Will this budget proposal from Senate balance the budget in 15-20 years? (Chicago: homes, salary)

[MSchemist80]

Depends on who you work for in my profession. I still get @holes wanting to pay me $15-20 an hour and I tell them to F off, median is ~$50k though, I make a lot more. The state I'm not sure other than the state police forensics lab, who employs analytical chemists but forensic chemists start ~$45k go go up to $98k at level 3 which is very good in addition to the pension and other benefits.

[Liledgy]

Well, state, county, municipal, twp, park district, cta, etc. it doesn't matter, few skilled people are going to gamble and hope they reach (voluntarily or not) 10 years before they are entitled to ANY retirement vesting. What I have seen so far on the electrical side (engineering, mapping, trades) is a revolving door of employees that move on fairly quickly. I'm sure many other divisions of government are seeing the same thing. But hey, it's great for contractors!!������������.

[MSchemist80]

Yet another reason to get rid of the pensions. From day 1 your 401K belongs to you. If you quit after 1 year you can take it with you. Give the engineers a reasonable salary and they will stay.

As I said, I don't want anything to do with the Illinois pension system so I can't blame the engineers for not wanting to invest in a house of cards. It was always going to fail and always will. Either they get rid of it, or they continue destroying the state with taxes especially property and still won't be able to make it viable.

[Liledgy]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Yet another reason to get rid of the pensions. From day 1 your 401K belongs to you. If you quit after 1 year you can take it with you. Give the engineers a reasonable salary and they will stay.

As I said, I don't want anything to do with the Illinois pension system so I can't blame the engineers for not wanting to invest in a house of cards. It was always going to fail and always will. Either they get rid of it, or they continue destroying the state with taxes especially property and still won't be able to make it viable.

You've also stated there overpaid and the pension is to generous. Wouldn't raised add to your taxes? Also, the municipal side is fully funded, no house of cards there, you still want in? It's generous, right? 10 years to be entitled to anything and if you leave at 62 you forfeit 30% of your entitlement. I think the opposite of you, it's far from over generous and much better on the outside. But if you feel that the public sector is overpaid and gives way better pension benefits apply to a MUNICIPALITY, they are fully funded.

[MSchemist80]

I don't know what municipality you are referring too but most of the ones I've seen are between 40 and 70% funded. I don't know of any that are 99% funded.

Edit. The Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund is 87% funded and only because they are required by law to fund if before any other budget item. The funding of the pension is consuming more and more revenue and forcing higher and higher taxes until it will also collapse.

However, there is a reason IMRF has higher funding levels than the other government-run pensions. Cities are mandated – through a court-enforced funding guarantee – to fund IMRF pensions before everything else, even if that means cutting budgets for road repair, libraries and police and firefighter pensions.

1. IMRF benefits are growing far faster than city budgets and the inflation rate

IMRF accrued pension benefits have been growing at the pace of 7.2 percent a year since 2000, far faster than the 2.3 percent rate of inflation and beyond what city taxpayers can afford.

2. An 87 percent funding ratio still means a $5 billion shortfall

In 2000, IMRF actually had a funding surplus. The 2001 market downturn changed that, turning IMRF’s surplus into a shortfall. The 2008 recession made things worse, and the fund’s shortfall grew to $4.8 billion by 2014.

3. Taxpayers contribute far more than employees – and benefits and unfunded liabilities continue to grow

4. IMRF’s funding guarantee pits municipal pensions against local police and firefighter pensions and other services

5. IMRF salaries climb, while Illinois household incomes stagnate

IMRF is anything but a model retirement system

It’s wrong to tout the IMRF as an example of a successful pension system.

The pension fund’s relative fiscal health is only due to the fact it can force localities to fund it at the expense of those communities’ local vital services.

In conclusion like all other pensions in Illinois the costs are spiraling out of control and will eventually collapse.

[Liledgy]

That must be from some right wing rag like Illinois policy institute. It's closer to 100% funded than 87%. I doubt very much it's going to collapse.

[Liledgy]

Yup, you quoted Illinois policy. Well the Better government association and cranes Chicago business think it's a great plan. Over 60% of its assets is from investment income.

[MSchemist80]

Yet it still has a 5 billion dollar shortfall since investments returns did not keep up with increasing payout liabilities. Compared to other pension funds it is less of a disaster but it is still a disaster.

[Liledgy]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

Yet it still has a 5 billion dollar shortfall since investments returns did not keep up with increasing payout liabilities. Compared to other pension funds it is less of a disaster but it is still a disaster.

What pension plan has better funding! It fluctuates based on returns (where the MAJORITY of the payouts come from). It's been over 100% funded in the recent past.

[MSchemist80]

2000 isn't the recent past. There have been a few economic hiccups since then. Also it doesn't matter if the majority of the payouts are based on returns the taxpayers still cover enough that it is adding to the tax burden that is crippling Illinois. Noone should be taxed out of their homes or out of business to pay for the retirement of a privileged class.