Why Illinois is going broke . . .

[SILVER SURFER]

Legalize marijuana and prostitution and tax and regulate it.

YEAH!! :applaud Then I could blow my "ludicrous" pension on pot and whores, thereby taking said pension off Maggie's tax bill and making it self-sustaining. :lamo

 

[MaggieD]

YEAH!! :applaud Then I could blow my "ludicrous" pension on pot and whores, thereby taking said pension off Maggie's tax bill and making it self-sustaining. :lamo

Yeah, the people defending these larcenous political fish boils are always those who are receiving them.

 

[sangha]

You are the one who made their not being in the SS system an issue, not me. I have no problem with a TRS system. I have a problem with the promises that were made.

That wasn't me who brought it up. It was JoG, and then you picked up on it, asking why public employees should be exempt from SS unlike employees in the private sector. That's when I started talking about SS.

But it turns out, you don't really have a problem with them having a pension instead of SS. Your concern is with the specifics of their pensions

To wit:

Only 20% of private sector workers who are covered by pensions are covered by defined benefit pension plans. And the greater majority of these have been frozen with them expecting to completely disappear in short order. Most all of them have been replaced with defined contribution plans, a completely different kettle of fish.

Further, I can almost guarantee that none of these defined contribution plans had an imputed earnings rate of 8% as does the TRS.

The Disappearing Defined Benefit Pension and Its Potential Impact on the Retirement Incomes of Baby Boomers

Edit:

Teachers and Social Security

And you know how some of them got such generous pension plans - politics.

And then answer is simple and clear - get the money out of politics. Or at least some of it. Unfortunately, some people refuse to do that.

 

[MaggieD]

That wasn't me who brought it up. It was JoG, and then you picked up on it, asking why public employees should be exempt from SS unlike employees in the private sector. That's when I started talking about SS.

But it turns out, you don't really have a problem with them having a pension instead of SS. Your concern is with the specifics of their pensions

To wit:



And you know how some of them got such generous pension plans - politics.

And then answer is simple and clear - get the money out of politics. Or at least some of it. Unfortunately, some people refuse to do that.

"Some people"? I think you're suggesting that's Republicans? Link?

As to the rest of your post, absolutely correct.

 

[sangha]

"Some people"? I think you're suggesting that's Republicans? Link?

As to the rest of your post, absolutely correct.

The republicans are explicitly opposed to such reforms. However, the democrats in office aren't thrilled about the prospect of losing campaign contributions either.

 

[Winchester]

I bet most public employees would want to be in SS. The law forbids it because it would cost the govt more money

Not true, lot if not most of them are in SS as well, Texas being an exception that I know of off hand, of course they aren't required to contribute to SS as well.

 

[sangha]

Not true, lot if not most of them are in SS as well, Texas being an exception that I know of off hand, of course they aren't required to contribute to SS as well.

I do not believe that to be true. I know that my parents, both of whom were public employees, did not receive SS.

 

[Winchester]

Well, here's one reason and a bit of history behind it: Illinois Teachers' Pensions. I'm glad to see sunlight shining on this crap. MAYBE something can be done to stop this nonsensical grab of union voters by Democrats as they give away the store...

First, a link to the Top 50 District Superintendent Pensions in the state. Then I've copied the first one (#1) and the last three (#48, #49 and #50) just to give you an idea.

The teachers' pension imputes an 8% return on assets. When the pension fund comes up short, which it always does, it's up to taxpayers to make up the difference. This is "the beauty" of Defined Benefit Pension Plans...the beauty is only in the eyes of teachers, however. Springfield hasn't made UP these phenomenal differences. They can't. So our pension fund is the second worst funded in the nation.






When Illinois teachers and their union claim, "Hey! We PAID for our pensions! We contributed PLENTY!" Yes, they did contribute. But they didn't near paid for them. There isn't one pensioneer on the 50-List that doesn't get back every nickel they paid in less than two years.

Illinois is going broke. This vote-buy by Democrats is one of the reasons.

Top 50 District Superintendents with Largest Illinois Pensions

The majority of the taxpayers paying for these pensions can collect a max of about $29,000 a year. I wonder why Illinois taxpayers are disgruntled.

A common problem with most public pension plans is the benefits are not necessarily correlated to amounts paid in over one's career but rather the last 3-5 years salary. Teach for 30 years and cap your career with a principal/superintendent position and viola, huge pension not based anywhere near what you paid in. It screws both the lifelong teachers and taxpayers. Also in your charts it doesn't recognize the employer match (which is very much part of the compensation) in the calculations.

That being said defined benefit plans will be the downfall of state finances much like they were of large employers. Easy to offer generous pension plans to recruit employees and then pay for it later... well the bill is coming due. I expect in the next 20 years or so most public pensions will morph over to defined contribution plans as it becomes apparent there is no way in hell the defined benefit can be paid for.

 

[Winchester]

I do not believe that to be true. I know that my parents, both of whom were public employees, did not receive SS.

There are 15 states who's public employees are not eligible for SS... so was right in my assumption of most. :2razz:

NEA - States Where Public Employees Are Not Covered by Social Security

 

[sangha]

There are 15 states who's public employees are not eligible for SS... so was right in my assumption of most. :2razz:

NEA - States Where Public Employees Are Not Covered by Social Security

Learn something new every day!

Thanks

 

[Threegoofs]

Well, as a former Illinois state employee and someone vested in the University pension system, I can tell you that Illinois state employees are put into a pension instead of SS - meaning that an equal amount of pay to what normally is taxed w Social Security is given to the pension fund.

My understanding is (since I am also fully vested in SS by now, and also have a defined benefit plan from a private employer) that the amount of the state pension is actually reduced by the amount of Social Security I will get (or some adjustment will be made based upon some arcane formula I dont care about yet).

That means these state pensions are generally being given in lieu of SS, and I"m pretty sure for the highly paid employees there is no upper limit like there is for SS - (you dont have a payroll tax after about $100K with SS... but I think the state will continue contributing the 6.25% beyond that limit), so thats why the pensions for highly paid employees, like superintendents, tend to be so lucrative.

I dont know if superintendents are overpaid... they sure do have large organizations under them and would be undercompensated in the private sector for the job they do.. but the pension issue is really more with the state and the refusal to fund it (easier to ignore pension obligations than to tell the taxpayers they need to pay for what they bought) than it is with the people getting these pensions.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

There are 15 states who's public employees are not eligible for SS... so was right in my assumption of most. :2razz:

NEA - States Where Public Employees Are Not Covered by Social Security

That link is not entirely accurate. Since the OP concerns Illinois, the link says public employees in the state are not covered by SS. There are 18 (yes, EIGHTEEN) public pension systems in IL. Of those, two (State Employees Retirement System and Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund) are coordinated with SS. I haven't checked membership in the various systems but SERS and IMRF probably are among the largest.

 

[Dickieboy]

...The solution is simple - take the money out of politics by limiting donations to individuals. Unfortunately, one of the major parties opposes that...

I suspect your assertion is pointed to those on the Right...since this thread is concerning benefits negotiated by collective bargaining (Unions) I suspect the real 'major' party who opposes taking 'the money out of politics by limiting donations to individuals' relative to the subject are not those on the Right...

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Yeah, the people defending these larcenous political fish boils are always those who are receiving them.

WTF is a "larcenous political fish boil"? Some sort of bouillabaisse? :lamo

Look, when I entered Illinois public service, I was promised a pension based on my salary and years' service, 3% annual COLAs compounded on that pension, and free health insurance in retirement. Was that a good deal for the state? Maybe not. But it's the one YOU (i.e., taxpayers) made via your duly elected representatives.

I held up my end by working for you taxpayers for 30+ years. And believe me it was no picnic. It was "middle management" and that's exactly where I was, in the middle catching **** from above AND below. I'm not whining, just making the point that public service isn't the stereotypical cushy jobs occupied by equally stereotypical lazy employees. Yes, you taxpayers paid me a good salary and I have a good pension, although neither anywhere near those of the superintendents in your OP. But I have education beyond a Master's degree in a lucrative field so I could have made a lot more in private employment. The public pension plan was the reason I didn't.

Now that I'm retired, you've decided to renege on the deal, saying "taxpayers cannot afford" my "ludicrous" pension. So you taxpayers, again through your duly elected representatives, first passed a law to take away my "free" health insurance. (It's never really been free because of the deductibles, copays, coinsurance, etc but I suppose that's no different from any insurance. But since I'm eligible for Medicare, but not SS, through my spouse, I am required to pay for that in order to get the state insurance. And a couple years ago, you taxpayers, through your duly elected representatives, also started charging me premiums for that insurance.) Then you taxpayers, through your duly elected representatives, passed a pension "reform" law that takes away a big chunk of my COLA. The law attacking "free" health insurance did not survive a challenge under the pension protection clause of the IL constitution (although I have yet to see a refund of my premiums). It remains to be seen whether that decision will be appealed and what will happen with a similar challenge to the pension "reform" law.

So, yeah, I'll defend my bouillabaisse. Aside from the fact that I earned it and you taxpayers owe it, at my age, I have neither years nor energy left to start over.

 

[CalGun]

Wow....$400 a month in property taxes ? I don't understand how the public can take it. We pay about $110 a month for our home in CA, and I pay $155 a month for five large parcels of NV desert. That's just sad that so called administrators who likely told everyone they were in it for the children are such thieves.

I'm whining about my real estate tax bill that funds Illinois teacher pensions. My real estate tax bill is $4,800. And still the state is going broke. And still the teachers' pension fund is grossly under-funded. There is no "Superintendent Pension Fund." There's a teachers' pension fund from which superintendents and others collect.

 

[sangha]

I suspect your assertion is pointed to those on the Right...since this thread is concerning benefits negotiated by collective bargaining (Unions) I suspect the real 'major' party who opposes taking 'the money out of politics by limiting donations to individuals' relative to the subject are not those on the Right...

Wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't.

I think many, probably most, on the left would agree to prohibit unions from donating to political campaigns if it was accompanied by a similar ban on donations froms corporations and PAC's. The right would not

However, I doubt that the Dem politicians would be thrilled about it.

 

[Linc]

Not true, lot if not most of them are in SS as well, Texas being an exception that I know of off hand, of course they aren't required to contribute to SS as well.

I am a retired Illinois teacher and did not pay into SS, therefore I don't get it as it should be. Some of my friends did get their 40 units and are. Btw, it is the whiny GOP public pensioneers who are the biggest hypocrites on the tremendous debt problem. Thank 26 straight years of GOP governors from 1977-2003 as a huge PART of the problem .

 

[Threegoofs]

I am a retired Illinois teacher and did not pay into SS, therefore I don't get it as it should be. Some of my friends did get their 40 units and are. Btw, it is the whiny GOP public pensioneers who are the biggest hypocrites on the tremendous debt problem. Thank 26 straight years of GOP governors from 1977-2003 as a huge PART of the problem .

It's not a party thing.

It's an Illinois political thing.

Nobody wants to make people pay for what they get.

 

[Linc]

Well, here's one reason and a bit of history behind it: Illinois Teachers' Pensions. I'm glad to see sunlight shining on this crap. MAYBE something can be done to stop this nonsensical grab of union voters by Democrats as they give away the store...

First, a link to the Top 50 District Superintendent Pensions in the state. Then I've copied the first one (#1) and the last three (#48, #49 and #50) just to give you an idea.

The teachers' pension imputes an 8% return on assets. When the pension fund comes up short, which it always does, it's up to taxpayers to make up the difference. This is "the beauty" of Defined Benefit Pension Plans...the beauty is only in the eyes of teachers, however. Springfield hasn't made UP these phenomenal differences. They can't. So our pension fund is the second worst funded in the nation.

Thank the Republican Boards of Education for the golden parachutes to the superintendents. Not to mention those BOE's in the GOP pricey suburbs you live in, who make 3 to 6 times the pensions of downstate teachers. And the crook Big Jim Thompson who signed the COLA agreement in 1989 that now benefits him with a larger pension than his GOP Governors salary. As soon as you want to stop blaming one side, maybe I can teach you how to deal with this problem using ballot initiatives .

Illinois is going broke. This vote-buy by Democrats is one of the reasons.

Illinois is way past broke.
Too bad you GOPs only blame one side like the D.C. GOPs.

The majority of the taxpayers paying for these pensions can collect a max of about $29,000 a year. I wonder why Illinois taxpayers are disgruntled.

link ?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I've contributed toward SS for over 20 years and will only be eligible to collect a fraction of it. My husband has contributed to SS for over 30 years. If he dies first, I will only be eligible to collect a third of his SS. I pay nearly 100% of my pension. Teacher's pensions are no where near superintendent pensions. I think it's a dishonest comparison. By me paying toward the full cost of my pension saves the taxpayers from having to contribute for either SS or a 401K plan.

 

[Linc]

It's not a party thing.

It's an Illinois political thing.

Nobody wants to make people pay for what they get.

Since Maggie wants to make it a party thing, I'll play her game. I'm tired of educating her as to why we have the problem. Besides, you can't refute anything I said BUT I didn't say everything. She has now gone full-shill for Rauner. And I'm stuck with just my IPhone for a few weeks .

 

[Threegoofs]

Since Maggie wants to make it a party thing, I'll play her game. I'm tired of educating her as to why we have the problem. Besides, you can't refute anything I said BUT I didn't say everything. She has now gone full-shill for Rauner. And I'm stuck with just my IPhone for a few weeks .

Oh dear. Rauner?

That is nutty.

 

[joG]

Irrelevant. Profit is influenced by pension CONTRIBUTIONS. Those are limited under public plans as well as SS and non-SS private plans (either by law or employment terms). But the context of this thread, including your post, is pension WITHDRAWALS. Again, I'm unaware of any non-SS private plan in which withdrawals are limited to SS amounts.

If you're talking about contribution limits, you may have a point. However, for 2014, employer and employee each pay 6.2% SS plus 1.45% Medicare, total 7.65%, on wages up to $117,00. Illinois has multiple public pension plans, each with its own contribution rate. I haven't kept up with those post-"reform" but before that most were in the neighborhood of 8% with no wages limit. Not that different from SS/Medicare.

If you allow the decision of the level of payments and or benefits to be made by people without a profit motive on credit and without provisions you get promises that are too high.

 

[MaggieD]

WTF is a "larcenous political fish boil"? Some sort of bouillabaisse? :lamo

Look, when I entered Illinois public service, I was promised a pension based on my salary and years' service, 3% annual COLAs compounded on that pension, and free health insurance in retirement. Was that a good deal for the state? Maybe not. But it's the one YOU (i.e., taxpayers) made via your duly elected representatives.

I held up my end by working for you taxpayers for 30+ years. And believe me it was no picnic. It was "middle management" and that's exactly where I was, in the middle catching **** from above AND below. I'm not whining, just making the point that public service isn't the stereotypical cushy jobs occupied by equally stereotypical lazy employees. Yes, you taxpayers paid me a good salary and I have a good pension, although neither anywhere near those of the superintendents in your OP. But I have education beyond a Master's degree in a lucrative field so I could have made a lot more in private employment. The public pension plan was the reason I didn't.

Now that I'm retired, you've decided to renege on the deal, saying "taxpayers cannot afford" my "ludicrous" pension. So you taxpayers, again through your duly elected representatives, first passed a law to take away my "free" health insurance. (It's never really been free because of the deductibles, copays, coinsurance, etc but I suppose that's no different from any insurance. But since I'm eligible for Medicare, but not SS, through my spouse, I am required to pay for that in order to get the state insurance. And a couple years ago, you taxpayers, through your duly elected representatives, also started charging me premiums for that insurance.) Then you taxpayers, through your duly elected representatives, passed a pension "reform" law that takes away a big chunk of my COLA. The law attacking "free" health insurance did not survive a challenge under the pension protection clause of the IL constitution (although I have yet to see a refund of my premiums). It remains to be seen whether that decision will be appealed and what will happen with a similar challenge to the pension "reform" law.

So, yeah, I'll defend my bouillabaisse. Aside from the fact that I earned it and you taxpayers owe it, at my age, I have neither years nor energy left to start over.

The taxpayers in the state of Illinois can no longer afford these golden pensions. It's that simple. Your pension benefits aren't going to get taken away. No one's are. Oh, the COLA's may, the health insurance may change, etc., for current retirees, but not the core benefits. I don't agree with doing that, either. But going forward, it's time for change.

 

[MaggieD]

Wow....$400 a month in property taxes ? I don't understand how the public can take it. We pay about $110 a month for our home in CA, and I pay $155 a month for five large parcels of NV desert. That's just sad that so called administrators who likely told everyone they were in it for the children are such thieves.

It's not the administrators who are thieves. It's the politicians who didn't fund their pensions and promised the benefits in the first place.