Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Teachers, Get Ready To Pay More

Hey, liberal teachers.  You like Obamacare, right?  Of course you do.   In theory you just did your taxes; did you notice that new 5-digit number on your W-2?  That's the value of the health insurance your school district pays for.  Remember that promise that there would be no tax increases on people making less than $250,000, or $125,000, or whatever?  Of course you do.  You may even have believed it.  Well, starting in 2017, the cost of your health care is going to count as income, and you're going to be taxed on it.

Hey, liberal teachers.  You like social programs, right?  Of course you do.  Well, things are rolling along so swimmingly here in California that Crazy Ole Uncle Jerry thinks we have a monstrous surplus and can spend it on things like Medi-Cal.  I'm sure you have no problem with that.  But what about all those unfunded liabilities, like the California State Teachers Retirement System?  Well, Jerry wants you to pay more into it each month.  And he also wants your school district to pay more into each month:
The spending plan also lays out a 30-year road map to pay off the unfunded $73.7 billion liability in the State Teachers Retirement System by asking the state, school districts and teachers all to increase annual contributions.
That means there will be less money available for pay increases.  So you'll get much smaller raises, and more money will come out of your pocket each month in the form of Obamacare taxes and contributions to STRS.

Thank you, liberal teachers.  I so appreciate that double hit to my bottom line.


maxutils said...

Well... health care benefits should be taxed as income, just as if you won a prize on a game show. The only reason they haven't been is that employee health care developed as a part of a wage freeze, also a bad idea. All of this is indicative of a need to separate health care from employment. Employers don't like keeping up with premium increases, and employees should not enjoy being locked into a single program ...If there were competition, employers could pay more, (though, Darren, that still requires unions) and you could pay for the plan you needed. And it would be less expensive because they would need to compete for your purchase. When Kaiser has a virtual monopoly on healthcare for a very large group of people, one should not be surprised that rates keep going up. Hypothetically.

3rseduc / handsinthesoil said...

Ugh. Sadly, the liberal teachers complain about pay cuts /no raises except if its in the form of Obamacare.

Darren said...

No, max, pay raises do *not* require unions.

maxutils said...

Guilty of exaggeration. However, getting the true equilibrium wage, when you are virtually interchangeable (and, sadly, teachers are) does require a union. And it is mathematically provable. If you have demonstrably unique skills that are clearly measurable? Then no, you can certainly do fine without a union. Which is why I always argued for, at bare minimum, separating single subject teachers from multiple subject ... very different needs and skills; at best separating single subject teachers in to groups with different supply/demand issues.