-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
The so-called gold pensions are any thing but that. A few take advantage of loop holes which should be illegal. I my case for a local Chicago suburb I worked 30 years and get 3500 a month. I put in 100000 over the years which average return of about 8.5 a percent per year. Many get about what I do. There was no choice to be in the plan or not.
Thing are not much better for us here in California. Thankfully, the internet is starting to shine a very bright light on these problems and change is beginning to happen across the whole nation. This create momentum. An excellent website to stay on top of all this is pensiontsunami.com.
CA CHING, CA CHING, CA CHING! YEAH, IT MUST BE THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN! My Union Boss down at the Town Hall emailed me yesterday and. Told me that this article was hitting the Papers today, and He told Me. to make it Look like I was Working till this Blows Over in a week. I know the routine! In a week, I’ll be back to my usual activity of. Collecting A Paycheck for Doing Nothing! Hey, Private Sector. Workers; You really gotta Pony Up more Taxes! I need at least a 10 %. raise! My Cabin Cruiser at… Read more »
Taxpayers should contribute NO MORE towards the funding of Public Sector pensions than what THEY typically get from their employers …which is their employer’s Social Security contribution on their behalf and a 3%-5% of pay “match” into a 401K Plan.
To the extent Public Sector Plans require MORE than what Private Sector workers get, either the workers THEMSELVES can pay for it or the Taxpayers should simply renege on those excessive promises.
One more time, why do we have these at all, and not the same choices the public has?
Aren’t we really saying defined benefit plans are hopelessly murky? Only an actuary can understand what they will cost and the actuaries who review them are conflicted? Mr. Palermo is obviously an unusual village trustee, being a trained financial person who studies the subject, but can we expect that from other local officials?
Very frustrating trying to figure this out for my city, Evanston. I am quite sure we have a bad pension problem and I don’t trust what i have heard about the numbers, because I assume they rig their assumptions as this says. How are we supposed to get to the bottom of this?