• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ladies and Gentlemen -- IL's NEXT Governor

Certified or not, makes a big difference? Unsustainably high pensions to administrators started this dive off the cliff. Stupid, selfish BOEs giving away the farm, especially in the rich, collar counties now dont want to pay to play. I can't give up on what isn't there.


Ya know, it seems you're ranting on abuses in the systems as much as you are on anything else. And I agree there are abuses. But I think it makes more sense to remedy those than to screw the average state employee out of what he was promised when he put in 30+ years.
 
is what our public pension will look like with that DC dysfunction mentality

Just call 'em like I see 'em


All five public pensions should be in one fund.

Agreed…and all trustees should be elected by the membership


Fair is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, in MY eye, screwing somebody out of what they worked 30+ years for is unfair.


it is a matter of time for the Constitutional amendments.

Already happening:

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HJRCA0011

Remains to be seen if it goes anywhere. Course HJRCA49 failed in the last election.
 
To get even more specific, if you're on the general formula under the traditional plan, which I'd guess most current retirees are, it's 2.2% of your final average earnings (the average of your four highest consecutive years' salaries) per service year. So to get the maximum 80%, you have to work a little over 36 years (80% / 2.2% ~ 36).

You can't really include the savings on taxes and retirement contributions. Granted, those may increase your net income over what it would be if you were still paying them, but they do NOT increase your gross pension.

So, if you start at the maximum 80% pension and add 3% annually...

80% + 3% + 3% + 3% + 3% + 3% + 3% + 3% = 101%

IOW, it will take 7 years for your pension to equal your salary at retirement. That ignores the compounding effect but it's still pretty close. Obviously, it will take longer if you start at less than 80% pension. If you start working right out of high school, you can get your 36 years in by the time you're 55. But I suspect a lot of folks start later and get less service time. This also ignores that you hopefully would have gotten salary increases during those 7 years had you continued working. Looking at it that way, your pension may exceed what your salary was when you retired but it may NEVER exceed what it would have been had you not.

So I say again, your pension MAY exceed your salary IF you live long enough.

Are you looking at Tier 1 or Tier 2?

After I post I recognized my numbers were net not gross but it's the white meat that counts, no? ;)
 
Last edited:
Isn't the Governor of Illinois actually the Mayor of not-Chicago?
 
Are you looking at Tier 1 or Tier 2?

Tier 1 on the general formula under the traditional plan - although I think tier 2 is pretty much the same except the age is higher for retirement without early retirement reduction


After I post I recognized my numbers were net not gross but it's the white meat that counts, no? ;)

As far as money in your pocket...sure. But I was addressing the question of whether the gross payout by the retirement system would ever exceed your salary and if so, when.
 
Tier 1 on the general formula under the traditional plan - although I think tier 2 is pretty much the same except the age is higher for retirement without early retirement reduction.

I'm not well versed enough to argue the point but last I had it explained(which was awhile ago) it was 2.2% up to 30 but at 30 it maxed out and the overage went back to the contributor. Regardless, I've put in 10 (Tier 1) and if I returned wouldn't hit 30 or 36 by 55 no how. What's gonna get me spicy is that I seen the legislation for my age bracket wanting to be moved up to 58. I suppose the nice thing is if I did go back I'd still be accruing under Tier 1. (meaning I'd get to collect at 55 or if the leg passes 58)
 
Isn't the Governor of Illinois actually the Mayor of not-Chicago?


Up until recently. Now it's IL SoH...But soon, very soon a Daley will be Mayor again...(from the Governor's Mansion)
 
I'm not well versed enough to argue the point but last I had it explained(which was awhile ago) it was 2.2% up to 30 but at 30 it maxed out and the overage went back to the contributor.

All I can tell ya is the SURS literature (which is online BTW) says 2.2% per year of service up to a maximum of 80%. If you divide 80% by 2.2%, you get a little over 36 years. You may be thinking of the early retirement reduction. If you're Tier 1 and retire before age 60 (67 for Tier 2), there is a 1/2% reduction of the pension for each month you are underage UNLESS you are Tier 1 and have 30 years. Then there is no reduction, but you still only get 2.2% per year - i.e., 66% for 30 years.


What's gonna get me spicy is that I seen the legislation for my age bracket wanting to be moved up to 58.

The earliest a Tier 1 can retire is 55 with 8 years (62 with 10 years for Tier 2) - the early retirement reduction WILL apply. I hadn't heard of the move to increase the age to 58 but it doesn't surprise me.


I suppose the nice thing is if I did go back I'd still be accruing under Tier 1.

Interesting question. The magic date is 01/01/2011 - hired before, you're Tier 1; after, you're Tier 2. I take it you were Tier 1 and terminated employment but didn't take a refund of your contributions. If you go back now, I frankly don't which you'd be. If they considered your previous service as Tier 1 and your service after your return as Tier 2, your status could get REAL messy. I suppose it's possible you'd have to follow both sets of rules - Tier 1 for your previous service and Tier 2 for your new service.
 
Interesting question. The magic date is 01/01/2011 - hired before, you're Tier 1; after, you're Tier 2. I take it you were Tier 1 and terminated employment but didn't take a refund of your contributions. If you go back now, I frankly don't which you'd be. If they considered your previous service as Tier 1 and your service after your return as Tier 2, your status could get REAL messy. I suppose it's possible you'd have to follow both sets of rules - Tier 1 for your previous service and Tier 2 for your new service.

Once vested under T1 always T1, even with separation. I'd have to pay back the separation with an interest penalty after 2 years of new employment if I had separated. I couldn't change out of whatever plan I was in, which was traditional. Also with my years in, if I went back my vacation accrual rate (24 days a year) would continue, I wouldn't have to rebuild. (unless separation than you'd have to wait til you buyback your time for the vaca accrual to go back to what it was)

I had been hemming and hawing about maybe going back a while ago so I talked to someone in HR about the above, I know that part is legit, but when I found out about the HC benefits being diminished from what they were (20 gives you free) to what they're pulling now, the prospect didn't excite me as much.
 
Once vested under T1 always T1, even with separation. I'd have to pay back the separation with an interest penalty after 2 years of new employment if I had separated. I couldn't change out of whatever plan I was in, which was traditional. Also with my years in, if I went back my vacation accrual rate (24 days a year) would continue, I wouldn't have to rebuild. (unless separation than you'd have to wait til you buyback your time for the vaca accrual to go back to what it was)

I had been hemming and hawing about maybe going back a while ago so I talked to someone in HR about the above, I know that part is legit, but when I found out about the HC benefits being diminished from what they were (20 gives you free) to what they're pulling now, the prospect didn't excite me as much.

I'm vested with SURS too. Eight years and the pension estimate is pretty generous. I just wonder what it would be if I returned back to working for the state at today's current salaries, which are much higher than when I left in 98. I'm thinking I can boost my pension a whole lot with a couple years more service, but its really hard to figure out if this is true based upon the SURS information I can get from the website. Isnt your final pension based upon your last few years of salary? What happens if your salary doubles if you leave for a couple decades? Realistically, seems like I'd be really stupid not to take a pay cut before I retire and work back for the state (for less money).
 
I'm vested with SURS too. Eight years and the pension estimate is pretty generous. I just wonder what it would be if I returned back to working for the state at today's current salaries, which are much higher than when I left in 98. I'm thinking I can boost my pension a whole lot with a couple years more service, but its really hard to figure out if this is true based upon the SURS information I can get from the website. Isnt your final pension based upon your last few years of salary? What happens if your salary doubles if you leave for a couple decades? Realistically, seems like I'd be really stupid not to take a pay cut before I retire and work back for the state (for less money).

It's the average of your highest 3 or 4 years of service, usually those end up being your last but don't necessarily have to be...
 
Last edited:
It's the average of your highest 3 or 4 years of service, usually those end up being you last but don't necessarily have to be...

Wish I could figure out how much it would be....I could probably come back to the University at double the salary I left.
 
Wish I could figure out how much it would be....I could probably come back to the University at double the salary I left.

Well, with 8 yrs you're not getting that much in the first place -- 17.6% of that average, if you didn't separate, you'd come back with your same accrual rate for vacation though, that's a nice bonus...
 
Well, with 8 yrs you're not getting that much in the first place -- 17.6% of that average, if you didn't separate, you'd come back with your same accrual rate for vacation though, that's a nice bonus...

17.6% of salary? Thats not correct according to my statements. Mines about double that. Maybe its because I left the state 30 years before my expected retirement? Wouldnt that play into it? Compounding interest and all...

But this is the problem with SURS. I cant figure out what I'd get given various scenarios.
 
Illinois "moderates" need to get over their hatred of Republicans and change leadership. I was born and raised in Chicago(Norwood Park)and am sick of seeing the Democrats screw everything up yet keep winning. Quinn is a joke in my opinion,but will any of the others do any better?
 
Back
Top Bottom