(12-10-2014 01:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "You're just p!ssed that you can't retire at 52, that you'll have to work till you are 57."

Wrong!!! You speak of what you do not know. I started teaching at 22. I could have retired at 52. 30 years in was what I signed up for. They pushed it back at the earliest I can retire is 60 at a significantly reduced rate. So not only have they stolen 8 years of retirement they have also reduced my compensation.

You guys cheer these thieving bastards! They stole from a group of people so they can cut taxes. if they did that for new hires I could see your point. They know what they are getting in to then at least. To do that to people who are already on the job for 20 years is outright theft. They should have reduced the politicians who voted to screw over the little guy pensions at the same rate.

So you have to work until 60 - welcome to the world the rest of us live in. And your pension IS STILL better than for most in the private sector. What is it you get at 60 - 67% of your last 3 years average?

Mach, the only way you can keep the pension funds solvent is to increase the years worked requirement. The math won't work if they let you leave at 52 and then collect retirement for as many years as you worked.............unless you're willing to take a significant cut in pay to get more on the back end.

Didn't think so.

Just raise taxes to cover the shortage.

Oh wait ... everyone will leave for greener pastures, like Texas.

(12-10-2014 02:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  gentleman,

They are not raising taxes. THEY ARE CUTTING TAXES!!!!

My taxes are going up.

The Illinois state state, not total taxes paid in the state (city, county, sales tax, property, etc..)- just the state tax will revert back. Individuals will revert back to 3.75% and companies revert back to 5.25%. Illinois had a state tax increase that expires next year.

That does not mean that overall taxes will be lower. I still pay around $10,000/year in property taxes. Imagine around half of your mortgage payment going to taxes. Yep, welcome the the Land of Lincoln.

(12-10-2014 08:04 PM)chess Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  gentleman,

They are not raising taxes. THEY ARE CUTTING TAXES!!!!

My taxes are going up.

The Illinois state state, not total taxes paid in the state (city, county, sales tax, property, etc..)- just the state tax will revert back. Individuals will revert back to 3.75% and companies revert back to 5.25%. Illinois had a state tax increase that expires next year.

That does not mean that overall taxes will be lower. I still pay around $10,000/year in property taxes. Imagine around half of your mortgage payment going to taxes. Yep, welcome the the Land of Lincoln.

Damn it, I thought we were going back to 3%. I forgot what it was before this increase.

(12-10-2014 08:59 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 08:04 PM)chess Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 02:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  gentleman,

They are not raising taxes. THEY ARE CUTTING TAXES!!!!

My taxes are going up.

The Illinois state state, not total taxes paid in the state (city, county, sales tax, property, etc..)- just the state tax will revert back. Individuals will revert back to 3.75% and companies revert back to 5.25%. Illinois had a state tax increase that expires next year.

That does not mean that overall taxes will be lower. I still pay around $10,000/year in property taxes. Imagine around half of your mortgage payment going to taxes. Yep, welcome the the Land of Lincoln.

Damn it, I thought we were going back to 3%. I forgot what it was before this increase.

I did a quick internet search for the rate. It may be 3%. I wouldn't be surprised if it changes back to 5% or so.

I can't stand it when you righties pull the private sector card. We all knew the score coming out of college. Crappy initial pay for 10 years. Enough money to raise a family after 10 and retire at 30. That was the deal. People who would ask for help on homework in college were signing on for 3 or 4 times the amount I started out on. I would suspect some of you had friends who became teachers. You know how poor they were in those early years. Those who had to work two jobs to afford a house down payment. The guys who who drove 10 year old vehicles. They screwed over the people who they could. Just remember this thievery when they confiscate your 401k's. It will be a big deal when it happens to you. Now... not so much. Hell we start threads about it! THIEVING BASTARDS!

and the yahoot who thinks the union can help out. What fuken planet do you live on????? They have absolutely no power in this arena. NONE!! Hell in 10 years if the Hitler youth get their way they'll be gone.

(12-11-2014 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't stand it when you righties pull the private sector card. We all knew the score coming out of college. Crappy initial pay for 10 years. Enough money to raise a family after 10 and retire at 30. That was the deal. People who would ask for help on homework in college were signing on for 3 or 4 times the amount I started out on. I would suspect some of you had friends who became teachers. You know how poor they were in those early years. Those who had to work two jobs to afford a house down payment. The guys who who drove 10 year old vehicles. They screwed over the people who they could. Just remember this thievery when they confiscate your 401k's. It will be a big deal when it happens to you. Now... not so much. Hell we start threads about it! THIEVING BASTARDS!
and the yahoot who thinks the union can help out. What fuken planet do you live on????? They have absolutely no power in this arena. NONE!! Hell in 10 years if the Hitler youth get their way they'll be gone.

Mach, I understand your frustration. But here's the problem. As Creb points out, the math doesn't work. The unions pushed for more and better retirement benefits and the politicians caved because it would be somebody else's problem. And you're somebody else.

The deal you were promised was a lie. Never had chance of working. The numbers don't work because they can't work. There was always going to be some point where the benefits were underfunded and somebody was going to have to pay.

Same thing as the post office. Same thing as GM. It's not limited to the public sector. Same thing for social security. It's going to become unsustainable at some future date unless we change things now. But nobody ever wants to take the heat now.

That money is as good as gone.

(12-11-2014 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't stand it when you righties pull the private sector card. We all knew the score coming out of college. Crappy initial pay for 10 years. Enough money to raise a family after 10 and retire at 30. That was the deal. People who would ask for help on homework in college were signing on for 3 or 4 times the amount I started out on. I would suspect some of you had friends who became teachers. You know how poor they were in those early years. Those who had to work two jobs to afford a house down payment. The guys who who drove 10 year old vehicles. They screwed over the people who they could. Just remember this thievery when they confiscate your 401k's. It will be a big deal when it happens to you. Now... not so much. Hell we start threads about it! THIEVING BASTARDS!
and the yahoot who thinks the union can help out. What fuken planet do you live on????? They have absolutely no power in this arena. NONE!! Hell in 10 years if the Hitler youth get their way they'll be gone.

Mach, I understand your frustration. But here's the problem. As Creb points out, the math doesn't work. The unions pushed for more and better retirement benefits and the politicians caved because it would be somebody else's problem. And you're somebody else.

The deal you were promised was a lie. Never had chance of working. The numbers don't work because they can't work. There was always going to be some point where the benefits were underfunded and somebody was going to have to pay.

Same thing as the post office. Same thing as GM. It's not limited to the public sector. Same thing for social security. It's going to become unsustainable at some future date unless we change things now. But nobody ever wants to take the heat now.

Owl, I actually understand his frustration as well.

Mach, the problem is that at the state level, they have to run a balanced budget - they can't just print money. Given that fact, the only options they have at the state level is to cut costs somewhere or raise taxes on everyone to cover the shortfall.

Raising the taxes, I know, would be your preferred route, but the politicians want to get re-elected and you can't just raise taxes on a on-going basis. Additionally, when you do raise those taxes beyond a certain point - you become California, New York or Illinois - places where industry (your tax base) provides the state with a large percentage of the revenue they collect - and these businesses start leaving for lower taxed areas.

Once the business exodus starts - lower tax revenues. It becomes a vicious circle - and at a city level you become Detroit.

You can't chase away, through high taxes, your business base. That leaves you with bearing a burden of having to work till you are 60. Oh the humanity! Sorry about that, but every entity that has followed the 30 years and out model fails - and it fails because the math just won't work given the increased life span of the population today.

(12-11-2014 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The unions pushed for more and better retirement benefits and the politicians caved because it would be somebody else's problem. And you're somebody else.
The deal you were promised was a lie. Never had chance of working. The numbers don't work because they can't work. There was always going to be some point where the benefits were underfunded and somebody was going to have to pay.
Same thing as the post office. Same thing as GM. It's not limited to the public sector. Same thing for social security. It's going to become unsustainable at some future date unless we change things now. But nobody ever wants to take the heat now.

How did Thatcher put it? "The basic problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Well, the process we have been watching unfold in recent years -- from Wisconsin to Rhode Island, from Detroit to San Bernardino to Jefferson Co. (Birmingham), and soon in Illinois -- is simply the process of "eventually" coming home to roost. I acknowledge that a lot of innocent people are going to suffer a lot of pain as a result, and I have felt some of that pain in my own life. I'm in favor if minimizing that pain, but I'm even more in favor of not bankrupting the cities, counties, states, and nation.

(12-11-2014 09:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  That money is as good as gone.

This.

(12-11-2014 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't stand it when you righties pull the private sector card. We all knew the score coming out of college. Crappy initial pay for 10 years. Enough money to raise a family after 10 and retire at 30. That was the deal. People who would ask for help on homework in college were signing on for 3 or 4 times the amount I started out on. I would suspect some of you had friends who became teachers. You know how poor they were in those early years. Those who had to work two jobs to afford a house down payment. The guys who who drove 10 year old vehicles. They screwed over the people who they could. Just remember this thievery when they confiscate your 401k's. It will be a big deal when it happens to you. Now... not so much. Hell we start threads about it! THIEVING BASTARDS!

and the yahoot who thinks the union can help out. What fuken planet do you live on????? They have absolutely no power in this arena. NONE!! Hell in 10 years if the Hitler youth get their way they'll be gone.

Guess I'm that yahoot. I'm your Huckleberry, Mach.

But, yea, that's gotta suck. All those promises, all those "guarantees", all the protection they were gonna offer. Seems they sold you a bill of goods.

Not only were they stealing from you with one hand, they were signing deals they knew had NO chance of surviving long term with the other.

Sounds to me like a pretty serious racket, and any criminal enterprise like that needs to be gone. Ten more years is too long.

It's a shame some of you are getting the pinch for their misdeeds, but as mentioned above it has to happen at some point. The system, as is, is simply unsustainable.

(12-11-2014 11:45 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can't stand it when you righties pull the private sector card. We all knew the score coming out of college. Crappy initial pay for 10 years. Enough money to raise a family after 10 and retire at 30. That was the deal. People who would ask for help on homework in college were signing on for 3 or 4 times the amount I started out on. I would suspect some of you had friends who became teachers. You know how poor they were in those early years. Those who had to work two jobs to afford a house down payment. The guys who who drove 10 year old vehicles. They screwed over the people who they could. Just remember this thievery when they confiscate your 401k's. It will be a big deal when it happens to you. Now... not so much. Hell we start threads about it! THIEVING BASTARDS!

and the yahoot who thinks the union can help out. What fuken planet do you live on????? They have absolutely no power in this arena. NONE!! Hell in 10 years if the Hitler youth get their way they'll be gone.

Guess I'm that yahoot. I'm your Huckleberry, Mach.

But, yea, that's gotta suck. All those promises, all those "guarantees", all the protection they were gonna offer. Seems they sold you a bill of goods.

Not only were they stealing from you with one hand, they were signing deals they knew had NO chance of surviving long term with the other.

Sounds to me like a pretty serious racket, and any criminal enterprise like that needs to be gone. Ten more years is too long.

It's a shame some of you are getting the pinch for their misdeeds, but as mentioned above it has to happen at some point. The system, as is, is simply unsustainable.

I just don't understand why the Union and state doesnt agree that their NEW employees begin paying substantially MORE into their pension to balance total pension inbalance.

The federal government has begun this practice in 2013 and has increased in 2014. It's expected to increase once again in 2015.

(12-10-2014 02:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's deviant, but since it's not happening to you and the party that you support is doing it, it's fine. As I said earlier. If you did this to new hires, I could stomach it.

Question 1) The Illinois Legislature is about 2/3 - 1/3 Democrat, and most of the people 'arguing' with you lean right. How is it 'the party we support' who are doing it to you?

Question 2) While you may not have intended it this way... aren't you saying the same thing? If it weren't happening to you, you'd be with it?

I certainly understand that new hires would be entering into the agreement KNOWING that things are different... doesn't 'raising taxes' do precisely the same thing, only to a different group of people?

ALL things like this benefit some people at the expense of others. The only question is, which group are you in THIS time.

I'll be honest, I seriously doubt that there were only 2 items changed.... that they cut your pension and they gave 'some' group a tax cut. I suspect there were all sorts of winners and losers.

1) The Ohio legislature who did it to me has a super majority of GOP.

2) At least they would know what is happening to them and could still make the choice to go to another region. If I were in charge I would hold harmless a group already in or I would at least give the option to pay in more to be able to retire at that certain point that I planned on.

(12-11-2014 01:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1) The Ohio legislature who did it to me has a super majority of GOP.

2) At least they would know what is happening to them and could still make the choice to go to another region. If I were in charge I would hold harmless a group already in or I would at least give the option to pay in more to be able to retire at that certain point that I planned on.

Mach, I'd bet everyone on here wishes they could retire at 52 on 2/3 of their highest years of earnings.

So, how far down along the years of service would you play the "grandfathered in" game? Anyone teaching when the change is made gets "grandfathered in" - so, 29 more years of an unsustainable retirement fund?

Look, it is unfortunate that you "got caught" when the change was made. Now you have to work to 60 - like just about every other worker in the country. Or maybe you'd like for the state to continue on the unsustainable path until "boom" - no pension for you. Like what happened to the Delphi salaried employees.

(12-11-2014 01:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1) The Ohio legislature who did it to me has a super majority of GOP.

Sorry. That wasn't clear to me... I may have missed the comment... but the fact that I thought you were talking about something the Democratic Illinois legislature did and I didn't beat them up over it proves the fallacy of your claim.

Politicians make choices. There are winners and losers. I wish politicians had FAR less control than they do, but NEITHER party seems to really want that, since the only party that has recently suggested such a thing has been summarily demonized by both sides... ESPECIALLY the left.

Quote:2) At least they would know what is happening to them and could still make the choice to go to another region. If I were in charge I would hold harmless a group already in or I would at least give the option to pay in more to be able to retire at that certain point that I planned on.

Ok, but you're still making choices and making different rules for THEM than you had. Your preferences are different, but they are still preferences. I'd note that in order to actually balance the budget... you'd have to do a TON to them to keep what you were promised... by that I mean, keeping from cutting 10% from 100% of a group requires a 100% cut to 10% of the people... or 50% from 20% of them if you're keeping things the same for the remaining 80 or 90%.

Simple scenario... You're in charge... you average adding 10% new teachers per year and you have to cut 10% of your budget to fund something you believe will ultimately pay dividends... whether it be increases in SNAP or Medicaid or whatever else... What are you going to do?

You're suffering under a partisan ideology that ALL tax cuts are bad... and while they certainly CAN be, and MAY be in this case, since the individual mandate penalty is a tax... and the government pays that mandate for poor people, that is vicariously a tax cut for them... as clearly was the FICA suspension that Obama supported... so not ALL tax cuts are Republican ideas and/or 'bad'. Neither party has a monopoly on doing favors for their constituencies.

Essentially you're arguing that because the contract was negotiated, it should be honored... and there is some merit to that... but 'your company' has new ownership every few years just like most of us. Social Security is also certainly different today than it was when I started working... and I have to work longer than I had originally bargained for. Obamacare cuts contractual reimbursements for physicians. Why would teachers be exempt from the same things that obviously impact everyone else?

Government never has enough of our money.

Funny how that works.

(12-11-2014 01:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1) The Ohio legislature who did it to me has a super majority of GOP.

Actually, the Ohio legislatures that did this to you were the ones 20 and 30 years ago that failed to consider that the plans they were putting in place were economically infeasible. When they chose not to bite the bullet and fund the plans soundly, they made this inevitable. All the current legislature is doing is being honest--probably for the first time.

Quote:2) At least they would know what is happening to them and could still make the choice to go to another region. If I were in charge I would hold harmless a group already in or I would at least give the option to pay in more to be able to retire at that certain point that I planned on.

I don't have the numbers, so I don't know if it is possible to hold harmless the people already in, but there is an argument to made in favor of doing so if the numbers work. The counter argument is that doing do might put you in such a position regarding new hires that you can't actually attract the new teachers you need going forward. The pay in more option is a good one, but again without the numbers I don't know how much that pay-in could be, and whether that's actually feasible for someone. Would you be willing to pay an extra $5,000/year to make it happen? $20,000/year?

5,000. Yes.

(12-12-2014 09:58 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  5,000. Yes.

Again, I don't have numbers in front of me, but if you're 25, the number might be $5,000. If you're 30, it's probably more like $6-7,000. 35, it's probably more like $9-10,000. 40, it's probably $12-14,000. 45, probably $20,000.