Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"but you can’t retroactively change benefits for someone who has already retired."
And if the state chooses to do so, who is going to stop them? It is a STATE issue so going to the feds won't help.
It’s accrued benefits, a legal contract, whether retired or still working that can’t be changed. This has already been litigated by the state Supreme Court.
What can change, is who pays. The former Governor, a Republican, floated the idea of pushing municipal and teacher pension obligations back to the hundreds of municipalities/ school districts that created those obligations. That did not go over well in red and blue areas and one of the many reasons he lost his re-election bid, in the battle between two billionaires.
His primary challenger’s plan was to have an “honest conversation” with retirees and employees with accrued pension benefits. Yeah she lost to the then sitting Governor.
So Pritzker won with his plan to make recreational marijuana legal and use those taxes and to amend the state constitution by public referendum from a flat to a progressive state income tax. That’s up for vote this Fall and will likely pass.
As an aside, in 2005, legislation was passed to cap future changes to teacher pension benefits. If a district chooses to exceed the cap, the state imposes a financial penalty on the district. One would think this would compel districts to tow the line. I live in a Republican majority area and the pension benefits are the richest in the state. Penalties are a component of local property taxes.
Having lived in too many Republican strongholds in multiple states, I have seen the “ for the children” thing motivate otherwise conservative voters to support debt and high property taxes.
Close to 20,000 pensioners are getting more than $100,000 a year in retirement benefits - with many getting $300,000 and up, and the top guy getting more than a half-a-million dollars a year. First thing to do is cut the top dog's pension to $200,000 a year (more than enough), and then cap everyone else at $100,000. (One of the ways these greedy "public servants" end up with so much riches is that they pad their final years with tons of overtime, inflating the base upon which their pension is calculated.)
^^^^This exactly right. Many are do nothing jobs in the first place, then they run up overtime in their last year to inflate the base in which their pension is calculated. It is criminal to fleece taxpayers like this. People should not be getting rich from NO RISK Government jobs!
I'm so pleased to see that most of us feel the same way. Unfortunately, in the end, pensioners will get shafted, and those responsible will walk.
Pensioners will NOT get shafted. The state Supreme Court upheld the state constitution that views accrued pension benefits as a legal contract.
What can change is an amendment via public referendum to the state constitution to replace pension benefits with a 401k like plan for NEW HIRES. Thus far, no Governor, red or blue, has the balls to take this on.
Somehow I doubt Illinois will have the will to amend their own constitution though, and big tax hikes will be what actually happens.
Illinois public pensioners are hopefully smart enough to sock away some of those fat pensions though, but I wouldn't count on it based on some of the state level public pensioners I have spoken too about such things.
It’s accrued benefits, a legal contract, whether retired or still working that can’t be changed. This has already been litigated by the state Supreme Court.
What can change, is who pays. The former Governor, a Republican, floated the idea of pushing municipal and teacher pension obligations back to the hundreds of municipalities/ school districts that created those obligations. That did not go over well in red and blue areas and one of the many reasons he lost his re-election bid, in the battle between two billionaires.
.
That is actually a good idea moving forward, pro rating the burden onto those that create it. One is never so free as when spending the money of somebody else.
Private pensions have required funding levels that if you fall below require additional contributions.
Most govt. pensions do not have specified funding levels and are some combination of funding and pay-go from current revenues.
So while the govt. has to PAY them, they absolutely do not have to FUND them like the private ones under ERISA.
Bottom Line: Illinois owes a ton of money because they have not set aside sufficient money to pay pensions accrued in the past. They have not properly funded their pensions and are not a part of ERISA.
Agreed.
ERISA was created in 1974 and transitioned private employer sponsored plans from Pay as You Go to require pre- funding based on actuarial tables. No such requirement was imposed on state/ municipal plans. Each state was free to remain Pay as You Go or create their own prefunding plans based on whatever actuarial and investment tables/ assumptions they choose to use.
In the 90’s, Illinois changed its minimum funding requirements to amortize requirements over a very generous period and in doing so, created a culture of kicking the can. Despite this, it was not long before it became necessary to borrow funds to meet minimum requirements and then simply not covering minimum requirements.
Percentage funded at the state level is meaningless unless one understands the state specific underlying assumptions, minimum funding requirements, actuarial tables and ROI goals.
Pensioners will NOT get shafted. The state Supreme Court upheld the state constitution that views accrued pension benefits as a legal contract.
What can change is an amendment via public referendum to the state constitution to replace pension benefits with a 401k like plan for NEW HIRES. Thus far, no Governor, red or blue, has the balls to take this on.
The state supreme court must follow the state constitution. If an amendment to the constitution is passed that allows the impairment of accrued benefits, then the previous ruling would be invalidated.
The state constitution is the highest authority. The state supreme court cannot invalidate a constitutional amendment that changes an existing part of the constitution.
The only limitations on what a state constitution can do are what the federal constitution reserves as federal powers and rights.
My household is a net payer in of income taxes so...you personally didn't send me a Coronavirus check.
Donald Trump sent it in my behalf, but its my money either way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
here goes Beach again 
with anotehr one of his pension rants.
