Pension

Q&A: When a new school district has a bad retirement plan

August 10, 2026 By Liz Weston 2 Comments

Dear Liz: I have taught for 22 years and recently accepted a position in a neighboring school district. I have a 403(b) retirement plan invested in a low-cost target date fund. The neighboring district’s vendor list does not include this option. Would it be more advantageous to leave my money in the current account or to roll it into a brokerage with a target date fund? If so, how do I choose what’s right for me?

Answer: As a teacher, you need to be aware that many districts’ 403(b) plans are scandalously bad. Instead of offering sensible, low-cost options, these subpar retirement plans are filled with high-fee annuities.

Your current plan is one of the better ones, since you have access to low-cost mutual funds. You can investigate the neighboring district’s plan at 403bwise.org, a nonprofit site dedicated to educating teachers about the issue. The site has reviews of many districts’ plans. If your new district isn’t included, the site has tips on how to get more information, evaluate your options and press for change.

If the new plan is a stinker, you can leave your money in the old plan, although you won’t be able to make new contributions. You also could consider rolling the account into an IRA at a brokerage. (Don’t move it to a regular brokerage account, as that would be considered a withdrawal that can be taxed and penalized.) An IRA would give you vastly more investment options, but if your 403(b) allows loans you’d lose the ability to borrow against your account. Also, workplace retirement plans such as 403(b)s and 401(k)s typically allow penalty-free withdrawals starting at age 55 if you leave your job, while with IRAs you generally must wait until age 59½.

The question remains if you should consider investing in the new district’s plan. The answer is yes if it includes any of 403bwise’s “green” rated options of low-cost funds. The answer is probably no otherwise. Teachers without good investment options should consider lobbying their district to adopt another type of retirement account, the 457(b) plan. For more information, check out 403bwise’s sister site, 457bwiser, at https://457bwiser.org/.

Q&A: Social Security and government pensions

January 17, 2022 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: You recently mentioned the windfall elimination provision that affects pensions from jobs that don’t pay into Social Security. I’m wondering what those jobs are. Are they just part of the gig economy, or is there some other category of jobs that don’t pay into Social Security?

Answer: Gig economy jobs are supposed to pay into Social Security, just like the vast majority of other occupations. People with gig jobs are often considered to be self-employed, so instead of paying just 6.2% of their gross wages into Social Security like most workers, they also pay the employer’s 6.2%, for a total of 12.4% of their earnings.

Some state and local governments have their own pension systems that don’t require workers to pay into Social Security. People who get pensions from those systems and who also qualify for Social Security benefits from other jobs can be affected by the windfall elimination provision, which can reduce their Social Security benefit. They also can be affected by the government pension offset, which can reduce or even eliminate spousal and survivor benefits from Social Security. Here’s an example:

Dear Liz: I am 59, retired, and receive a pension of approximately $150,000 a year. My husband receives a small pension, about $1,000 a month, and Social Security disability due to a diagnosis of Stage 4 lung cancer. I am the sole financial support of my 88-year-old destitute mother, who requires care that costs approximately $5,000 a month. I retired earlier than anticipated to care for my ailing mother and husband.

Although I worked many years where I paid into Social Security, I knew I would receive only about half of my Social Security check due to the windfall elimination provision that affects pensions received from jobs that didn’t pay into Social Security. What I didn’t know is that when my husband passes, I will receive no survivor benefits from his 41-plus years of paying into the system.

Our entire retirement planning was based on his Social Security combined with my pension. He’s just a few months from passing, and I will not be receiving anything, which will immediately put me in an untenable financial position. How is it that after 30 years of marriage I will receive nothing because I have a pension? This just doesn’t seem right. Do I have any options?

Answer: Your situation shows why it’s so important to get sound advice about Social Security before retiring because many people don’t understand the basics of how benefits work.

Even if you didn’t have a pension, for example, your income would have dropped at your husband’s death. When one spouse dies, one of the couple’s two Social Security benefits goes away and the survivor gets the larger of the two checks the couple received.

Your pension is much, much larger than the maximum you could have received from Social Security in any case. If you can’t get by without your husband’s benefit, consider ways to reduce your expenses. Because your mother is destitute, she may be eligible for Medicaid, the government healthcare program for the poor. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid pays the costs of nursing home and other custodial care expenses. Contact your state Medicaid office for details.

Q&A: Lump sum or annuity?

December 13, 2021 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: You recently answered a question about whether to take a lump sum or an annuity payout from a pension. I think you need to be more cautious about making a blanket statement about the payout being the only viable option. There are other reasons for taking the lump sum, such as the pension fund’s stability. My mother’s friend lost her entire pension when Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt. Also, I like the idea of being able to access the lump sum in the case of a catastrophic need (call me a control freak!).

Answer: You certainly can access more of your money with a lump sum, but that’s a double-edged sword. You could withdraw too much too fast and run out of money. You could lose money to bad markets, bad investments, bad decisions and fraud. Even if you’re making good financial decisions now, that may not always be the case as our cognitive abilities tend to decline with age.

The column you’re referencing didn’t say that an annuity is the only viable option, however. In that particular case, the annuity option came with retiree health insurance while the lump sum option did not. It would be pretty hard to top guaranteed income for life plus medical benefits, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

A lump sum could be a better option if the pension is particularly generous and the pension fund isn’t solvent. Your mother’s friend’s pension, for example, was covered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., so she didn’t lose the whole thing when Bethlehem Steel went under. Workers there lost part of what was promised them because their pensions were larger than the amount covered by the PBGC.