should he base it on a normal work year or a 180 day work year? just want to clarify?



for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles...actuarialize this one too JIM, if you would...

Jim, I'm a gardener/landscaper(because I like it)...I have a degree in botany/plant genetics and I'm working on one in astrophysics at my own expense during the slow months, the median income in my area is $300,000 and the average home is 1.2 million...I work about half of the year but when I started at a bioengineering firm out of college I was making over a hundred grand plus a full benefits package....what do you think my fair wage should be ?


I wonder what the reaction will be when the payment transfers aren't made one Friday or the paycheck bounces....I heard someone say recently that these cities and towns are finally having to face the reality of what it actually costs to run their governments, the state subsidies are reduced and drying up, the feds aren't/can't subsidize the states, it all about trying to keep a sinking ship of ponzi schemes afloat and it is just too far underwater.....and not enough hands to bail, they're still dancing to the music on the deck

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

Quote:


for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles...actuarialize this one too JIM, if you would...

What he thinks you should make is irrelevant. What he thinks I as a teacher should make is relevant since he funds teachers. I wasn't asking to be a dck. I was asking because I am curious what he thinks.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

What he thinks you should make is irrelevant. What he thinks I as a teacher should make is relevant since he funds teachers. I wasn't asking to be a dck. I was asking because I am curious what he thinks.

why is the income of others, the value of other's homes, how much others make in the private sector working ALL year doing a completely different job.. at all relevant to what Jim might think you should be paid as a teacher?

why not just ask him how much a science teacher should make?


US debt passes $14 trillion, Congress weighs caps

WASHINGTON – The United States just passed a dubious milestone: Government debt surged to an all-time high, more than $14 trillion.

That means Congress soon will have to lift the legal debt limit to give the nearly maxed-out government an even higher credit limit or dramatically cut spending to stay within the current cap. Either way, a fight is ahead on Capitol Hill, inflamed by the passions of tea party activists and deficit hawks.

Today's debt level represents a $45,300 tab for each and everyone in the country.

maybe better to compare it to what other science teachers are making
Average Teacher Salary in Connecticut....Connecticut teacher salaries are some of the highest average salaries in the nation, with a 2009 figure of $64,773. This salary increased 3.9 percent over the 2008 teaching salary in Connecticut of $62,345. The 2008 teaching salary is 2.3 percent higher than the 2007 average salary of $60,943.

Teaching salaries in Connecticut are higher than the national average salary of $49,720 in 2009, and the 2008 salary of $48,353. The percentage increase in Connecticut teacher salaries from 2008 to 2009 was higher than the national average increase of 2.8 percent.

Teacher salaries in Connecticut ranked 4th in the nation in 2009, a slight drop from their standing the previous two years. The average teacher salary in Connecticut ranked 3rd in both 2007 and 2008. Connecticut teacher salaries averaged a 6.2 percent increase overall for the 2007 through 2009 period.

The average teacher salaries in Connecticut have been increasing steadily though the 2007-2009 period. The following Connecticut teacher salary schedule summarizes this information:

Average Salary Percent Change
Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 2008 to 2009 2007 to 2008 2007 to 2009
Connecticut 4 $64,773.33 3 $62,345.00 3 $60,943.33 3.89% 2.30% 6.28%

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

why is the income of others, the value of other's homes, how much others make in the private sector working ALL year doing a completely different job.. at all relevant to what Jim might think you should be paid as a teacher?

why not just ask him how much a science teacher should make?

The reason the potential income info is relevant because it affects whether someone goes into teaching. The housing info is relevant because it relates to the tax base and the cost of living in that town. What a science teacher makes in fairfield county is going to be different than what they make in rural carolinas where the median house price is $110,000, not 600,000. I work 186 days, so if you want to say the average professional works 245 (3 weeks vacation), that is reasonable. So yes, 76% of the standard work year is reasonable. I don't know anyone who works ALL year.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Zimmy and Scott,

You both missed Jim's point. He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire and are are forced to leave for more affordable housing elsewhere. Of course, the void created by your departure would immediately be filled by some other teacher with S&M tendencies who wants to be treated just as bad.

After all, he was a public servant (NOT!!!) and they did the same to him. Unlike his statement, Military service does not make him a public servant...it makes him a veteran (like me). This discussion is about civil service so I suggest he keep to the point. At no time has anyone lumped military benefits in with the discussion about civil servants. Unless he is willing to make more concessions that afford mothly death benefits to spouses of lost fireman and police he should stop trying to claim something he is not.

[scottw]

I wonder what flavor catfood they'll choose when the Ponzi scheme collapses?

U.S. Bills States $1.3 Billion in Interest Amid Tight Budgets

MICHAEL COOPER and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

As if states did not have enough on their plates getting their shaky finances in order, a new bill is coming due — from the federal government, which will charge them $1.3 billion in interest this fall on the billions they have borrowed from Washington to pay unemployment benefits during the downturn.

The interest cost, which has been looming in plain sight without attracting much attention, represents only a sliver of the huge deficits most states will have to grapple with this year . But it comes as states are already cutting services, laying off employees and raising taxes. And it heralds a larger reckoning that many states will have to face before long: what to do about the $41 billion they have borrowed from the federal government to help them pay benefits to millions of unemployed people, a debt that federal officials say could rise to $80 billion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

[Forester]

Just a clarification about fed pension system - the conversion to the new system happened for all employees in 1984. The new system is a combination of soc sec, thrift savings and a small pension. States and towns should follow suit.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Zimmy and Scott,

You both missed Jim's point. He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire and are are forced to leave for more affordable housing elsewhere. Of course, the void created by your departure would immediately be filled by some other teacher with S&M tendencies who wants to be treated just as bad.

After all, he was a public servant (NOT!!!) and they did the same to him. Unlike his statement, Military service does not make him a public servant...it makes him a veteran (like me). This discussion is about civil service so I suggest he keep to the point. At no time has anyone lumped military benefits in with the discussion about civil servants. Unless he is willing to make more concessions that afford mothly death benefits to spouses of lost fireman and police he should stop trying to claim something he is not.

Bill, yuo said this...

"He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire "

I guess you can't read very well, because that's not even CLOSE to anything I said. I think teachers should have benefits that resemble what's available to the public which they claim to serve. Namely, 401(k)'s instead of pensions. If I ask teachers to live with the same benefits that those who pay their salaries (taxpayers) have to live on, why is that unreasonable? Can you plkease answer that, instead of putting extremist words in my mouth?

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill, yuo said this...

"He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire "

I guess you can't read very well, because that's not even CLOSE to anything I said. I think teachers should have benefits that resemble what's available to the public which they claim to serve. Namely, 401(k)'s instead of pensions. If I ask teachers to live with the same benefits that those who pay their salaries (taxpayers) have to live on, why is that unreasonable? Can you plkease answer that, instead of putting extremist words in my mouth?

I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.

Less than 1 in 5 non-unionized employees still get a pension.

And in the private sector, that's fine, because your customers can freely choose whether or not they are willing to have that cost passed onto them. You don't get to seize my house if I don't want to absorb that cost.

Public unionized employees get to do just that.

[Fly Rod]

I know how all you guys feel out there feeling that you have been cheated and paying more taxes and all.

Here I am on social security and my cost of living has been cut for the next two years because of your president. We were suppose to get a 5.8% pay raise, that is a little more then 500 bucks per year, "GONE."

And your ranting over and over about something meaningless that you are never going to solve. I'm surprised that some of you do not have sore finger tips from your long responses.

RANT! RANT! RANT!

[zimmy]

Jim, thanks for the answer. I think what you are missing is that if you look at teachers as "public servants" and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work. I see us more as professional educators who's job is to educate. That requires a particular skill set and education. My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month. I also pay taxes here, so I am affected by them as well. I could not afford to teach if my salary after 10 years was less than 34000, which is equal to 1/2 the household income you stated. The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. If doctors made $40,000 health care costs would be lower. If electricians charged less , it would be cheaper to build houses and schools. Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. By the way, alot of private school teachers do very well as they are often compensated in other ways.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach.

do you ever look at the gym teacher or home ec. teacher with 11 years under his/her belt pulling down the same salary and benefits as you and just shake your head?

I think that one of the biggest obstacles teachers have when advocating for their profession, salaries, benefits is that most of us have around at least 12 years experience with teachers to reflect on....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, thanks for the answer. I think what you are missing is that if you look at teachers as "public servants" and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work. I see us more as professional educators who's job is to educate. That requires a particular skill set and education. My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month. I also pay taxes here, so I am affected by them as well. I could not afford to teach if my salary after 10 years was less than 34000, which is equal to 1/2 the household income you stated. The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. If doctors made $40,000 health care costs would be lower. If electricians charged less , it would be cheaper to build houses and schools. Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. By the way, alot of private school teachers do very well as they are often compensated in other ways.

Zimmy, you didn't even try to answer my question. I answered yours directly, you dodged mine. Not fair.

"and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work"

I'm 41 years old. When I was in grade school, public school teacher compensation was a disgrace. We all know that. But I still got a great education. So I categorically deny your claim that public education doesn't work if you cut compensation. As I said earlier, there isn't a shred of correlation between student performance and teacher compensation. I don't want teacher compensation to go back to what it was when I was a kid, but you can't ask taxpayers to kill themselves for your benefits, either. You need to be able to live on what we can reasonably provide to you. If our current tax rates still leave my family in debt to you to the tune of $50k, then we are at a crazy place.

"My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month"

Me too. The difference is, I have to make people want to voluntarily give me money to repay my loans. You get to take it from me through force of law.

"The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are"

Fine. WHY ARE TEACHERS THE LAST PROFESSIONALS IN THE WORLD WHO STILL HAVE PENSIONS? Why can't you address that question?


"If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. "

Bullsh*t. Pure bullsh*t. First, private schools pay a fraction of what public schools pay, and those schools manage to find great teachers. And back when I was a kid, when teacher pay was appallingly low, schools found folks to teach. With the private sector as tattered as it is, don't you dare suggest that if teachers had to switch to 401(k)s, no one would teach. God that's dishonest.

Zimmy, I'm a reasonable guy. I've done my homework on this issue, and I have thought it through from every angle. You won't get me with a "gotcha" question. And we all know the reason why you dodged the direct questions I asked you...because there is no rational answer as to why teachers cstubbornly refuse to live with benefits comparable to taxpayers who pay your salaries.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. .

Fine. All other professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, actuaries) switched from pensions to 401(k)s 20 years ago, because we could no longer pass the cost of pensions on to our customers.

Why do teachers feel justified in FORCING that expense on to their customers (and that's a fair term, because I cannot choose not to pay), when the entire private sector realized 20 years ago that was an unreasonable burden?

Have a lot of fun with that one, pal.

[zimmy]

well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.

The "pal" reference was because I went to great lengths to answer your questions directly. You still won't even try to answe mine. That really, really bothers me.

I tried Zimmy, I gave you a direct answer to the questions you asked. Your answer to mine was "I'm sorry you're so mad".

That's what teachers always, always do. They come up with phrases that are designed to alter the discussion. Each of the last 2 contract discussions, when I brought up 401(k)s, I was accused of not caring about kids' education. Right.

If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.

And we're all still waiting to see how giving up a raise, costs you $3k a year for perpetuity.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.

There's a phrase for 'ordinary dads' like that.

Its called living beyond their means.