Tyler Summitt resigns

#401
#401
GAVol said:
The details don't matter. He was the coach. She was a current player. That's the biggest no no I can think of.
Click to expand...

In the end it doesn't matter what role the female played in this scandal. What matters is that Summitt should not have got involved with a player when he was an assistant---you don't do it--and he should ended the relationship when he got the LaTech job. That was his last chance to save his career, but he was too naive or dumb to realize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#402
#402
armchair said:
In the end it doesn't matter what role the female played in this scandal. What matters is that Summitt should not have got involved with a player when he was an assistant---you don't do it--and he should ended the relationship when he got the LaTech job. That was his last chance to save his career, but he was too naive or dumb to realize it.
Click to expand...

If the relationship started at Marquette, then yeah, he really blew it by not ending it when he left for LT.

I wonder when DeMoss found out.
 
#403
#403
Much of Tyler's big fat state pension he'll receive from state taxpayers will go to pay alimony to two women and child support to one child.

There is justice in the world
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#404
#404
wmcovol said:
Much of Tyler's big fat state pension he'll receive from state taxpayers will go to pay alimony to two women and child support to one child.

There is justice in the world
Click to expand...

That is not what I call justice. We get to foot the bill and give a rich dude an extra couple hundred K a year for free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#405
#405
k-town_king said:
That is not what I call justice. We get to foot the bill and give a rich dude an extra couple hundred K a year for free.
Click to expand...

Well, otherwise he'll get it all. I agree that pensions aren't for your adult children. They are for you and your spouse. PERIOD. When state workers and teachers ***** about pay, they never bring this **** up. I have vested for two pensions with Fortune 500 companies. Neither will allow that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#406
#406
k-town_king said:
That is not what I call justice. We get to foot the bill and give a rich dude an extra couple hundred K a year for free.
Click to expand...

State pension from where?

From taxpayers in Louisiana? He resigned, so what pension?

From Tennessee? He never worked here, so you might refer to his Mom's money maybe?

In this case, I don't see where, "we" are floating anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#407
#407
wmcovol said:
Much of Tyler's big fat state pension he'll receive from state taxpayers will go to pay alimony to two women and child support to one child.

There is justice in the world
Click to expand...

I don't believe he'd have to pay alimony to the one he didn't marry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#412
#412
If that's the case, it's her pension and she can do with it what she wants. Isn't that every parent's goal, to leave something for their children. It doesn't belong to the state and sure doesn't belong to us ("we").
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#413
#413
Backwards K said:
If that's the case, it's her pension and she can do with it what she wants. Isn't that every parent's goal, to leave something for their children. It doesn't belong to the state and sure doesn't belong to us ("we").
Click to expand...

Could not have said it better. A pension is no one's but the employees', their spousal beneficiary and/or their assigned heirs as applicable.

Yes, one can lose some or all of their pension if fired for cause, they quit before becoming fully vested, or other causes as may be in the terms and conditions of their employment. But once vestment is fully realized, a person retires, and an individual's pension is started, I do not know any reason that could change the disbursements as stipulated by the employee.

Anyone #u(€ing with employee pensions should be hanged from the tallest tree. But it happens all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#414
#414
Orangedogsrule said:
Could not have said it better. A pension is no one's but the employees', their spousal beneficiary and/or their assigned heirs as applicable.

Yes, one can lose some or all of their pension if fired for cause, they quit before becoming fully vested, or other causes as may be in the terms and conditions of their employment. But once vestment is fully realized, a person retires, and an individual's pension is started, I do not know any reason that could change the disbursements as stipulated by the employee.

Anyone #u(€ing with employee pensions should be hanged from the tallest tree. But it happens all the time.
Click to expand...
What happens with a pension upon death in a normal circumstance?

Just passes down to their heirs?
 
#415
#415
BruinVol said:
What happens with a pension upon death in a normal circumstance?

Just passes down to their heirs?
Click to expand...

My mother was a teacher in the state of Tennessee. When she passed away, there was some money left in her part of the pension. I was listed as the heir. It was sent to me, they taxed it, and I had to list it as income on my taxes for the year. I guess, if there was nothing left in their part, then the heir receives nothing.
 
#416
#416
RollinVol said:
My mother was a teacher in the state of Tennessee. When she passed away, there was some money left in her part of the pension. I was listed as the heir. It was sent to me, they taxed it, and I had to list it as income on my taxes for the year. I guess, if there was nothing left in their part, then the heir receives nothing.
Click to expand...

Thanks


Not sure why there is even any discussion then about pats pension. Sounds like any regular one to me
 
#417
#417
BruinVol said:
Thanks


Not sure why there is even any discussion then about pats pension. Sounds like any regular one to me
Click to expand...

The ones I know about are (1) a reduced rate during the employee's lifetime and IF the employee (pensioner) dies before the spouse, the spouse gets one half of the reduced rate, (2) the employee chooses the full rate, then the spouse gets nothing if the employee (pensioner) dies first. Children are not an option to receive anything, only the spouse. And at that, if the spouse is a certain number of years younger than the employee, then the benefit is cut even more.

But as the previous poster said, it is all contractual so there could be infinite types of pensions. Would think Pat's would be the standard UT one. Don't know what that is, but would think it would be public record since it is state/university funded.
 
#418
#418
Smallvol#1 said:
The ones I know about are (1) a reduced rate during the employee's lifetime and IF the employee (pensioner) dies before the spouse, the spouse gets one half of the reduced rate, (2) the employee chooses the full rate, then the spouse gets nothing if the employee (pensioner) dies first. Children are not an option to receive anything, only the spouse. And at that, if the spouse is a certain number of years younger than the employee, then the benefit is cut even more.

But as the previous poster said, it is all contractual so there could be infinite types of pensions. Would think Pat's would be the standard UT one. Don't know what that is, but would think it would be public record since it is state/university funded.
Click to expand...

Interesting

Thanks for sharing
 
#419
#419
Amazing how little "we" know about pensions.

Practically all private pension plans allow for employees to provide for a retirement benefit for their spouse in the case that the retired employee passes away first. They do NOT allow for pension benefits (except in some pensions there are death benefit payable to pay primarily for funeral expenses,etc) to be passed on to other generations. Pensions are not life insurance.

The state of Tennessee pension plan that teachers and others are covered under does and I am pretty sure it is the pension that Pat is covered under. Due to her significant salary over these years, her pension benefit will be a rather sizable amount each year (atleast 50% of her latest income of $1million per yr) and it must be funded by taxpayers.

I am supportive of every penny that woman gets. She has earned it and should be provided for. I am opposed for any pensioner (her or my sister who is a teacher) to be able to designate their child (except maybe one that is disabled) as a beneficiary for pension benefits outside of earlier mentioned death benefit. TS is about 26 yrs old and either he or his mother could easily receive that benefit until he's in his 80s, another 50-60 yrs. That is easily 25-30 million dollars that has to be funded by taxpayers for one person.....now take that idea, spread it out over the thousands of potential "children' beneficiaries, even at a significantly lower benefit amount, and see the cost impact.

It makes me sick as a taxpayer that he will be able to collect a massive amount of money once his mom passes. At that point, the pension should end like it does for everyone I know in the private sector. Yes, it is taxable but hell, what isn't?

The cost of this "benefit" is significant. Most public pension plans are deep in the "red" and in some cases, it is the #1 cost other than salaries and health insurance to local & state governments. This is a significant waste of taxpayer money and could be used to pay these people a much higher income while they are working.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top