-- 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
Bribes by any other definition.
Just like Public Sector Worker Union campaign ‘contributions’ to Democrats. IL Taxpayers owe ZERO to Public Sector Worker Union pensions because they are ALL criminally ill-gotten gains.
And if we could only all get together and fight this I know a pipe dream on my part, but I firmly believe we could defeat them you are absolutely correct we the taxpayers do not owe public sector unions pensions a damn thing.
Let’s not think small potatoes here. While we’re at it let’s refuse to pay taxes as they currently exist.! No one should pay for anything they haven’t personally authorized, right? On the other hand I can hear it now: “but, it’s the will of the voters”. My, arse! Again, if you didn’t personally authorize to pay for something raise hell about it. That’s what we all want, isn’t it? Those who TRULY love this country as is surely will ask to pay for such things and be rewarded for it one way or another, won’t they? The rest of us… Read more »
Well, here I sit some three hours later and see only one voter here, a down voter. It’s hard to predict what I might see by tomorrow morning, but I’m starting to get the sense there are numerous low I. Q. knuckle draggers here who want the best of both worlds: people who love to complain about the cost of taxes yet seem to want all those services even so. Youse guys needs to get your act together and determine where you really fit in this spectrum of tax services vs. their costs. Surprise, surprise: you can’t have it both… Read more »
No, I want the services reduced too. I don’t really use any of them anyways. I’ve never been to Stroger hospital, my local library is staffed by pink-haired femcels, I don’t swim so I avoid the pool, and other than maybe walking my dog at the park (Which is just open space, maybe mow the lawn as maintenance) I rarely use government services.
I notice that most of the people who insist that the public demands more services are the ones who have government jobs and benefits. Funny how that works.
Thinking of the various taxing bodies involved that’s surely true for local services, but it’s less true most likely when a person is asked to pay for services from a greater distance—decreasing somewhat for state services and more so for federally provided services. Do most voters want to support more moon shots, for example? I know I don’t, and my bet is that most think as I do that it’s a waste of my tax dollars.
Wow, at least you made a decision here, and I applaud it. Essentially that’s where I am, too. If I could opt out of some governmental services, I would. I’d treat it much like I do with insurance decisions. I’d ponder my desire for any such services vs. my likelihood of actually needing them. You can’t insure yourself for every possible damage that could come into your life or things you’d like otherwise start to become too unaffordable. So, you make decisions about what you don’t want all that much and take the consequences! Government expects full payment on a… Read more »
The consumption of public services comes disproportionally from those who pay little to no taxes. If you want to complain about people demanding services without paying, you are talking to the wrong people.
Yes, I can agree with your first sentence, but in case you’ve not noticed there seems to be quite a high percentage of commenters here who complain about their tax obligations as well. I’d prefer something of a “service charge’ be added to many public services and an off-setting tax reduction in cases where certain select groups use a given service more than others, schools being an obvious example. Let the actual users take on an increased burden while relieving some/much of it from the non-users. That applies in an almost insignificant way already in schools for such things as… Read more »
You would get a ringing endorsement on that from economists. Imposing taxes as service charges on those who benefit is smart, efficient tax policy. The exceptions, of course, are safety net programs for those who deserve help.
Complaining about tax obligations is not the same thing as demanding services but refusing to pay.
Our friend Freddy has long endorsed the idea of charging tuition so that people understand how much money is paid to education.
PAC funds to candidates needs to be capped like other donations to candidates. PAC funding allot buying candidates.