The IRS Wants to Tax Teachers 20% of Their Yearly Salary...

I found out this morning about a new ruling from the IRS requiring teachers and other employees who do not work a full year but still are paid throughout the 12 months of the year to sign a waiver saying it is okay to have their paychecks spread out over 12 months, as opposed to only being paid the 10 or 11 months out of the year when they are actually in the classroom. If this little piece of paper is not signed, the IRS gets to keep 20% of that teacher's salary. (You can read the article posted on the Texas State Teachers Association's website here.)

Yes, I know - this is not the end of the world. Just sign the paper, no big deal, right?

Probably, for the most part.

This being Sunday afternoon, I can't call many offices and ask the questions I have, so I've taken my search to the glorious Internet. Guided by my trusty friend Google, I was able to find a variety of discussion boards, all for teachers, discussing this issue - mainly, the lack of information available on the issue, and the muddiness of vital details such as when does the form need to be signed? Does "the first day of work of the new school year" mean the first day of in-service, or the first day of school for the students? There is a two-week difference between those dates. Or is it the first day of the district's fiscal calendar, which in most cases (at least here in Texas) is September 1st (a week after classes start)?

Interestingly enough, my good friend Google did not pull up anything in the realm of www.irs.gov. Apparently, Fox News broke the story, but on the Fox News DFW website a blogger asks if this is all made up, since the only places where any information about this can be found are teacher organization sites - the IRS has nothing on it. On the bulletin boards, one person wrote that she had called the IRS and was told to call back on the 8th, because they didn't have any information yet. Apparently the media had leaked the story to the public before the IRS was ready. Another post on a discussion board pointed to a section 409A, Announcement 2007-18, but that deals with "additional taxes arising under § 409A of the Internal Revenue Code due to the exercise of certain discounted stock options and stock appreciation rights (stock rights) in 2006" - last I checked, most teachers don't get stock options... which is truly a pity, you know, because school district stock is so valuable...

Some teachers posted that they had already received the proper paperwork in the mail from their school districts, which lends validity to the claims that yes, this is a real federal mandate. Others said they had called their payroll departments, to find out payroll was completely unaware of the issue.

The responses on the bulletin boards ranged from confusion, to outrage, to outraged confusion, to outraged confusion about the stink the outraged teachers were raising. What's your problem - what's the big deal? Just sign the form, be done with it. Quit your whining.

I don't want to quit my whining. I quit teaching (among other reasons because I didn't want to be subjected to bullhonky like this) and I'm still whining about it. Why? Because it's my Constitution-given right, for one thing; but mainly, because there are only so many "one more" little pieces of paper you can pile on a camel's back before she gets burned out.

According to some sources, this new ruling came about because of debacles such as Enron; something about tax deferments for work done 13 months prior, or rich businesspeople scamming the IRS by deferring payments from one year to the next. It's all for our own good - the IRS is going after "big money," the big, lying, cheating corporations; we should be happy! I'm not even going to bring up the point that it seems highly unlikely that many teachers are out laundering their millions through tax-evading tactics such as those (they're too busy working that second job to help cover their classroom expenses). Would it truly have been that difficult, when writing this new ruling, to exempt public school employees? They are a large group, and not that many words to add to the statute. Would it have been that difficult, really?

Some teachers were happy about the new ruling, because they preferred to be paid for the 10 months they work, rather than have the payments spread out over the 12 months of the year. The school district is making interest on those last two months of your pay; if someone's going to make money off of your money, shouldn't it be you? Well, I know, from my personal experience (and I know I'm not alone, as many posters expressed this same sentiment), I'm not good at saving. I can barely make ends meet as is; having a two-month income gap would kill me. I know I am in the minority (at least in the districts where I taught), being a single woman, without a husband to subsidize my income and provide decent benefits, using my teacher paycheck to actually pay all my bills. Many of my coworkers had lawyer husbands - her paycheck went to pay for her shoes and cutesy jewelry. Sorry, I have a mortgage and a utility bill.

Another problem with non-year-round paychecks (which, again, women who live off their husbands don't need to worry about) is that you still have to pay for benefits year-round. During those two paycheck-less months, teachers will have to send a check to the insurance companies to pay your premiums, or lose their coverage. Most teachers, being married women with husbands whose job provide better benefits than school districts, don't really care because they get their coverage through hubby. However, for the minority who does rely on the district's insurance, this can be a big deal.

All those issues aside, though, it just comes down to plain ol' decency and respect.

Teachers work in the classroom ten months out of the year (not nine, Mr. James Rose at Fox News), and during those ten months they put in more hours than most people do at their 9 to 5, January through December jobs. Between lesson planning, grading, faculty meetings, team meetings, ARD meetings, in-service, professional development, training, PTA meetings, carnivals, talent shows, read-a-thons, and the billions of other little things that your administrator may or may not deem to require mandatory attendance after-hours, teachers put in their fair share of hours, if not more. They need to provide materials for their classroom, the degree and expense of which can vary depending on your district, neighborhood, and subject matter. While teachers do not have to report to their school building during June and July, they still work - they usually attend training sessions and conferences throughout the summer, and often have to pay for these (and any necessary childcare) out of their own pocket.

Teachers work hard. They put up with enough crap already from students, parents, administrators, and, sometimes, each other. Can't we cut them some slack? Just a little bit? Can we at least, if we can't give them any perks (other than a new stack of Post-It notes on Teacher Appreciation Week), can we at least try to not load them with additional paperwork and pointless mandates?