« First « Previous Comments 36 - 72 of 72 Search these comments
HowdyThere saysIllinois has $2.3 billion in debt, and a population of 12.8 million people. That's close to $16,000 per person.
Fuck! And we don't even have any aircraft carriers, jets and the like! $16k per person vs. $60k per person. Think about that. Just one state.
That way governments would tend to run surpluses most of the time. Some of the retained earnings would get used up during downturns or used for large projects.
HowdyThere saysThat way governments would tend to run surpluses most of the time. Some of the retained earnings would get used up during downturns or used for large projects.
The logic is sound in my opinion. Problem is getting government to run a surplus. Government and surplus in the same sentence is like a Nazi and a Jew having a beer in 1939. Not happening.
Basically existing employees and retirees keep everything they have already "earned" in their pension to date
There is no digging out of this abyss unless existing employees already in the system accept some reform too.
HowdyThere saysIllinois has $2.3 billion in debt, and a population of 12.8 million people. That's close to $16,000 per person.
Fuck! And we don't even have any aircraft carriers, jets and the like! $16k per person vs. $60k per person. Think about that. Just one state.
Those "reforms" from Moonbeam are hardly making a dent into California's pension liabilities.
That's unfair, becasue the pension funds are in place of social security,
The tricky part is how to budget when one doesn't* know for sure how much tax is going to be collected. Governments are notoriously bad for being overly optimistic. Given that economies tend to grow over time, I thought the best method wold be to limit budgets to actual receipts from, say, 3 years previous. That way governments would tend to run surpluses most of the time. Some of the retained earnings would get used up during downturns or used for large projects.
Thoughts?
No they're not. Never have been. Pensions generally pay out more then SS by a long shot.
Pension benefits are MASSIVELY unrealistic in most places
Sure. The solution is just don't pay your pension obligations when the taxes revenues are less than you anticipated. Problem solved right ?
Some of the retained earnings would get used up during downturns or used for large projects.
PEople are talking about lowering govt workers pensions from what's promised, but it's what they have instead of social security.
LEt's reduce your social security you receive in retirement, as a solution to the fed meeting those obligations. Sound good to you ?
First, just an observation. Even with the attractiveness of a defined benefit pension, there's plenty of room for improvement in the quality of the pool of people applying to go into education and law enforcement. After all, a pension is just something with monetary value. It's part of compensation. But it doesn't work if the government doesn't pay into it as they should. I guess it could be argued, if the money is paid up front (higher salaries for cops and teachers), and then have them use 401ks, it would prevent the govt from underfunding the compensation expenditures. I guess they still might be able to postpone their part of payments in to the 401ks. Would they then pay in to social security too, instead of the pensions ? Wouldn't they have to ?
Booger saysThey are blown up by the luxurious pension benefits.
It's not like you read or understood my comment.
PEople are talking about lowering govt workers pensions from what's promised, but it's what they have instead of social security.
LEt's reduce your social security you receive in retirement,
PEople are talking about lowering govt workers pensions from what's promised, but it's what they have instead of social security.
LEt's reduce your social security you receive in retirement, as a solution to the fed meeting those unfunded obligations. Sound good to you ?
LEt's reduce your social security you receive in retirement, as a solution to the fed meeting those unfunded obligations. Sound good to you ?
Can that be done with social security when retired, will they pay out a lump sum? Does a heir get the full amount paid into SS if the person dies?
80% of the US workers who rely on their 401K's and Social Security for retirement.
And yes, the total is 9% of their pay.
But the district then must contribute at least another 10% and the state probably contributes something as well. So the total amount that's supposed to be put aside for the employer is something along the lines of 20 to 25%
Interesting explanation of how they go where they are. Teachers are going to have to up their contributions a lot, and the state and the district too. Maybe you're right that it wont be enough.
Let's then account for the fact that CPS teachers are only putting in 2% of their income into the pension
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.
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.
You could have committed decades of your life to a government job if you thought it was such a sweet deal.
This is why I have an enormous amount of cynicism for ANY type of government. IL has scarred me for life.
The problem is EVERYONE in this state has to take some sort of a bath in this mess.
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.
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.
The problem is how do you legally change the terms of their contract without going through bankruptcy?
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
« First « Previous Comments 36 - 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.