The first of many pension dominoes falling State confiscates funds

a reply to: Edumakated

If the people choose to elect representatives who are, or become, beholden to the unions, for re-election or any other reason,

How can you then argue that the people, the taxpayers, are not being represented at the bargaining table when pensions are negotiated?

If I elect you to represent me in a negotiation and you subsequently do a terrible job in that negotiation, I was still represented. Poorly, but represented nonetheless.

And don’t forget, today’s pensioners WERE yesterday’s taxpayers. They are the very people who elected the representatives who negotiated the plans all those years ago.

And not all of those taxpayers were union members when they made their choices at the polls.

Let us also not forget that, except for those retirees who have fled with their pensions, that the pensioners who have remained, in many cases, are, themselves, still taxpayers. And as such, will feel the pain of this fiasco, often more severely due to their significantly smaller, and now fixed, incomes.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
If you enter into a contract with another party, BOTH parties are expected to adhere to, and honor the term of the negotiated contract.

All State Unions and Pensions should be abolished.

Period.

Allowing government employees to unionize was one of the stupidest things ever allowed to happen. Without them there would be no State Pensions.

Why should a State employee - think your local DMV or Welfare office worker - get a golden parachute? That is pure insanity.

Why should those who choose public service be granted any fewer rights than those in the private sector?

Are try to say that some folks just aren’t as “equal” as other folks?

If private sector employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively, why shouldn’t public sector employees have the same right?

Are public employees to be considered, in your opinion, “slaves”, and consider themselves grateful for whatever compensation they are given (if any) simply for the privilege of serving their masters?

Honestly, your apparent contempt for public employees, who happen to be fellow citizens, or at least, fellow human beings, is quite disturbing.

a reply to: JustJohnny

It's called a self correcting problem, actually.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

No one is forcing anyone to become a pubic SERVANT. That is their choice of occupation. As someone else stated earlier in the thread, you can't have public SERVANTs collectively bargain because the tax payers are unable represent themselves at the bargaining table.

So you have politicians that promise the world with no balance and we are seeing where that form of abuse leads.

originally posted by: DJMSN
What happens on the national level when Social Security finally fails ? I have heard of its failure for as long as I have been alive. I think we are finally at the tipping point when its paying out more than it takes in within the next few years. Illinois pensions have long been unsustainable and those who negotiated and recieve them have known. The politician's at the state level have probably taken funds from those pensions to cover shortfalls elsewhere. Congress has continued to "borrow" money from SS contributing to its demise. I can see a future bailout for the state from Congress who seem to be oblivious of simple math

I don't know how true this is, but I've always heard they spent the money in Social Security to pay for the Vietnam War, and they've been kicking the can down the road ever since.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Not positive, but I believe LBJ made the proposal to appropriate funds for the Vietnam War from the SS trust fund but Congress eventually authorized money from the regular budget process so he did not go thru with it. Different accounts of exactly when the raids begin on the trust, but many stories point back to 1983 when borrowing really begin in earnest. Certainly other prior years dipped into the fund but was usually paid back. Upwards 2.5 trillion is believed how much the trust is owed currently. Money taken during the Regan-Bush era most certainly went towards undeclared and declared war actions but Congress has often has dipped into the trust to cover pet projects and shortfalls in the general budget for many years now

And perhaps it's not exactly fair to say they have "borrowed" from the trust proper. SS has actually taken in more than it pays out since 1983. This "surplus" is what Congress is borrowing, and does pay interest, to the tune of some 800 plus million.

The collected money by law must be invested in various government bonds and has earned about 2.5 percent interest. That surplus is basically being utilized in the general budget by Congress. The SS Trust is required to give an annual report on its status. Currently it seems to be in good shape. It considers birth rate, annual cost of living adjustments, and numerous other factors to determine the funds health.

There is concern of the funds future as factors are beginning to turn, babyboomers set to retire, and estimates of smaller workforce etc, equals less collected and a forecast of more paid out in the direct future. I suppose the fund is sound and with the status quo will survive awhile longer but the forecast for the future is bleak with estimates of 25% cuts to pay outs. One of the few government projects which seems to actually work and pay for itself from the collections. It needs work to remain so

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JustJohnny


Oddly enough the businesses you say only focus on profits are not the ones that will be defaulting on these pension plans.

The pensions about to default are city and state pensions.
I think they should ask their union reps what's going to cover the shortfall.

But it NOT up to the union to cover the shortfall, caused by the city and/or state underfunding the agreed terms of the pension contract the city and/or state negotiated with the union.

The onus for the shortfall rests with the city/state.

What good is the union if they don't pressure the city and state to fulfill their agreements?
GM is on strike right now.
The union is pressuring a business.

Why have these other unions not done their jobs for years and years?

That and they have claimed to much of the collective pie for it not to fail eventually..

actually its the unions job to PROTECT the pensions by DOING RESEARCH AND PROMOTING what will give the best chance of achieving this.

there is no logical way (or even illogical way) they can justify backing the political system(s), people, parties , and the way it has always been set up that this was EVER A STABLE LONG TERM SITUATION.

Especially given that alot (growing more everyday) of state pension systems have been been underfunded, the amount negotiated on retirement was sustainable, and the clear fact MANY STATES HAVE BEEN RUNNING DEFICITS in the millions for decades..

what they are relying on is TAXPAYERS being required to bail out the pensions no matter what and that they can continue to have the same levels/conditions no matter what the economy is.

the nation of Greece had this attitude and how are their pensioners doing ?

they took the union members money, payed off the politicians and figured the party would never end...

now the brick wall is coming and they STILL THINK they are immune and union members (with supporters) think they are entitled to money that does not exist.

now they are facing the real possibility that their non government union brothers already have of pensions being worth nothing (ex) like bethehem steel.

the union members should be DEMANDING that their leaders give back their pensions, bonuses, pay for the lousy job they have done and look in the mirror at who didnt even attempt to stop it .

I hate to say this but just because your a GOVERNMENT UNION person with a GOVERNMENT PENSION does not make you immune to economic reality and bad choices.

along with expecting us TAXPAYERS to bail you out.....

btw before someone slings the usual "your just anti union", "you are not compassionate / hater", "your a republican, trump supporter, ect" , "you dont know what your talking about" , ect know this.

I do have a county pension though IMRF and they though careful planning, reasonable (abit wish it were more) levels of pension payout, and fiscal responsibility we are over 85 percent funded ....

how it should have been done by your unions.

Scrounger

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
If you enter into a contract with another party, BOTH parties are expected to adhere to, and honor the term of the negotiated contract.

All State Unions and Pensions should be abolished.

Period.

Allowing government employees to unionize was one of the stupidest things ever allowed to happen. Without them there would be no State Pensions.

Why should a State employee - think your local DMV or Welfare office worker - get a golden parachute? That is pure insanity.

Why should those who choose public service be granted any fewer rights than those in the private sector?

Are try to say that some folks just aren’t as “equal” as other folks?

If private sector employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively, why shouldn’t public sector employees have the same right?

Are public employees to be considered, in your opinion, “slaves”, and consider themselves grateful for whatever compensation they are given (if any) simply for the privilege of serving their masters?

Honestly, your apparent contempt for public employees, who happen to be fellow citizens, or at least, fellow human beings, is quite disturbing.

No we are not wanting them to have "fewer rights that those in private sector"

we are DEMANDING they have the SAME RIGHTS AND RISKS that we have in the private sector

that means that if they make poor choices, to large demands, unreasonable expectations , and think they are immune to economic realities they face the consequences of their actions

not expect much less DEMAND the rest of us TAXPAYERS to foot the bill

you choose to work for the city, state, federal government.
you CHOOSE your union leaders.
you CHOOSE not to face economic realty the rest of us have to.

then you CHOOSE what happens to you be good or bad.

what is happening is the situation has become so bad that you no longer are immune to ECONOMIC REALITY and the "taxpayer will bail us out" will no longer work.

BTW if you "had the same rights as the private sector" your "company" would have been bankrupt, leaders in prison (both elected and union) , and your job along with pension GONE.

You know like the workers of bethlehem steel, mongomery wards, sears, ect.

so if your looking for sympathy from us "private sector taxpayers (aka ONES YOUR DEMANDING TO BAIL YOU OUT) " im sorry but your barking up the wrong tree.

hell I cant even afford the tree your barking up..

scrounger

a reply to: JAGStorm

Excellent thread! Illinois's governor told us that taxes had to be raised, because 90 people @ day are moving out of Illinois, and that lost tax revenue had to be replace.

This time next year, an additional 32,000 Illinois residents will be former residents. Guess what governor Prickster will say, once again.

a reply to: carewemust
I am a resident of IL and was under no illusions what would happen when (not if) now Gov Pritzker got elected.

I have to stay until (someday I hope) i can leave my job with a decent retirement pension (county government union employee but not state run , its IMRF and 85-90 percent self funded) .

I know the pain and it sucks

scrounger

a reply to: carewemust

I live in the STL area, and when Gov. P got elected we all knew what was going to happen to us south of Springfield. With Maggy running things and Pritsy going along with it all we can do is sit back and watch it all burn...