Lori Lightfoot's Chicago: 1.4 billion of the cities 1.7 billion dollars of property tax goes to pension.. (retired, war)
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.
I did not read the entire report but I don't know where they are getting some of their numbers. California is nowhere near only 7% underfunded. They are hovering around 28% underfunded. Which was down about 10% from the previous "banner" year, but that means even in the banner year they were only 82% funded. With this loss they don't expect to be able to get to fully funded until around 2046...that is a problem.
You can debate the reason why they are underfunded, but it doesn't take away the fact that they are underfunded, and most of the issues with severe underfunding are in more "Blue" States and Cities.
The numbers I posted were not the % underfunded, I clearly stated the components were the ratio of the unfunded liability and GDP.
That ratio gives a better handle on the severity of the problem.
The chart in my link with the dots showed BOTH the unfunded % (Y-axis) and the ratio to GDP (x-axis) in the same chart.
I'm really surprised another Daley hasn't become Mayor in "Daleyville".
The old man Daley and his son, combined, ruled Chicago for 41 years I believe.
And I'm guessing, one day, Chicago will have another Daley Mayor.
Dubbed long ago, Chicago is the most corrupt city in the country, and Illinois the most corrupt state in the country?
I'm very surprised, since this has been ongoing for decades, that Chicago hasn't filed bankruptcy long ago.
This.
And while no particular fan of Lightfoot, the Illinois pension issue generally, and Chicago specifically, is nowhere near her fault. They were overpromising and underdelivering on pensions and funding for 50 years before that moron took the gig.
She isn't helping anything by being this week's buck passer, but by no means can you lay that particular problem at her feet and demand a next day solution for a half century's worth of malfeasance.
You can debate the reason why they are underfunded, but it doesn't take away the fact that they are underfunded, and most of the issues with severe underfunding are in more "Blue" States and Cities.
The % unfunded is a rather useless number in and of itself.
For example, is a state with an 80% funded pension liability of 1 trillion in better shape than a state that is 0% funded and has a liability of 1 billion? (all else being equal)
If California and New Mexico each had 1 trillion in unfunded liability, which situation is more severe?
Thus comparing the dollars of unfunded liability relative to the state's GDP or some other measure like annual budget shows which states are truly in *trouble* and may struggle to pay that obligation.
And while no particular fan of Lightfoot, the Illinois pension issue generally, and Chicago specifically, is nowhere near her fault. They were overpromising and underdelivering on pensions and funding for 50 years before that moron took the gig.
She isn't helping anything by being this week's buck passer, but by no means can you lay that particular problem at her feet and demand a next day solution for a half century's worth of malfeasance.
I agree, this is not Lightfoots fault.
THat said, even if it was she'd blame someone else and call her critics racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ like the complete POS she is.
And while no particular fan of Lightfoot, the Illinois pension issue generally, and Chicago specifically, is nowhere near her fault. They were overpromising and underdelivering on pensions and funding for 50 years before that moron took the gig.
She isn't helping anything by being this week's buck passer, but by no means can you lay that particular problem at her feet and demand a next day solution for a half century's worth of malfeasance.
Took the words out of my mouth. This topic is worth discussing and the policy worth criticizing. Lightfoot is also worth criticizing, but not so much for this. No reason to try to blame her for this and distract from critiquing the actual policy and structure that got the city here.
Status:
"On the road with Kid Charlamagne"
(set 16 days ago)
8,018 posts, read 5,826,092 times
Reputation: 9672
Part of the problem with Chicago -- other than the fact that it is likely the most corrupt city in the country, and is proud to call Becky Obama a resident --- is that it has essentially been shrinking since 1950.
Population:
1950 -- 3.6 million
1960 -- 3.4 million
1970 -- 3.3 million
1980 -- 3.0 million
1990 -- 2.8 million
2000 -- 2.9 million
2010 -- 2.7 million
2020 -- 2.7 million
So in 70 years, they have lost nearly 1 million residents. Factor in white flight, and a fair number of the 2.7 million remaining citizens are probably not contributing a lot in the way of taxes. Factor in corruption, black on black crime, and incompetence of elected officials, and it is a miracle that Chicago has not lost 2 million residents.
Inversely, the state of Illinois has grown from 10 million to 12 million over that period of time, which paints the picture of anyone with any sense is leaving the city of Chicago. How much longer before Mayor Beetlejuice's eyes really bug out when they have to file for bankruptcy?
Took the words out of my mouth. This topic is worth discussing and the policy worth criticizing. Lightfoot is also worth criticizing, but not so much for this. No reason to try to blame her for this and distract from critiquing the actual policy and structure that got the city here.
Has she stopped these unsustainable pension plans for new hires under her watch?
Or, is the Fox still in the Henhouse in Chicago? Gov'ts granting themselves massive pension payouts is a UGE conflict of interest, and should be shut down, & phased out asap. Taxpayers are being robbed blind by gov't hacks gorging themselves like parasites sucking the blood out of its hosts...taxpayers.
The % unfunded is a rather useless number in and of itself.
For example, is a state with an 80% funded pension liability of 1 trillion in better shape than a state that is 0% funded and has a liability of 1 billion? (all else being equal)
If California and New Mexico each had 1 trillion in unfunded liability, which situation is more severe?
Thus comparing the dollars of unfunded liability relative to the state's GDP or some other measure like annual budget shows which states are truly in *trouble* and may struggle to pay that obligation.
I actually don't think either State has 1 Trillion in unfunded liability, but of course, if everything was equal the State that was in a lesser position to fund it would be in worse shape.
However, with that when California says it doesn't expect to be fully funded until 2046, it may be better than other States. But I still wouldn't call them in good shape.
I actually don't think either State has 1 Trillion in unfunded liability, but of course, if everything was equal the State that was in a lesser position to fund it would be in worse shape.
However, with that when California says it doesn't expect to be fully funded until 2046, it may be better than other States. But I still wouldn't call them in good shape.
It was an example.
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.