.jpg)
LA County mandatory or voluntary retirement?
Just asked a former L.A. police officer, who is now a certified specialist
family law attorney and he confirmed that both PERS and LACERA are
mandatory. The issue of mandatory/permissive retirement contributions are
dealt with when figuring out child support.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Daniela Romero wrote:
>
> From my experience, LACERA is mandatory.
>
> I believe that state and federal government legislatures can exempt
> themselves and govt. employees from programs like social security because
> they have their own retirement programs. I remember reading several years
> ago that in the case of the federal govt., the law was changed in the 80's
> so that federal employees pay into both social security and the federal
> govt's separate retirement program.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> For years I've had clients who work for LA City or County (usually
>> teachers) who have stated they have mandatory retirement contribution to
>> PERS or LACERS. Social Security is never taken out of their paychecks,
>> and I always assumed that was sort of the quid pro quo.
>>
>> However, I just had a client, who is an LA County employee, tell me that
>> her LA County retirement is voluntary, since the employee can opt to not
>> contribute and, in that event, social security is STILL not withheld
>> (not sure how the City/County gets away with that, but....).
>>
>> So just wondering if any of you have run into this. Maybe these
>> retirement/pensions are NOT mandatory after all? Anyone know for sure?
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
>> at
>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/
>> )
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
>> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
>> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
>> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
>> prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
>> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
>> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
>> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
>> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniela P. Romero
> Law Office of Daniela Romero, APLC
> 1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115
> Pasadena, CA 91104
> Telephone:626-817-2611
> Facsimile: 626-628-1781
> email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
>
> NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein
> is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
> This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the
> addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing,
> disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this
> e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
> integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this
> communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this
> message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended
> recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
> received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail
> and immediately delete this message.
>
> To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of
> Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another
> party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
Daniela P. Romero
Law Office of Daniela Romero, APLC
1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115
Pasadena, CA 91104
Telephone:626-817-2611
Facsimile: 626-628-1781
email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein
is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the
addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing,
disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this
e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this
communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this
message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended
recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail
and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal
tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
Just asked a former L.A. police officer, who is now a certified specialist family law attorney and he confirmed that both PERS and LACERA are mandatory. The issue of mandatory/permissive retirement contributions are dealt with when figuring out child support.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Daniela Romero <dromerolaw@gmail.com> wrote:
From my experience, LACERA is mandatory.I believe that state and federal government legislatures can exempt themselves and govt. employees from programs like social security because they have their own retirement programs. I remember reading several years ago that in the case of the federal govt., the law was changed in the 80's so that federal employees pay into both social security and the federal govt's separate retirement program.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
For years I've had clients who work for LA City or County (usually
teachers) who have stated they have mandatory retirement contribution to
PERS or LACERS. Social Security is never taken out of their paychecks,
and I always assumed that was sort of the quid pro quo.
However, I just had a client, who is an LA County employee, tell me that
her LA County retirement is voluntary, since the employee can opt to not
contribute and, in that event, social security is STILL not withheld
(not sure how the City/County gets away with that, but....).
So just wondering if any of you have run into this. Maybe these
retirement/pensions are NOT mandatory after all? Anyone know for sure?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
-- Daniela P. RomeroLaw Office of Daniela Romero, APLC1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115Pasadena, CA 91104Telephone:626-817-2611Facsimile: 626-628-1781
email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
-- Daniela P. RomeroLaw Office of Daniela Romero, APLC1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115Pasadena, CA 91104Telephone:626-817-2611Facsimile: 626-628-1781email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
From my experience, LACERA is mandatory.
I believe that state and federal government legislatures can exempt
themselves and govt. employees from programs like social security because
they have their own retirement programs. I remember reading several years
ago that in the case of the federal govt., the law was changed in the 80's
so that federal employees pay into both social security and the federal
govt's separate retirement program.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
> For years I've had clients who work for LA City or County (usually
> teachers) who have stated they have mandatory retirement contribution to
> PERS or LACERS. Social Security is never taken out of their paychecks,
> and I always assumed that was sort of the quid pro quo.
>
> However, I just had a client, who is an LA County employee, tell me that
> her LA County retirement is voluntary, since the employee can opt to not
> contribute and, in that event, social security is STILL not withheld
> (not sure how the City/County gets away with that, but....).
>
> So just wondering if any of you have run into this. Maybe these
> retirement/pensions are NOT mandatory after all? Anyone know for sure?
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of
> Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the
> use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
Daniela P. Romero
Law Office of Daniela Romero, APLC
1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115
Pasadena, CA 91104
Telephone:626-817-2611
Facsimile: 626-628-1781
email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein
is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the
addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing,
disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this
e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the
integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this
communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this
message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended
recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have
received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail
and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal
tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot
be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
From my experience, LACERA is mandatory.I believe that state and federal government legislatures can exempt themselves and govt. employees from programs like social security because they have their own retirement programs. I remember reading several years ago that in the case of the federal govt., the law was changed in the 80's so that federal employees pay into both social security and the federal govt's separate retirement program.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
For years I've had clients who work for LA City or County (usually
teachers) who have stated they have mandatory retirement contribution to
PERS or LACERS. Social Security is never taken out of their paychecks,
and I always assumed that was sort of the quid pro quo.
However, I just had a client, who is an LA County employee, tell me that
her LA County retirement is voluntary, since the employee can opt to not
contribute and, in that event, social security is STILL not withheld
(not sure how the City/County gets away with that, but....).
So just wondering if any of you have run into this. Maybe these
retirement/pensions are NOT mandatory after all? Anyone know for sure?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
-- Daniela P. RomeroLaw Office of Daniela Romero, APLC1015 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 115Pasadena, CA 91104Telephone:626-817-2611Facsimile: 626-628-1781email: dromerolaw@gmail.com
NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This E-mail (including attachments) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. The originator of this e-mail and its affiliates do not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
My experience is that there's the mandatory pension *and* an optional
voluntary retirement plan to which debtors have the option of contributing.
Mark J. Markus
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 10:51 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] LA County mandatory or voluntary retirement?
For years I've had clients who work for LA City or County (usually
teachers) who have stated they have mandatory retirement contribution to
PERS or LACERS. Social Security is never taken out of their paychecks, and
I always assumed that was sort of the quid pro quo.
However, I just had a client, who is an LA County employee, tell me that her
LA County retirement is voluntary, since the employee can opt to not
contribute and, in that event, social security is STILL not withheld (not
sure how the City/County gets away with that, but....).
So just wondering if any of you have run into this. Maybe these
retirement/pensions are NOT mandatory after all? Anyone know for sure?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
For years I've had clients who work for LA City or County (usually
teachers) who have stated they have mandatory retirement contribution to
PERS or LACERS. Social Security is never taken out of their paychecks,
and I always assumed that was sort of the quid pro quo.
However, I just had a client, who is an LA County employee, tell me that
her LA County retirement is voluntary, since the employee can opt to not
contribute and, in that event, social security is STILL not withheld
(not sure how the City/County gets away with that, but....).
So just wondering if any of you have run into this. Maybe these
retirement/pensions are NOT mandatory after all? Anyone know for sure?
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.