• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Illinois Teacher Pensions

You would need to demonstrate that the contract was not legal, not that you will have to raise taxes to honor your word.

Because a State cannot be bankrupt. It might lack the will to tax and pay its bills. And that court is most likely to order THAT. But please try. Go get a lawsuit started and we shall see if I was paying attention when I studied contracts in school.
 
BenBurch said:
You would need to demonstrate that the contract was not legal, not that you will have to raise taxes to honor your word.

Because a State cannot be bankrupt. It might lack the will to tax and pay its bills. And that court is most likely to order THAT. But please try. Go get a lawsuit started and we shall see if I was paying attention when I studied contracts in school.
Click to expand...
The court may as well order the tide to go out.

BenBurch said:
Unilaterally change the contract.
Click to expand...
Which is what will have to happen if the unons continue in their quest to bleed taxpayers dry.

Because at the end of the day the interests of Illinois taxpayers trump the interests of the unions.
 
Brainster said:
Ah, so the teachers are open to renegotiation?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Despite the thread title (chosen by a mod, not me) this is about all public employee pensions, not just teachers. None of them are anywhere near sifficiently funded. And the problem gets twice as bad if you include municipal and county pensions in the mix.
 
BenBurch said:
Tough. We *can* pay so we must.
Click to expand...
Wait, what about our duly elected representatives changing the laws. We must abide by those changes, right? I mean your argument before was that we have to pay as agreed since it was all done legal like through our representatives.
 
BenBurch said:
Tough. We *can* pay so we must.
Click to expand...
No, we can't.

As shocking as it may be to your ears, the state has other responsibilities besides ensuring bloated retirement packages for state employees. And non-state employees who get to plunder the employee pensions for some reason.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
We can very simply pay for it with a small tax increase.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

And why shouldn't the union members have more taken fromn their paychecks to pay for their pensions? Why should money be taken from other people's paychecks (who probably don't have a pension) to pay for union pension benefits? Why shouldn't they have to work until age 65 or 67 like everyone else? Why should non-state employees be allowed to access state pensions? What about the abuse pf pension sweeteners? Etc etc.

Unsustainable, unfixable. Union member rights don't trump everyone else's.
 
WildCat said:
Evidence?

And why shouldn't the union members have more taken fromn their paychecks to pay for their pensions? Why should money be taken from other people's paychecks (who probably don't have a pension) to pay for union pension benefits? Why shouldn't they have to work until age 65 or 67 like everyone else? Why should non-state employees be allowed to access state pensions? What about the abuse pf pension sweeteners? Etc etc.

Unsustainable, unfixable. Union member rights don't trump everyone else's.
Click to expand...

Evidence? You want evidence that you can raise $3000 per citizen over the next decade with a tax increase?????

I hope nobody ever puts you in charge of building a road.

Jane Addams tollway reconstruction was a half billion dollars.

We just approved 11.5 Billion in road spending through 2017.

We have plans to pay for both of those things.

You pay the debt we owe public workers just the same way.

Yes, you can ask teachers to increase their contributions, that is a very, very different thing from denying retirees the pension they worked all their life for.
 
BenBurch said:
Evidence? You want evidence that you can raise $3000 per citizen over the next decade with a tax increase?????
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I'd like to see. Let's see your proposed tax hikes, as well as analysis of what this will do to our already ********** up economy.

BenBurch said:
I hope nobody ever puts you in charge of building a road.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, Illinois won't be able to build any roads. All the money will be going to pensions of retired workers.

BenBurch said:
Jane Addams tollway reconstruction was a half billion dollars.
Click to expand...
1/160 of the state pension deficit. And at least tollway users pay for that. Or are you suggesting the money come from the paychecks of state employees?

BenBurch said:
We just approved 11.5 Billion in road spending through 2017.
Click to expand...
Cancel 8 more projects like taht one and we're there! We won;t have any roads in good enough shape to drive on, but that won't bother the retired workers in their retirement homes in Florida.

BenBurch said:
We have plans to pay for both of those things.
Click to expand...
Propose one, in detail.

BenBurch said:
You pay the debt we owe public workers just the same way.
Click to expand...
I agree, let's treat them like other state vendors. We'll pay them when the money becomes available, maybe next year. Maybe not.

BenBurch said:
Yes, you can ask teachers to increase their contributions, that is a very, very different thing from denying retirees the pension they worked all their life for.
Click to expand...
"All their life" meaning 25 years?

If the unions were smart they'd ask to renegotiate now, and be willing to take a big hit. The more they wait and stall, the worse the problem becomes and the worse off they'll be in the end. The taxpayers simply don't have the funds to save them.

So far, here is what the unions are telling taxpayers:
union_pig.gif
 
BenBurch said:
No, the Unions are telling taxpayers that they need to honor promises.
Click to expand...
Theb taxpayers made no such promise. Those promises were made in secret and taxpayers were kept in the dark.

I notice you still can't find the name of those legislators who sponsored and voted for the bills that expanded and sweetened union pensions? The taxpayers have nothing to so with any of this, it's 100% between the unions and the politicians they own.

BenBurch said:
Make no promises you don't mean to keep, because you must keep them.
Click to expand...
But the "you" in the first clause are completely different people than the "you" in the second clause. I have no obligation to promises made for my money by people unaccountable (whether through passage pf time or secrecy) to me (or any other voter) to other people who are also unaccountable to the voters. When the feces finally hits the fan (and it's getting very close) the pensions promised will be reduced. Contributions will have to rise. And until the politicians and unions agree to that they can expect no sympathy, let alone financial sacrifice, from taxpayers.

Still waiting for that tax plan of yours Ben.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom