Good and bad news for Illinois

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2010
38,220
6,513
1,140
Where ever I go, there I am.
Analysis: Illinois pension fix faces political, legal hurdles

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Illinois lawmakers begin a two-month push on Monday to enact major pension reform, under pressure from taxpayers, workers, business groups and bond investors to fix the worst-funded state pension system in the United States.

The key objective: To put together a package of reform measures that are capable of addressing a nearly $100 billion unfunded pension liability, while still standing up to anticipated court challenges.

The state's constitution prohibits reduction in pension benefits to active and retired workers, and reform efforts have been inhibited by warnings made by union groups and others that they intend to file lawsuits to block implementation of many reforms.

The president of the Illinois Senate, John Cullerton, a Democrat, said he is preparing a two-pronged attack. He first will seek to pass a bill similar to the measure the House approved late last month that would impose restrictions on cost-of-living increases to pension payments to retirees.

As a back up, in case those reforms hit a constitutional roadblock, Cullerton said he will seek to offer workers a choice. They will either receive the benefits already promised, but have to forego state-funded healthcare care in retirement, or they will accept limits on cost-of-living increases in their pensions and still have access to state-funded healthcare.

"I'm trying to come up with a winning combination to pass a bill," Cullerton said.

Pensions are devouring an ever-increasing share of state revenue. That is a worry for the state's bondholders, as well as vendors, school districts and others doing business with a state that is running as much as a year behind on $9 billion in unpaid bills.

Illinois Income Tax Increase: Legislature Approves 66% Tax Hike

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn defended a massive increase in state income taxes passed by lawmakers Wednesday and promised to quickly sign the measure to help heal the state's ailing finances.

Lawmakers worked overnight to pass the increase to raise the personal income tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent for four years – a 66 percent increase. Corporate income taxes also will rise, but Quinn rejected the notion that it would decimate businesses.

The rate increase might be the biggest any state has adopted in percentage terms while grappling with recent economic woes. Nevertheless, Illinois' tax rate would remain lower than in several other states in the region.

"It's important for their state government not to be a fiscal basket case," Quinn told reporters outside his Capitol office.


:lol:
 
Remind me what the good news in that was. I mean except if you're in Indiana and benefit from business fleeing the state.
 
Bout time.

Just who in the hell expects taxpayers to continue to fund they're lives after they retire?? Good god. The taxpayers of a State need to take care of the retirees hc for life??

Whoever put that bs on the table should be shot along with whoever approved it.

Hell. I was reading about a Town in Cali thats supporting three police departments. Only one of which is working. No wonder Cali and Ill are broke.
 
The tax increase happened three years ago, where have you been.

Also, state income tax can be deducted from your federal income tax. So it really isn't as big of a bite as you think it is, as it puts you in a lower tax bracket if you itemize.
 
The tax increase happened three years ago, where have you been.

Also, state income tax can be deducted from your federal income tax. So it really isn't as big of a bite as you think it is, as it puts you in a lower tax bracket if you itemize.

Yes! Higher taxes actually SAVE you money. Thanks, Joe.


Where do they teach this stuff??
 
If you are a State Worker who has devoted 20 or 30 or 40 years to State service, with the understanding that when you retire, you receive a pension worth X, then it is grotesquely unfair to the Worker, to break that promise once they have retired, and no longer have any career-time ahead of them, to save-up money to live on, trying to compensate for that breach of faith.

Was it prudent, on the part of the State, to make those promises? Dunno. A lot of factors to consider, I'm sure. But, once the promise has been made, it should be honored. Those Workers have been making material reliance upon that promise and have provided ample 'consideration' for that promise for decades, and kept the faith on their end. The State needs to keep the faith on theirs, as well.
 
If you are a State Worker who has devoted 20 or 30 or 40 years to State service, with the understanding that when you retire, you receive a pension worth X, then it is grotesquely unfair to the Worker, to break that promise once they have retired, and no longer have any career-time ahead of them, to save-up money to live on, trying to compensate for that breach of faith.

Was it prudent, on the part of the State, to make those promises? Dunno. A lot of factors to consider, I'm sure. But, once the promise has been made, it should be honored. Those Workers have been making material reliance upon that promise and have provided ample 'consideration' for that promise for decades, and kept the faith on their end. The State needs to keep the faith on theirs, as well.

The state has a duty to the taxpayers to remain solvent. They cannot do this by paying out 6 figure yearly pensions to people in their 50s for life.
 
If you are a State Worker who has devoted 20 or 30 or 40 years to State service, with the understanding that when you retire, you receive a pension worth X, then it is grotesquely unfair to the Worker, to break that promise once they have retired, and no longer have any career-time ahead of them, to save-up money to live on, trying to compensate for that breach of faith.

Was it prudent, on the part of the State, to make those promises? Dunno. A lot of factors to consider, I'm sure. But, once the promise has been made, it should be honored. Those Workers have been making material reliance upon that promise and have provided ample 'consideration' for that promise for decades, and kept the faith on their end. The State needs to keep the faith on theirs, as well.

The state has a duty to the taxpayers to remain solvent. They cannot do this by paying out 6 figure yearly pensions to people in their 50s for life.
Then maybe it should not have made that promise to those Workers.

But they did.

Welcome to your consequences.

Pay up.

( and this from an Illinois taxpayer who will be helping with the bailout and who has no dog in this fight on the Labor side - not a State Worker, nor a friend nor relative of one )
 
Last edited:
If you are a State Worker who has devoted 20 or 30 or 40 years to State service, with the understanding that when you retire, you receive a pension worth X, then it is grotesquely unfair to the Worker, to break that promise once they have retired, and no longer have any career-time ahead of them, to save-up money to live on, trying to compensate for that breach of faith.

Was it prudent, on the part of the State, to make those promises? Dunno. A lot of factors to consider, I'm sure. But, once the promise has been made, it should be honored. Those Workers have been making material reliance upon that promise and have provided ample 'consideration' for that promise for decades, and kept the faith on their end. The State needs to keep the faith on theirs, as well.

The state has a duty to the taxpayers to remain solvent. They cannot do this by paying out 6 figure yearly pensions to people in their 50s for life.
Then maybe it should not have made that promise to those Workers.

But they did.

Welcome to your consequences.

Pay up.

( and this from an Illinois taxpayer who will be helping with the bailout and who has no dog in this fight - not a State Worker - and not a friend or relative of one, either )

As I recall all agreements require two parties. The unions were overly greedy in demanding terms they should have realized the gov't could not meet. So welcome to their consequences: gov'ts unable to make good on promises and citizens denigrating police and firefighters for their outsized pensions.
 
"...As I recall all agreements require two parties..."
Indeed. And both parties agreed to those pensions. Case closed.

Everything beyond that is mere juicy rationalization in an attempt to justify a contemplated breach of faith and contracts.
 
"...As I recall all agreements require two parties..."
Indeed. And both parties agreed to those pensions. Case closed.

Everything beyond that is mere juicy rationalization in an attempt to justify a contemplated breach of faith and contracts.

And ex-Ilinois guys like myself left...... you pay for it.
Yep.

I don't like it.

But I believe that is what we should do.

Even if we have to cut a lot of other things down to the bare bone, in order to do it.
 
The good news for Illinois is that gun free zone New York wants to give them a run for their money in violent crime.

Mayhem in the city: 25 people shot in 48 hours* - NY Daily News

Violence surged like the mercury Sunday, with three more fatalities from gun violence — and eight others wounded in shootings — bringing the total number of bullet-riddled in the city to 25 in less than 48 hours.
 
"...As I recall all agreements require two parties..."
Indeed. And both parties agreed to those pensions. Case closed.

Everything beyond that is mere juicy rationalization in an attempt to justify a contemplated breach of faith and contracts.

Good. So there is no point assigning blame. Rather look at the options going forward. The agreements are not sustainable. They will bankrupt the municipalities invovled and make life intolerable for the citizens. So they need to be renegotiated. That's what happens in business all the time when agreements no longer work.
 
Indeed. And both parties agreed to those pensions. Case closed.

Everything beyond that is mere juicy rationalization in an attempt to justify a contemplated breach of faith and contracts.

And ex-Ilinois guys like myself left...... you pay for it.
Yep.

I don't like it.

But I believe that is what we should do.

Even if we have to cut a lot of other things down to the bare bone, in order to do it.

We had to destroy Detroit in order to save it.
r-DETROIT-2025-large570.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top