Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In cases where they don't receive it though, they're not paying into it either. If the "it" you're referring to is social security, this is, to use your phrase from above, "patently untrue." It would be comforting if that were the case, but there are cases where a person who has paid into social security will not receive anything from it, and will not receive their spouse's Social Security survivor's benefits, unde…
Not disagreeing with what you just wrote above,but do you have a source for > If the "it" you're referring to is social security, this is, to use your phrase from above, "patently untrue." ? Because everything I am reading suggests those states whose teachers whose work years only go to pension and not SS eligibility are not having their teachers pay into SS.
I’m not fully familiar with the stated justification for these laws, or why you’d want to treat a pension as a ”windfall,” (or maybe they’re trying to keep social security benefits from being a “windfall?”) but I guess my main thought on that as a non-teaching, non-union professional is that we are all very lucky these rules were drafted a year or two before 401ks came into wide use, such that we avoided someone in congress getting the bright idea of treating our tax deferred retirement savings as a “windfall” to be factored into the SSA’s payment calculations as well.
I believe the problem of losing a spouse’s survivor’s benefits happens under the GPO rules, and that is similarly unpopular.