The Chicago Fed Unveils Its "Solution" To The Pension Problem

February 18, 2019, 04:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by grumpy1:
Illinois is now considering taxing private retirement funds, 401Ks/pensions/IRAs, to pay for Illinois public pensions!

Talk about accelerating the mass exodus of people fleeing Illinois. If this happens it will accelerate our plans to leave for Tennessee.

The new $15 hour minimum wage is also going to cause a lot more businesses to leave also. Brilliant.

https://finance.yahoo.com/vide...ement-164356321.html

Also.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org...an-taxpayer-incomes/

State spending outruns Illinois incomes

Illinois lawmakers have been on a spending spree. State spending per capita grew 48 percent faster than Illinoisans’ personal income per capita from 2007 to 2017.

I've been saying for years it is only a matter of time until the federal government attempts to do this.

February 18, 2019, 04:45 PM

ZSMICHAEL

Considering the state representatives are voting on THEIR pension plan the solution will be for someone else to pay. Self interest at its best.

February 18, 2019, 05:12 PM

Balzé Halzé

Outright theft.

February 18, 2019, 05:15 PM

SIGSense

quote:
Originally posted by grumpy1:
Illinois is now considering taxing private retirement funds, 401Ks/pensions/IRAs, to pay for Illinois public pensions!

Most Americans are not aware that the Obama Admin actually had meetings in the Treasury where they discussed SEIZING all private retirement money (401K, IRA etc). Obama said that the trillions sitting in those plans could be immediately put to use on social programs. Your money would be "managed" for you, by Uncle Sam.

Sources: https://www.politifact.com/vir...-says-congress-cons/

https://www.annuitywatchusa.co...nt-eyeing-your-401k/

February 18, 2019, 05:28 PM

Graniteguy

quote:
Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by CPD SIG:
When I become King, you get to PICK ONE. That's it. No double or triple dipping into pension funds.

I agree with most of what you said. However, (and this is coming from someone with _no_ pension), it would seem only fair that a person who puts in twenty in the military and earns a pension, then gets out and puts in another twenty somewhere else where that would result in pension eligibility get both pensions.

To me, there are two problems: Eligibility requirements and that public pensions even exist.

Eligibility: if pensions are going to exist, someone who serves twenty years probably ought to be eligible, but some [expletive deleted] politician who serves a few minutes should not be eligible. In fact I’d go farther and say there should be no pensions for politicians, regardless of how long they serve. Politicians should serve the public briefly, then go back to real life. Giving them pensions only encourages them to stay.

Public pensions: This is just another way to kick the can down the road, something politicians do too darned much anyway. If public pensions were outlawed and public agencies could only provide defined contribution plans (I think it is 403b, but whatever the name is, the analog of private companies 401k plans) they wouldn’t be able to make future promises, they would have to pay now, not pay some now and promise more later.

Obviously, outlawing pensions would apply to new hires. Some sort of workout would be required for retirees and existing employees who hired on with the promise of a pension. Math says employees and retirees will never get what they were promised, but just wiping out everything isn’t going to fly.

And - not all pensions are created equal. Take a look what a 20-year E-7 gets for a military retirement pension - not too far above the poverty level and certainly not enough to live off of - even in the most economically advantaged parts of our country.