Teachers need more retirement choices
In your Nov. 6 article, “Nevada public pension costs cut deep into education funding, study says,” Nick Di Archangel of the Nevada State Education Association stated, “It’s always been proven in Nevada that we have a strong defined benefit system that, for educators who are staying in the system, is a good long-term retirement plan.”
This statement highlights an important aspect of many public retirement systems such as Nevada’s: They are good for some teachers, but they are unfair and disadvantage many more, particularly mobile teachers.
The reality is that just a small share of teachers remain in a single system until reaching retirement eligibility and collecting a full pension. This is a problem with public pension systems all across the United States — and Nevada is no exception. While these systems reward some teachers, they do not serve all teachers well.
According to a report by Bellwether Education Partners Inc., a public school teacher hired today in Nevada would have to wait 26 years until the value of her pension benefit would equal the value of her contributions. So if a teacher leaves the system before 26 years, not only does she not realize any return on her mandatory contributions, she incurs a net loss.
Astonishingly, fewer than one-third of Nevada public school teachers stay long enough to reach this break-even point, meaning that the vast majority — 68 percent — leave as net losers.
Requiring those who are already net losers under the system to subsidize the richer benefits of their full-career peers — whether intentionally designed to do so or not — is not a fair way to serve all teachers.
Nevada would do well to offer plan choices — including more portable pension plans — to its teachers. Alternatively, Nevada could lower benefits and instead offer higher wages.
This might incentivize more high-skilled teachers to enter the workforce who might otherwise be turned off by the current pension plans.
Nevada’s retirement system should serve all its teachers well, not just the select few who are “staying in the system.”
Martin F. Lueken
Indianapolis, Ind.
The writer is director of fiscal policy and analysis with EdChoice.
Segregation plan
I read in the Review-Journal that the education savings account program reportedly faces difficulty in the Legislature with regard to funding. Also mentioned was that the state Supreme Court struck down the original funding mechanism.
After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in the schools, a plethora of private schools surged to avoid racial mixing. Education savings accounts are no more than another ill-conceived ruse to aid in this plan.
State Sen. Scott Hammond, the Las Vegas Republican who crafted the plan, is meeting resistance from the new Democrat majority. As a Republican, he might find an ally in President-elect Donald Trump, who indirectly will reduce the minority population in the schools, as he vowed to deport many and build a wall to keep them out.
William V. Lofton
North Las Vegas
Paying attention
I read recently that Gov. Brian Sandoval tapped Steve Hill, his economic development chief, to be chairman of the Clark County Stadium Authority to oversee construction and operation of a proposed domed football stadium. Steve Hill!
Isn’t this the same guy who was overseeing the Chinese-backed Faraday project in North Las Vegas even though Nevada Treasurer Dan Schwartz was critical of the plan and now is hinting that the company may be caught up in a Ponzi scheme?
Pay attention, folks. Our tax dollars are involved.
Dave Seyler
Henderson
Reality sandwich
During his campaign, Donald Trump stated that real change would be to repeal and replace Obamacare. But now that Mr. Trump has been elected president, reality sets in. President-elect Trump weakens his stance on Obamacare from “repeal and replace” to “reform.”
What happened to his promise? Perhaps this is a repeat of, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
Promises? Promises?
Anita Toso
Las Vegas
