Il dem candidate for governor wants to raise taxes even more.
invite response
2018 Apr 4, 9:24am 13,690 views 72 comments
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 72 of 72 Search these comments
63
marcus
2018 Apr 4, 10:58pm
marcus
2018 Apr 4, 10:58pm
WookieMan says
Well if you're trying to see the cost of what they get on the other end. It's 9% of the teachers Salary. Plus I have to assume some other contribution by the district and an additional contribution from the State. There things together make up what is supposed to be put into the fund per year. Not just the 2% (yes, the teachers essentially get a bonus equal to 7% of their salary that goes toards their contribution. That "give back." You've got to know that there are actuaries, that put together the planned contributions (NOT JUST THE TEACHER's) that will fund the plans - but yes with overly optimistic assumptions, and probably errors about the percentage of people that are retired versus contributing.
Yes, some teachers and Union leaders really are stupid. I'm not going to argue with you on that. THe crazy thing is that they fuck themselves over by negotiating deals that won't be sufficiently funded. It's almost as if the union is run by some 70 year old guy that's only worried about the next 10 to 15 years.
What I was doing was comparing the cost of pensions in general to what the situation would be without the pension, where employee pays 6.2%, employer pays 6.2% in to SS and then presumably some level of matching 401K or IRA type investments.
It's the difference in cost between the govt pensions versus a social security plus matching 401k which is the cost to the public of govt worker pensions. But it gets exacerbated by under funding, for example when Illinois took a holiday from contributing it's obligations to the pension funds, I'm quite sure under republican governance. They're probably laughing their asses off about it now. "haha ha, fuck those teachers !"
Let's then account for the fact that CPS teachers are only putting in 2% of their income into the pension
Well if you're trying to see the cost of what they get on the other end. It's 9% of the teachers Salary. Plus I have to assume some other contribution by the district and an additional contribution from the State. There things together make up what is supposed to be put into the fund per year. Not just the 2% (yes, the teachers essentially get a bonus equal to 7% of their salary that goes toards their contribution. That "give back." You've got to know that there are actuaries, that put together the planned contributions (NOT JUST THE TEACHER's) that will fund the plans - but yes with overly optimistic assumptions, and probably errors about the percentage of people that are retired versus contributing.
Yes, some teachers and Union leaders really are stupid. I'm not going to argue with you on that. THe crazy thing is that they fuck themselves over by negotiating deals that won't be sufficiently funded. It's almost as if the union is run by some 70 year old guy that's only worried about the next 10 to 15 years.
What I was doing was comparing the cost of pensions in general to what the situation would be without the pension, where employee pays 6.2%, employer pays 6.2% in to SS and then presumably some level of matching 401K or IRA type investments.
It's the difference in cost between the govt pensions versus a social security plus matching 401k which is the cost to the public of govt worker pensions. But it gets exacerbated by under funding, for example when Illinois took a holiday from contributing it's obligations to the pension funds, I'm quite sure under republican governance. They're probably laughing their asses off about it now. "haha ha, fuck those teachers !"
64
WookieMan
2018 Apr 5, 8:13am
WookieMan
2018 Apr 5, 8:13am
marcus says
This is true. But what was a Republican governor supposed to do at the time? What Rauner just did with the budget for 3 years digging our hole even deeper? I did vote for Rauner and he's been a disaster. Problem is it would be a disaster either way I voted last time or the next time around this year. IL is a dumpster fire that can't be put out.
The problem is EVERYONE in this state has to take some sort of a bath in this mess. You can't just legislate a graduated income tax and magically the problem goes away. We have income tax reciprocity with Wisconsin for Chicago area residents (or anyone in IL, but obviously Chicago due to location). So income earned in IL, if you moved to that state, is taxed at that states rates (and goes to them), not IL (This include KY, MI & IA as well). The exodus "dam" so to say will break if a graduated tax is implemented. Downtown workers can move to Wisconsin in a heartbeat and have a commute similar to Aurora, IL to downtown Chicago that thousands already make. So it's not a big deal. Any YES, WI income taxes are higher now. But that won't be the case for long. Plus property taxes are marginally to significantly cheaper in WI. Plus housing would initially be cheaper for the first wave.
For the sake of the rest of the nation, every sector in IL is going to HAVE to make sacrifices. Otherwise we end up in some form of state bankruptcy. I know a state technically can't do this, but once taxes are raised to what they should be to cover the current liabilities, along with the necessary cuts, people won't want to live here anymore and people will flood out of the state (as is already happening). My opinion, this is going to happen no matter what, as leadership here is too soft to take their lumps on the necessary measures to correct this. They're rich anyway, so can just cut and run.
And like I said, I'm okay paying some more in taxes if it rights the ship. What government entity has ever cut though? I'm not talking about cuts when revenues are down, because they have to cut. I know it's happened, so I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but REAL cuts are the exception, not the norm. And in IL, the necessary cuts require an impossible constitutional amendment because retirees (all of them including private 401K's) don't pay state income taxes on those retirement distributions and get automatic COL increases (not the 401k's on the COL). Why would those voters voluntarily shoot themselves in the foot? Future retirees won't vote for it either since it's such a good deal for them. Again shooting themselves in the foot to vote for change. Hence, the solution in IL is impossible without oppressive income tax increases and massive service and pay cuts.
marcus says
It's IL. Don't assume anything about this place. For CPS, the state doesn't do a damn thing (although they did get a bit of a bailout in the last budget). The district (taxpayers) are that 7%. Teachers are 2% (taxpayers still). That's it. Nothing else besides borrowed money to dump into the black hole (taxpayers as well). That's far less then SS and the additional 5-10% that anyone with a brain HAS to fund into a 401k to ACTUALLY retire like an IL pensioner at 59-1/2 (they can do it earlier). 9% vs. say 17-20% (SS and 401k contributes) for a private sector job of gross pay to retire. There's not a chance in hell public sector workers (at least CPS) will change a thing. And they threaten to (and have) strike on an annual basis because it's not good enough. Give me a break.
And yes, it's a zero sum game, the 7% is getting paid no matter what whether it's directed to the teachers first and then a pension fund or directly to the fund. Problem is both sides of the aisle (including the unions as you mention) wanted votes so they could get their own pensions and voted on pension "holidays" so we're in the situation we are now. It literally is probably not reversible. I've made my contingency plan for what I'm pretty sure will happen and have told anyone else I know to do the same.
Fuck, I really hate this state after reading this.
But it gets exacerbated by under funding, for example when Illinois took a holiday from contributing it's obligations to the pension funds, I'm quite sure under republican governance.
This is true. But what was a Republican governor supposed to do at the time? What Rauner just did with the budget for 3 years digging our hole even deeper? I did vote for Rauner and he's been a disaster. Problem is it would be a disaster either way I voted last time or the next time around this year. IL is a dumpster fire that can't be put out.
The problem is EVERYONE in this state has to take some sort of a bath in this mess. You can't just legislate a graduated income tax and magically the problem goes away. We have income tax reciprocity with Wisconsin for Chicago area residents (or anyone in IL, but obviously Chicago due to location). So income earned in IL, if you moved to that state, is taxed at that states rates (and goes to them), not IL (This include KY, MI & IA as well). The exodus "dam" so to say will break if a graduated tax is implemented. Downtown workers can move to Wisconsin in a heartbeat and have a commute similar to Aurora, IL to downtown Chicago that thousands already make. So it's not a big deal. Any YES, WI income taxes are higher now. But that won't be the case for long. Plus property taxes are marginally to significantly cheaper in WI. Plus housing would initially be cheaper for the first wave.
For the sake of the rest of the nation, every sector in IL is going to HAVE to make sacrifices. Otherwise we end up in some form of state bankruptcy. I know a state technically can't do this, but once taxes are raised to what they should be to cover the current liabilities, along with the necessary cuts, people won't want to live here anymore and people will flood out of the state (as is already happening). My opinion, this is going to happen no matter what, as leadership here is too soft to take their lumps on the necessary measures to correct this. They're rich anyway, so can just cut and run.
And like I said, I'm okay paying some more in taxes if it rights the ship. What government entity has ever cut though? I'm not talking about cuts when revenues are down, because they have to cut. I know it's happened, so I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but REAL cuts are the exception, not the norm. And in IL, the necessary cuts require an impossible constitutional amendment because retirees (all of them including private 401K's) don't pay state income taxes on those retirement distributions and get automatic COL increases (not the 401k's on the COL). Why would those voters voluntarily shoot themselves in the foot? Future retirees won't vote for it either since it's such a good deal for them. Again shooting themselves in the foot to vote for change. Hence, the solution in IL is impossible without oppressive income tax increases and massive service and pay cuts.
marcus says
It's 9% of the teachers Salary. Plus I have to assume some other contribution by the district and an additional contribution from the State. There things together make up what is supposed to be put into the fund per year.
It's IL. Don't assume anything about this place. For CPS, the state doesn't do a damn thing (although they did get a bit of a bailout in the last budget). The district (taxpayers) are that 7%. Teachers are 2% (taxpayers still). That's it. Nothing else besides borrowed money to dump into the black hole (taxpayers as well). That's far less then SS and the additional 5-10% that anyone with a brain HAS to fund into a 401k to ACTUALLY retire like an IL pensioner at 59-1/2 (they can do it earlier). 9% vs. say 17-20% (SS and 401k contributes) for a private sector job of gross pay to retire. There's not a chance in hell public sector workers (at least CPS) will change a thing. And they threaten to (and have) strike on an annual basis because it's not good enough. Give me a break.
And yes, it's a zero sum game, the 7% is getting paid no matter what whether it's directed to the teachers first and then a pension fund or directly to the fund. Problem is both sides of the aisle (including the unions as you mention) wanted votes so they could get their own pensions and voted on pension "holidays" so we're in the situation we are now. It literally is probably not reversible. I've made my contingency plan for what I'm pretty sure will happen and have told anyone else I know to do the same.
Fuck, I really hate this state after reading this.
65
socal2
2018 Apr 5, 8:31am
marcus says
The lavish pensions in California didn't really start until 2000 when Gray Davis retroactively went an increased the formulas for State workers.
I was already working for the private sector and still remember the day back in 2000 when one of my clients that works for San Diego Water Utilities was crowing in a meeting about how he was going to now be able to retire in his 50's.
You could have committed decades of your life to a government job if you thought it was such a sweet deal.
The lavish pensions in California didn't really start until 2000 when Gray Davis retroactively went an increased the formulas for State workers.
I was already working for the private sector and still remember the day back in 2000 when one of my clients that works for San Diego Water Utilities was crowing in a meeting about how he was going to now be able to retire in his 50's.
66
FortWayne
2018 Apr 5, 8:41am
FortWayne
2018 Apr 5, 8:41am
Government unions never consider that cost of their pensions is astronomical.
67
socal2
2018 Apr 5, 8:56am
WookieMan says
I was born in Chicago and have lived in Kommie Kalifornia for about 25 years working in the water business watching our infrastructure crumble as much needed taxpayer funds diverted to pensions and stupid shit like high speed rail.
Needless to say, I have gotten more Libertarian and Conservative and skeptical of government the longer I have been exposed to it.
This is why I have an enormous amount of cynicism for ANY type of government. IL has scarred me for life.
I was born in Chicago and have lived in Kommie Kalifornia for about 25 years working in the water business watching our infrastructure crumble as much needed taxpayer funds diverted to pensions and stupid shit like high speed rail.
Needless to say, I have gotten more Libertarian and Conservative and skeptical of government the longer I have been exposed to it.
68
socal2
2018 Apr 5, 9:04am
WookieMan says
Yep. Just amazes me how some can argue that the vast government bureaucracy shouldn't have any skin in the game and only the tax payers should suffer to keep these gold plated pensions in place. People are really suffering and going to such extremes of moving out of the State because they can't afford the taxes and dysfunctional government services.
WookieMan says
This always amazes me too. How come technology can make about every industry in the private sector more efficient where we are producing much more for much less - but we rarely see the same efficiencies flow through in the public sector?
Can we never ask our government for better services with our tax money? Why is the Democrat argument only about raising taxes higher and making government even bigger?
The problem is EVERYONE in this state has to take some sort of a bath in this mess.
Yep. Just amazes me how some can argue that the vast government bureaucracy shouldn't have any skin in the game and only the tax payers should suffer to keep these gold plated pensions in place. People are really suffering and going to such extremes of moving out of the State because they can't afford the taxes and dysfunctional government services.
WookieMan says
And like I said, I'm okay paying some more in taxes if it rights the ship. What government entity has ever cut though? I'm not talking about cuts when revenues are down, because they have to cut. I know it's happened, so I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but REAL cuts are the exception, not the norm.
This always amazes me too. How come technology can make about every industry in the private sector more efficient where we are producing much more for much less - but we rarely see the same efficiencies flow through in the public sector?
Can we never ask our government for better services with our tax money? Why is the Democrat argument only about raising taxes higher and making government even bigger?
69
HappyGilmore
2018 Apr 5, 9:21am
socal2 says
Government workers are taxpayers too. It's seems like the above is arguing that they should have MORE skin in the game.
The problem is how do you legally change the terms of their contract without going through bankruptcy?
Yep. Just amazes me how some can argue that the vast government bureaucracy shouldn't have any skin in the game and only the tax payers should suffer to keep these gold plated pensions in place. People are really suffering and going to such extremes of moving out of the State because they can't afford the taxes and dysfunctional government services.
Government workers are taxpayers too. It's seems like the above is arguing that they should have MORE skin in the game.
The problem is how do you legally change the terms of their contract without going through bankruptcy?
70
socal2
2018 Apr 5, 10:49am
HappyGilmore says
With the current rules in places like California and Illinois, even when a City goes bankrupt - they still can't renegotiate the pension "contract". Everyone else suffers with higher taxes, reduced services and bond holders getting shafted - but not the government workers.
How is that fair? Where is the "contract" for tax payers to not let their cities implode with junk bond status while the politicians and the government bureaucracy to pad their nests using our tax dollars?
All we are asking is for the government workers and their unions to compromise a bit too.
The problem is how do you legally change the terms of their contract without going through bankruptcy?
With the current rules in places like California and Illinois, even when a City goes bankrupt - they still can't renegotiate the pension "contract". Everyone else suffers with higher taxes, reduced services and bond holders getting shafted - but not the government workers.
How is that fair? Where is the "contract" for tax payers to not let their cities implode with junk bond status while the politicians and the government bureaucracy to pad their nests using our tax dollars?
All we are asking is for the government workers and their unions to compromise a bit too.
71
mell
2018 Apr 5, 11:58am
socal2 says
Correct. Well put. Guaranteed pension appreciation should be illegal.
HappyGilmore saysThe problem is how do you legally change the terms of their contract without going through bankruptcy?
With the current rules in places like California and Illinois, even when a City goes bankrupt - they still can't renegotiate the pension "contract". Everyone else suffers with higher taxes, reduced services and bond holders getting shafted - but not the government workers.
How is that fair? Where is the "contract" for tax payers to not let their cities implode with junk bond status while the politicians and the government bureaucracy to pad their nests using our tax dollars?
All we are asking is for the government workers and their unions to compromise a bit too.
Correct. Well put. Guaranteed pension appreciation should be illegal.
72
lostand confused
2018 Apr 5, 12:13pm
lostand confused
2018 Apr 5, 12:13pm
mell says
Yup and also salaries. I posted this before-but these village/city managers in IL make more than every GOvernor in this nation-how did they give themeslves these salaries and I am pretty sure the salaries of those downstream will also be above amrket.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2016/03/28/the-big-dogs-of-illinois-municipal-government-2016/#34c754775c5b
These are pensionable salaries too-I mean you want to raise income taxes on top of the highest property tax rates-cut their salaries in half and problem solved-but hey you can't -public unions.
Correct. Well put. Guaranteed pension appreciation should be illegal
Yup and also salaries. I posted this before-but these village/city managers in IL make more than every GOvernor in this nation-how did they give themeslves these salaries and I am pretty sure the salaries of those downstream will also be above amrket.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2016/03/28/the-big-dogs-of-illinois-municipal-government-2016/#34c754775c5b
These are pensionable salaries too-I mean you want to raise income taxes on top of the highest property tax rates-cut their salaries in half and problem solved-but hey you can't -public unions.
« First « Previous Comments 63 - 72 of 72 Search these comments
Democratic governor candidate J.B. Pritzker said Tuesday he would seek to temporarily raise Illinois’ flat income tax rate and boost credits and deductions while lawmakers consider changing the state constitution to allow for a graduated income tax.