You are so right Denise. I couldn't have said it better myself.

No, we have a union problem that has used creative bookkeeping in order to inflate the 'expected' gains in the pension investments, and by law the state has to make up the difference when those impossible to sustain goals come up short.

If the union had made sustainable goals for its pension program, this wouldnt be a problem, and the state would not be late on 1 cent in payments. That would require the members of the union collecting those pensions to have to pay slightly more into it though, and it is much easier for them to get it taken out of YOUR check, than theirs.

Part 2 of response:
Unions do not set the amount of interest earned nor do they set the calculation used for projecting long-term returns. The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) is governed by representatives from unions, individuals appointed by the Governor, and retiree representatives. This board does establish assumptions that govern long-term projections. It is incorrect to make the statement that unions lower the projected interest earnings in order to get the state to pay more. Over the past 30 years the average rate of return on TRS investments has been 9.3%, with last year the rate of return being over 23%. Further, TRS does not establish benefit levels. The General Assembly through legislation establishes benefits.

That is why the statement that there is a revenue problem is correct. The revenue problem is that for 60 years the General Assembly has, through its own actions, failed to fund state pensions at actuarially determined levels. In fact, the General Assembly has used the pension systems much like a credit card, using funds that should have been appropriate for long-term pension payments for other purposes. It is not the taxpayers' fault. It is not the teachers' fault. It is not the union's fault. It is the fault of the General Assembly for failures in long-term fiscal management.

Part 1 of response:

Actually, there is no creative bookkeeping involved. The Teacher Retirement System can be viewed as having three components. Contributions, interest earned on investments, and benefits paid out. Contributions come from two primary sources. Teachers pay 9.4% of their salary into the system annually through payroll deduction, compared to the approximately 6.2% that workers in the private sector pay into social security. Employers are required to match the employee's social security contribution. So, teachers pay over 60% more into their retirement plan that do employees in the private sector. It is also important to remember that teachers do not earn social security credit for their work as a teacher. The employer, in this case the state of Illinois for pension purposes, is supposed to pay in the difference between what the employee pays and the amount of interest earned on investments to meet actuarially determined benefit liabilities. However, for 60 years the state has failed to pay its actuarially determined contribution, thus creating a long-term shortfall in funding. Since the legislature sets the rules, they annually determine their contribution to the system, which in some years has been a pension holiday when they paid nothing into the system.

I'm not interested in opinion articles. I'm interested in what the law says. The law says the pension system gets to decide what it thinks its return on investments for the fund will be. They then codify this expectation into law. When this 'expected' number/rate of return on investments falls short, the state is required by law to make up the difference. Of course, it DID fall short, because the expected goals were unsustainable, only being lowered to 8.5%/yr just over a year ago. Which is still unsustainable.

You bring up the general assembly pension system, which is funny, because they pay the largest percentage of their salary into the system of any of the 5 public pension systems in Illinois(around 11.5% if I recall, possibly second only to the judges pension system).

This would be like me coming to you because I 'expected' to make 100K this year, but because I didnt, I require you to make up the difference. Then when you don't, running around blaming YOU, for MY failed responsibilities.

The teachers union is in full PR mode, trying to paint the state as the 'bad guy', and lets be honest, most voters have no problem accepting that to be true on its face. But the reality is far, far different.

The plans need reform, by raising the member contributions, AND raising the age of full retirement. Both are well below what the private sector requires in Social Security.

In 2010, the teachers pension system added hundreds of millions of doallrs in 'unfunded liabilities' under this setup, OVERNIGHT. They did this when they lowered the expected rate of return within their own investments.

Overnight, the state suddenly became responsible, under law, for making up the difference of the union lowering its own expectations. Nothing changed, other than the union lowering what they expected to get for a rate of return. Nothing, expect what the rest of the taxpayers will be on the hook for.

@Tim: The TRS projections are not set the the "union". The Teacher Retirement System has several trustees from differing back grounds. I'm sorry that you believe that the TRS is not contributing to the solutions, but TRS consistently outperforms the stock market and even experience much smaller losses in 2008 than most other investments. As to your comment on raising the full retirement age, Tier I teachers cannot fully retire until age 62, I believe. Tier II teachers, those hired after Jan. 1, 2011 cannot receive full retirement until age 67. As for pension contributions, I, a teacher, currently pay 9.8% of my salary to my pension, only 1.7% less than the legislators. Unless you can come up with some other figures, I suppose that would put teachers third behind judges and law-makers in terms of who contributes the most to their own pension. I'm sure you are already aware of this, but teachers in IL do not get social security like everyone else does, and even if they worked in the private sector for decades and became a teacher as a second career, their social security earnings are slashed simply because they wanted to share what they knew with children.

Debra - Throughout their careers, teachers pay nowhere near what they will eventually withdraw from the pensions. Yes, teachers have paid everything that has been asked of them, but the amount asked of them is horribly wrong and not based on math. If you live to 85, teachers will actually make more money in retirement than while working. In order to truly "pay their fair share" meaning pay for their own retirement without taxpayer funds (like every taxpayer has to do), teachers would literally have to contribute over 50% of their paychecks during working years. My mother is a retired high school gym teacher of 31 years who contributed $150,000 over the course of her career to her pension fund. Already in her 4th year in retirement she has withdrawn over $200,000 and is set to earn another $2,000,000 over her lifetime. I'm not saying she didn't work hard or didn't contribute every dollar which was asked of her, but taxpayers are being asked to not only pay for their own retirements, but also fund the retirements of public employees. This is wrong.

@Debra : it's hard to say, but a friend sent links to me as research - wow. I never knew. It looks like it wasn't the Union's fault after all. there's probably more to dig through, but I thought I'd pass this along - good luck in your research:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/11938275-418/teachers-pension-fund-paid-a-whopping-13-billion-in-fees-for-what.html

ayar, did you copy the wrong link?

The link you posted quite clearly demonstrates the fiscal mismanagement directly caused by the union.

Did you not read the article? Or did you miss the part describing the pension fund only getting a 3.4% return BEFORE fees? At the same time, the union codified into law that they 'expected' an 8.5% return.

Maybe if it is said one more time, it will sink in;
When the pension system falls short of the amount they claim to be 'expecting' the state makes up the difference by law. Would you like to discuss why the union kept the rate at 8.5% while at the same time knowing they were only getting 3.4%?

More and more people are starting to understand the problems within the teachers union, and how they have put off their responsibilities for funding their own pension onto the taxpayers.

The time is up for their shell game, and they now have to answer for what they have been doing. The public is simply not going to fall in with the union line and pay for the mistakes that were perpetuated for DECADES, while trying to keep hidden what was really going on behind the scenes.

Frankly, it is disgusting that you are even trying to push the responsibility off STILL.

@Brian: I'd like to know how long you think your mother is going to live? The earliest you can retire is 55 and in order to draw the numbers your putting out there she'd have to live until she was 91. Should teachers be retiring at 55, probably not, but just imagine your child along with 30, or more, others in a classroom with a 67 year-old. Not to diminish the capabilities of our senior citizens, but as a teacher that does not seem like a recipe for success. Remember, we would not be in such an unfunded position if the state legislature did not treat the pension systems as an ATM.

Faces in the Crowd: My mom accrued sick time which she was somehow able to buy out a year of service, so she retired she she was 54. After her end-of-career bump, her average final salary ended up being $96k. With a 3% COLA raise, she is set to earn over $2,000,000 after her 22nd year of retirement, making her 76 years old.

Let me repeat: AFTER she stops working, she will have made $2,000,000 by the time she is around 76 years old. The age in which most people in the private sector can stop working is nearing 70 years old. You think this is fair?

Those 'problems' only existed after the pension system lowered its expected rate of return. The state didn't suddenly stop making payments. The union suddenly cut their growth forecast, putting the state(the taxpayers) no the hook to make up billions of dollars in liabilities, in some cases it was changing by millions of $ overnight by the unions own doing.

I'm all for teachers having a pension system, what I am NOT for, is having the taxpayers come bail them out when their unsustainable rate of return turns out to be as bad as they have been warned for many years.

If they want to collect, then they need to fund it themselves and not expect the state/taxpayers to come to their rescue when they miscalculated their own investments.

can you point to one single instance where the state allocated funds elsewhere?

I know its easy to just repeat what you have heard, but what you have heard is a direct result of a full on PR campaign by the union to give you 'their side' of the story.

I understand it is a hard truth to accept, but the union is 100% responsible for this problem. They did this when they cut their 'expected rate of return' for their own investments, down to 8.5%. When they did this single act, the state suddenly became responsible for making up the difference by no doing of its own. The money was not allocated elsewhere, it was never allocated to the pension system in the first place.

Tim,
Perhaps a hint lies somewhere in the "Pension Holiday" that the State legislature voted to enact in 2005?
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120413/news/704139963/

An interesting read that points out several of the causes of the current deficit.

I think this can not be stressed enough.

When it is claimed that the state is shorting their benefits, what this actually means under the law, is that when the pension system does not get the returns the union 'expected' under its own management, the state makes up the difference. That amount can wildly swing from year to year all on its own. When the union suddenly adjusts the percent expected downward on its own, that amount can swing overnight into the hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2010, the union did just that.

This is the point that is not being discussed when it is claimed that the state has shorted the fund and spent it elsewhere. The problem, is that the money was not theirs to begin with until they moved around the numbers on their own books, expecting the state to make up the difference.

That article clearly says the majority of the problem is the way the union has mismanaged the fund. As I've said earlier, the state did not 'cause' this problem, they merely accelerated the inevitable collapse of a system that is unsustainable by design.

Until there is real reform of this broken pension system, and the union takes responsibility for it, there are many voters that will not approve a single referendum. When the teachers union gets on the predictable 'you are hurting the students' I will feel no guilt voting no, knowing they couldn't have cared less about the situation they were putting the entire state(and its children) in over the past few decades.

Because, the PR arm of the teachers union is what is at the forefront right now. The byline of this article quite clearly states that;
"Teachers from across the area are expected at Plainfield event planned for 3:30 p.m. Wednesday. "

When the fire/police/etc start holding rallies to attempt to get me to pay for their faiied systems, instead of themselves, I will say the exact same things. Right now, they are not doing that, and this article is not about them.

Im a tollway driver and I agree ! And guess what we are Teamsters local 700 and we have union teamsters who get to leave the tollway and pay into our pension like their there { yet not} and then go and work for the teamsters local 700 board and get a teamsters pension also. Is that not double dipping ? where is the media on this? And do you think the cash they give to the Gov has anything to do with that ?

Tom I agree. The teachers are at the forefront because the state politicians short chaged them the most. So instead of admitting they created the problem they point the blame on the teachers. So they are the flavor of the day. Yes those other plans are way underfunded also. But the teachers got robbed(underfunded) the most. Beside's the politicians signed legislation that if you don't fund your police and fire pension obligations the state will then hold back funds for cities and villages starting in 2016. People have to understand that pension obligations are a future expense so it is the last on the totem pole. When muncipalites are struggling to make daily expenses they will always underfund a cost factor for the future.It's a Rob Peter to pay Paul. Well guess who came to town Peter. That legislation I talked about earlier is going to cripple cities and villages that is why Chicago is so proactive with reform now.

According to a report by a bipartisan commission, posted by another commenter, the vast majority of the problems come from mismanagement of the pension fun by the union. Not the other way around.

Again, blaming politicians seems like the easy way out. After all, who doesn't find it easy to think in a negative way about politicians. They are a perfect scapegoat here. While their hands are not clean, they are not the main problem here.

Sounds like we agree - none in excess of 100K per year. You say that includes administrators, teachers, firemen, policemen, politicians ? Hey, a lot of us working stiffs would be for that. I'm sure a lot of teachers would agree on that one too. Anyone in excess of that goes 401K, Rahm Emmanuel style. Increase retirement age to 65, just like everyone else.

An accountant would be able to give you a more exact answer, but this is what I think personally;

1)Adjust the retirement age to be more in line with the private sector
One of the following
2a)Adjust the amount the members pay in
2b)Reduce the amount of benefits paid out
3)Enact a 'means test' that pays out based on FULL net worth of the individual at retirement.
4)Enact into law, a defined maximum percentage the state must pay of any shortfalls caused by fund mismanagement. (This creates motivation to be responsible in management, and not automatically placing the burden on taxpayers when mistakes are made)

I think #4 is the most important, because it has been obvious for decades that this fund has been managed with the expectation that no matter what, the state would fix the problems. This is a shirking of responsibility, and undercuts everything the teachers claim to stand for. Perhaps they would more interested in voting for the right people and policies within their organization if they knew they would ultimately be responsible for those choices.

#5 on your list sickens me. The bump is obscene. Just obscene.

Yes, I'm sure that will somehow fix the mismanagement of the pension fund by the teachers union. Even if everything in your post was done 100%, it would not put a dent in the unsustainable pension system of public employees. It serves as a wonderful distraction to that same average resident from the real problem though.

Distractions from your union pamphlets are not going to solve the real problems, they only exist to distract voters from the problem. That problem, is that those responsible for the pension fund(the union), have shirked their responsibility and are attempting to place the blame on the state instead. Like I said, this is an easy move based on how the average person feels about politicians.

If you want to know how ridiculous your claim to direct this anger at politicians is, post the numbers from this link showing the amount the teachers pension costs, compared to what the legislators pension costs.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/Upload/FinCondILStateRetirementSysMarch2011.pdf

In the meantime, it would help your argument if you knew what the actual numbers involved were, instead of trying to play on the negative emotions most people have to politicians. Teachers have for years taken advantage of the way they are seen in the public eye, and this situation is the result of that good will of the public running out. They have no more to use now, and need to start facing reality, not emotion.

The private sector has already has their pension system decimated, for decades now. Very few, if any remain, for exactly the reason the teachers fund is in trouble. Unsustainable/Unrealistic growth targets, and poor fiscal management.

The private companies already did exactly what you claim, to the generation before you. Ask your parents about what happened to pensions around the country when they were your age. They then passed on the burden to the employees to fund their retirement funds. I hope you aren't a teacher making these claims. It doesn't speak well for your position if you are so unaware of history.

To fix this problem, we need to deal with reality. Not imaginary get-even scenarios. Not all voters are ignorant of history, and talking to them with an attitude that you expect them to fix your problems that were caused by your own union, is not going to help.

No, I'm not missing anything.

Do you not hear yourself saying that these unions are entitled to taxpayer money to fund these pensions?

What is so hard about funding your own pension system? Are you too good for that, while everyone else has to fund their own accounts on their own(without taxpayer money)?

The more distractions you try to push people away onto talking about another subject, the more people are going to get angry with those like you for not seeing the problem in front of their faces and trying to fix it.

Taxing corporations more is not going to change the pension problem, cutting low-income programs is not going to fix the pension problem. Noe of the distractions that have been mentioned here so far are even close to addressing the problem, just trying to get people talking about something else.

And no, that is not a 'basic PRINCIPLE'. Healthy companies were never bought out, only companies saddled with heavy debt burdens that were unsustainable(because of their pension system). Pensions were cut by 'vultures' as you claim, because the liabilities on the debt side are written off in bankruptcy, while the assets(the actual money in the fund) was allowed by law to be shifted from the pension recipients, to the holder of the debt.

You are making comments about things you have no understanding of, other than at a talking points level. You are embarrassing yourself, and only adding more people to the opposite side that the union wants.

I love how everyone in a union never talk about the actual math. It's always "well this is the way it's always been" or "I worked hard for my pension". A public servant should NOT make $2,000,000 of taxpayer money in retirement while private sector employees live off social security and meager savings. Tim has great facts but I wish there was a way to break through the union brainwashing that has gone on for decades.

Your statement would be valid under one condition.

Teachers take Social Security benefits instead.

In reality, they would be getting a better deal. Yes, really.
They would have paid in less in percentages(<9%) for a pension they will not get, and move to a system that everyone else has paid up to 13% into but get the same benefits as everyone else.

What do you think the union would say to that?
Now, WHY do you think the union would say what they would?

It was barely a week ago that teachers were protesting the move to shift these costs to the local district to preserve the funding, yet today they are protesting any changes to that pension system that they protested just previously to prevent the funding for!

THEY ARE PLAYING YOU FOR A FOOL

No, my answer as I clearly stated above in 4 bulleted points is very explicit.

It involves no taxpayer money, and an increase in employee contributions to fund the pension to the rate they 'dictate'.

When the pension plan writes into law that it is expecting an 8.5% rate of return, and only gets 3.4%, it is the law in Illinois that the state make up the shortfall. That is where this idea of the state 'shorting' the fund is coming from. The state has to fund for the difference between what the pension system 'expects' to get, and what it actually gets.

Simply increasing, by a small amount, the amount each employee pays into the fund, it can be brought to being solvent for the foreseeable future. The people who collect it, will be the people who support it. Why is the demand so intense that it be funded by people who don't collect it at the expense of funding less of their own retirement plans?

The PR department of the union pension system has been busy over the last 4 years.
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/press/TRS_Speaks/TRS%20Speaks%20-%20Springfield%20SJ-R.pdf
You will probably get a kick out of the letters to the editor collection written in 2010, where it is claimed there are no problems with the pension fund.

Every attempt has been made over decades to fool the residents of the state into thinking something that is not true, is true. And the things that are true, are not true. Nothing but distractions, and no solutions.

....Time's up

Maryz, the Illinois Constitution is on your side.

The constitution requires the state fund the pension plans UNDER EXISTING CONTRACTS.

Nothing is stopping a new contract from being created to bring the pension fund into solvency by the recipients of it paying in more than they currently do, with a cap on the states contribution.

And Maryz,

Yes, if the teachers switched to SS, I would support a contribution match pegged to the median private sector match, to be recalculated every 2 years.

Zero is the amount that the state could be counted on to match for a 401 type plan.

Jeff, how is that right ? do you feel getting no benefits is good ? you would rather *everyone* gets no benefits than to get together with other workers at your place and organize and say you want to be covered if you get sick ? American workers are among the best in the world - they deserve better, not worse - true ?

Ayar - I think Jeff's point is that if you lowered retirement benefits of public sector employees to those of the private sector, you could lower taxes by quite a bit. No one is saying public sector employees should have nothing, but it shouldn't be 10-20x more than everyone else.

John - revenue is not the problem. The structure of the pensions themselves are the problem. A fully vested government worker can easily make over $2,000,000 AFTER they stop working, while private sector workers make nowhere near that. This is wrong and this must be fixed before we start worrying about revenue sources.

It does show that.
It also shows the point in 1981 when the pension system started using its 'funny accounting' to get the state to legally be on the hook for contributing more than usual. They did this by increasing their 'expected' rate of return, and whatever difference that was from actual, became the responsibility of the state(taxpayers) to make up. Only in 2010 did the finally reduce it form the insane and unsustainable levels, to a slightly less insane/unsustainable level of 8.5% 'expected' return. The pension system was never setup to be primarily funded by the taxpayers. It was setup to be funded by those eventually collecting from it.

The union is now spending most of its resources writing letters to the editors in papers around the state in an attempt to point out that the state is 'underfunding' the pension plan, when the only reason it is underfunded in the first place, is the insane expectations the union has set for its expected return, and having the state make up the difference when reality inevitably comes in much lower. Sometimes coming in so low that the taxpayers are contributing up to 50% more to the pension plan than those collecting it!

This is insane, and needs to stop. The teachers better whip their union into shape before they come knocking on my door. Until they do, I and most of my neighbors, will be voting down every single referendum that comes across the ballot.

Thank you, Patricia. Exactly right. Instead of constantly griping on the teachers and the state, the unions, the pensions, the the the.... Everybody forgets that this started when the federal government stopped funding the states, and nobody seems to "get" that if you don't have a job, you don't spend the money on lots of things. You don't spend the money on lots of things, the products aren't bought. The products aren't bought, the business makes less money. The business makes less money, they make cuts and eventually go under. This is why the middle class is so important. We need to level the playing field for american workers. check out SB 3816. We need to find ways to turn to the federal government to make this happen. Hultgren, Durbin and Kirk. By the way, we're not as behind in education as they want you to think. Don't believe me ? go downtown to U of C and check out the mini United Nations going on down there. A lot of other countries kids are getting educated here not there. 308 produces quality kids like Matt Adorjan, now a computer person at McDonald's Corporate. One of our own. This was in a Ledger-Sentinel article recently.

Patricia - I feel bad for your son because the next generation of teachers are the ones that are going to be really screwed. Federal law prohibits educational bodies from earning over a certain amount of total tax revenue. Once that's capped, schools must start making cuts. Since the beloved pensions can't be touched, school districts will simply stop hiring teachers and increase the class size. Ask yourself this simple math question: if a teacher is making a salary of X and they retire and then start making 80% of X, how can you hire a teacher to replace them? In year 2, they'll be making 3% more than X, in year 3 they'll be making over 6% more than X. In year 8, the school district will effectively be paying their entire salary through a pension to someone who is no longer working. The real losers in all this are the children, future teachers, and taxpayers. The winners? Existing teacher union members.

And those millionaires you were talking about? Teachers. An average starting pension of $60,000 with a 3% raise every year in retirement and teachers will make over $1,000,000 by their 10th year of retirement. By their 20th year: well over $2,000,000. The average taxpayer will collect no more than a couple hundred grand throughout their ENTIRE career. Now tell me what's fair.

As I said over and over, I do not have a problem with what teachers make, I have a problem with them expecting everyone else to cover the cost of their retirement.

Are you honestly upset that YOU have to be the one to contribute to your retirement? Are you honestly protesting to get a 3.5% raise every year, instead of the proposed 3% raise? Protesting the raise of retirement to 67, while the rest of the world has to wait until they are 69?

Nobody is proposing cutting ANYTHING from what you get, only proposing that you increase what you pay into it, to bring it in line with the private sector. Currently, it is almost 40% less. Pay in to your own system, don't ask the rest of us to do it.

Since you brought politics into this(in the form of name calling), and just to give you a little wake up call...

I am as close to being a Republican, as Sarah Palin is to being a Democrat. Yet, you think anyone that opposes what you are doing must be a republican, because in your mind only republicans dislike unions.

I honestly don't think the teachers union is aware just how far over the line they have stepped this time.

In 2010, the union kept its rate at 8.5% 'expected' return on its pension fund, while it KNEW it was only getting 3.4% return. By law, the state has to make up the difference. The union, by taking advantage of the law, played a shell game with its books in order to make the state be responsible for over 150% of the payments that the union made. The union is who has not paid their 'fair share'.

John, I know you don't understand this. The math is difficult, and the construction of the structure of the fund and how they interact with the law is complex. You have displayed your loyalties to the union you belong to already, and all you can come up with is the talking points put out on union pamphlets.

No matter how many times you say it, the union is only claiming the state 'stole' from the fund, because the union was playing tricks with the fund structure in order to make the state responsible for funding the majority of the fund.

I usually don't respond to you because I can tell that you don't understand these things, but what you are doing is lying.

Joe,

Over the past several years, everyone else has had to deal with pay cuts and has taken huge hits on their 401(k) due to the stock market. Teachers pensions, however, don't fluctuate whatsoever with the market. When teacher pension funds don't earn the "expected" 8% per year in return, taxpayer money from the state has to cover the difference. Why should taxpayers cover the pension funds not getting a good enough return while ALSO covering losses in their own retirement funds?? Time for teachers to make sacrifices that everyone else has been making for decades. There's no reason a teacher should make millions of dollars in retirement while everyone else scrapes by.

claim of false information probably make you feel good. Providing some evidence that what I am saying is false is something else entirely.

Not one person so far who has made the same claim, has provided a single source to back that up. While I have been posting links to the data of the actual pension fund, and the board of directors supplied directly form the TRS itself.

Something is not false simply because you say it is. It is false when you provide the counter evidence to show that it is indeed false. You(or anyone else) has not done that even once.

Even though you claimed earlier that the fund would be 100% funded if the state made 100% of its payments, the quotes you provide now show that not to be the case, still coming up up to 15% short of full funding.

How much more evidence do you need that the union is not contributing enough to its own pension? The fund has been mismanaged, and poorly designed for decades.

Every pension is designed like this, including yours.

Why should I care about the politicians? They pay almost 25% more into their pension than teachers do. All I hear from the teachers union is the complaining of a spoiled child, not solutions.

Look around at the comments other than yours(or union members), they are almost all lining up against the unions greed this time. It takes colossal ignorance to still think the problem lies outside of the union, when voters of both parties are telling you otherwise.

The voters have to wait another 16 years for a consitution convention to vote on opening the consitution for major pension reform or wording change!

District 202 - 87 teachers making over $100K/yr, and THEY can't pay more into their own pension? Instead they are protesting to put this on the backs of the residents of a state where the per capita income is $27k.
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php (check you district too)

Like I said John,
Just because you keep saying something(or repeating what the union told you), doesn't mean it is true. The fact that you think this will stop any pension changes shows how little you know about the situation.

You keep being smug and throwing that around as if it actually means something. It is to your peril that you continue to do so;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_%281968%29#August_1981_strike

The lessons from history will be re-learned by the 'government employees' that have forgotten them.

Tim please explain to me about what Cicero did to the Fire pension. See how towns screw over the plans and cause liability shortages!

This is the thing, nobody is talking about your pay when you are working, we are talking about your pension when you don't work. You should be exactly the person pushing to reform the pension system. The public had begun to notice the way teachers pensions were disconnecting from reality about a decade ago. After less than 9 years of retirement , a pension payment is larger per year than when the person was working. For the last 4 years, they have paid even closer attention to them. During that time, the union has shown no interest in reforming the plans on their own. Their time has run out now.

The highest pension to any individual in your union, will be $26 MILLION paid to them during retirement. There are dozens that will be paid over TEN MILLION DOLLARS in the period of their retirement.

Tier your system based on income;
up to 50K/yr - 9.5% contribution
51K to 100K/yr - 12.5% contribution
101K to 150K/yr - 14.5% contribution
Over 150K/yr - 20.0% contribution

Raise the retirement age to what the private sector is - 69 years old.

Peg the Cost of living adjustment to the actual reported number, not a fixed one.

The union has failed to reform the pension, and instead chose to game it to its advantage(and not yours) in the preceding years. Why this behavior is being tolerated by the members is confusing. Why should the public stand by and listen to a 'protest' demanding the union 'be heard', when they had no interest in doing so for years up to this point?

Mom of 2: I have the greatest respect for teachers and I have seen first-hand how much work the job truly is from my mother, a retired teacher of 31 years. However, like Tim said, the real problem is teachers' retirement plans. My mom paid $150,000 into her retirement system over the course of her career and will make somewhere in the range of $2,000,000-$3,000,000 AFTER she stops working. Meanwhile, companies in the business world typically contribute half of someone's contributions. This means that if my mom worked for a company, she would have earned $225,000 over the course of her retirement instead of the millions of dollars she is scheduled to make.

Teacher salaries were typically much lower a few decades ago compared to other careers but the automatic boosts the salaries get every year means that teacher salaries aren't really affected by down times in the economy. I live in Chicago and the entry level salary for a teacher with just a bachelors degree is anywhere between $47,000-$57,000 per year depending on schedule (https://hrportal.cps.k12.il.us/psp/cpseppr2/EMPLOYEE/EMPL/c/EPPCM_CONTENT_MGMT.EPPCM_PUB_VIEWER.GBL?EPPCM_CONTENTID=4334&SHOW_SUMMARY=N), a salary which is higher than any other profession outside of medicine, law, finance, and engineering. Teachers are NOT underpaid, particularly in this area of the country. Again, I could really care less about their salaries if they were actually paying for their own retirements like everyone else.

Brian I sure bet you are glad your mother is getting her pension! Also there are still private sectors with pension plans ! My wife and a friend are an example and they get pensions, 401's , and profit sharing and then social security on top of it!

The state constitution guarantees pensions, but the state constitution does negotiate terms and salaries. Unions do.

Read the State law on pensions! They set the ages for retirement, what percent of salary is collectible based on years of service ,what part of the salary is pensionable and other benifits on pension!

John,
I can't help but be fascinated how you can possibly be wrong about literally everything you are posting. Do you knot know you are on the internet? It takes all of 15 seconds for people to see if you are lying or not.
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/trustees/manual.pdf
(that is the manual for the board of trustees that explains their duties, study it before you make such asinine claims)

And here are the 12 bills currently working their way through the process that the TRS wouldn't do on its own;
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/legislative/majorlegislationandproposals.htm
These changes would be in effect as soon as 5 months from now, not 16 years as you claim. One of the is an amendment to the constitution you keep bringing up. 5 months is a much shorter time frame than the 16 years you are claiming.

The latest 'protest' is going to be fresh in the minds of voters at that time, along with your 'hahaha you have to wait 16 years' attitude.

TRS sat around and shirked its duties. The residents are not going to bail you out until you show the slightest bit of interest in reform on your own.

Read the State law on pensions! The State sets the ages for retirement, what percent of salary is collectible based on years of service ,what part of the salary is pensionable and other benifits on pension. Not the unions.

I did read the law John, however it is obvious that you haven't read anything other than union propaganda.

Section 22-403 expressly provides that "[a]ny pension payable under any law
hereinbefore referred to shall not be construed to be a legal obligation or debt of the State, other than the pension fund concerned, but shall be held to be solely an obligation of such pension fund."

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=004000050HArt.+1&ActID=638&ChapAct=40%A0ILCS%A05/&ChapterID=9&ChapterName=PENSIONS&SectionID=39676&SeqStart=100000&SeqEnd=6300000&ActName=Illinois+Pension+Code.
Here's the entire pension code John, what section are you referring to when you state the state sets the contribution limits, instead of the pension fund?

Give specifics to back up your claims. Although, I have a feeling this is going to end up similar to when you were asked for bible verses to prove your claims about the bible, and finally ended up just saying 'my priest said so'. Except this time it will be 'because my union shop said so'.

John - Who wouldn't want a pension if it were given to them? Millions of dollars in the bank! Like I've said before, I don't fault individual teachers for taking their pensions, but pensions as a whole need to be exterminated. I would love for my mom to NOT have a pension if it meant an end to taxpayers paying for the retirements of public sector employees.

I could care less if a private company wants to give all their employees pensions and their CEO's million-dollar bonuses. It sure worked out well for the car industry. All of this boils down to taxpayer dollars. Our taxes COULD be much lower. Our children's class size COULD be much lower if the state could hire more teachers. Our government COULD be much more efficient and productive if the local municipalities could hire more employees. All this is possible, but not without getting rid of the pensions which prevent it.

You can always tell who is in a union, when they try to use distractions that have nothing at all to do with the insolvent teachers pension plan that is being discussed.

Keep talking John, we need as many voters as possible to see how you behave when it is you that wants the taxpayer bailout. Your posts are the best PR possible to get that state amendment passed this November.

John - taxpayer dollars bailed out the auto industry and banks in the form of a loan to prevent massive job loss. The economy took a dive and those companies needed cash until it rebounded. Those loans, for the most part, have been paid back in full. Pension funds also took a dive in the poor economy. Taxpayers bailed out the pension funds as well (like Tim has cited several times) but the difference is, pension payments will NOT be paid back to taxpayers. With the money the state donates to the pension funds to give public sector lavish retirements, overall taxes could be lowered or the state could actually afford to hire more police officers, teachers, etc.

You choose million dollar pensions? I'd rather have more teachers and cops.

What Section of the Illinois Code, sets contribution limits to a pension fund?

Illinois pension code.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=004000050HArt%2E+16&ActID=638&ChapterID=9&SeqStart=180700000&SeqEnd=193000000

Yes John, that is he complete pension code, that I already posted. But you didn't answer the question;

What Section of the Illinois Code, sets contribution limits to a pension fund?

What section, John.

    (40 ILCS 5/16-158) (from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 16-158)
    (Text of Section from P.A. 96-1497 and 96-1511)
    Sec. 16-158. Contributions by State and other employing units.
    (a) The State shall make contributions to the System by means of appropriations from the Common School Fund and other State funds of amounts which, together with other employer contributions, employee contributions, investment income, and other income, will be sufficient to meet the cost of maintaining and administering the System on a 90% funded basis in accordance with actuarial recommendations.

Tim read!

http://www.wikipension.com/index.php?title=Illinois

That sets the contribution of the state.

Where is the section that sets the employee contribution, that you say can't be raised under the constitution.

Let me save you some time. It's not in there. It is up to the pension itself to set these contributions to keep it healthy.

Wrong Tim ! Please the state statute pension codes more carefully! The teachers contributions are set by the state and they have the authority to increase it and not the unions! This will help you again.
Tim read!
http://www.wikipension.com/index.php?title=Illinois

What Section of the Illinois Code, sets contribution limits to a pension fund?

If you are right, this should be an easy question to answer. Read the question carefully. I'm not asking where it specifies the MINIMUM required, I'm asking what section specifies the LIMIT of employee contributions, not state contributions.

The state can (and has) set a minimum standard, the unions(through contract agreements) set the amount, if any, above the minimum to meet the unions own actuarial requirements.

Otherwise, quote the EXACT section that specifies that the maximum limits above the minimum requirement are imposed by law.

No, John.
You read the wrong law(SB1313).
The amendment will effect everyone.(HJRCA49)
The amendment is to require a 3/5 majority to pass ANY pension increases, to ALL retired employees.

Read the right part of the link. To make it easier for you, I will pass along the full text of the bill;
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HJRCA&DocNum=49&GAID=11&SessionID=84&LegID=67098

"Provides that no bill, except a bill for appropriations, that provides a benefit increase under any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall become law without the concurrence of three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly."

Keep 'cheering' John.

Joe - Illinois raised income taxes less than two years ago by 66%....do you not remember this? SIXTY-SIX PERCENT! That was a "pothole" fix for the underfunded pension plans. Guess what - they're still underfunded. Revenue is not the problem...pensions themselves are the problem. It's either admit how ridiculous it is to pay out million-dollar pensions to every public sector employee or continually jack up income taxes. I'm glad Quinn is finally opening his eyes to a problem our legislators have been dodging for years.

What Section of the Illinois Code, sets contribution limits to a pension fund?

Revenue is not the problem John. Like I just said, Illinois raised income taxes by 66% due to the underfunded pension systems and guess what, they're still underfunded. You systematically cannot pay people that much money for 30 years after they stop working. How many more times do we have to raise income taxes, raise sales tax, fine people for speeding, etc before we realize that taxpayers should not have to pay for the lavish retirements of public sector employees along with their own retirements?

What Section of the Illinois Code, sets contribution limits to a pension fund?

Your short attention span does not mean you do not have to answer the question.

What Section of the Illinois Code, sets contribution limits to a pension fund?

I didn't ask for a table of what the current rate was. I asked what section of the pension code sets the limit. Give me the exact paragraph that contains the wording that the contribution the members make is limited by law, and not contract.

I was in a union and we nor the union had a say so on our contributions! They state sets it!

Tim I hope you can sleep now?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=004000050HArt%2E+1A&ActID=638&ChapterID=9&SeqStart=6700000&SeqEnd=8300000

    (b) The Commission shall consider and make its recommendations concerning changing the age and service requirements, automatic annual increase benefits, and employee contribution rates of the State-funded retirement systems and other pension-related issues as determined by the Commission. On or before November 1, 2005, the Commission shall report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly.
    (c) The Commission may request actuarial data from any of the 5 State-funded retirement systems established under this Code. That data may include, but is not limited to, the dates of birth, years of service, salaries, and life expectancies of members. A retirement system shall provide the requested information as soon as practical after the request is received, but in no event later than any reasonable deadline imposed by the Commission.
(Source: P.A. 94-4, eff. 6-1-05.)

I can sleep fine John,

But since you left out section (a), that quote clearly defines that the commission consists of members from the union, you still failed to show me where the limits are set in state law.

A pension board setup with members from the union deciding on what contributions should be, is not the same thing as it being state law.

Thanks for showing everyone that the union is involved in deciding the limits, and not the law.

Your union has had no interest in fixing its problems for decades. You vote to put the members on the pension board. They then set the rules for what is necessary to keep the fund solvent. The fact that the state even has to make up the 'shortfall' should be enough to show you the fund is not being managed correctly. Under correct fund management, It should have never gotten to this point to begin with.

Vote to take yourself off of a pension system, and onto SS instead. Vote to change the system you already have at your union meetings. The union has done none of these things yet. Instead, their first move has been to 'protest' any changes that the outside world will be imposing on them. Well, if you didn't want someone else making decisions for you, you should have made them yourself years ago.

The point, is that you need to handle this problem internally FIRST, before you start coming to the taxpayers to bail you out.

Joe - I honestly don't fault individuals for accepting their pension. Not accepting your own pension would be a drop in the bucket for the state. The real problem are the unions which organize rallies like the one in this article as a blind refusal to budge on ANY solution that would address actuarial reality. The Chicago Public School system is over $700,000,000 in debt (higher than the entire city of Chicago mind you), and the teachers' union has requested a 30% raise over the next two years as well as their pensions not be touched. The naivety and bullheadedness of teachers' unions are what's getting out of control.

I live in Chicago and our property taxes and the sales tax ARE that bad.

Tim is also wrong when he said "backs of the residents of a state where the per capita income is $27k. "

The actual amount should be $42,347 (2008)

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html

You posted the 'average pension'. The number I posted was the median. Averages are often used to hide an unbalanced distribution.

You can question the accuracy all day long, it doesn't change any of the facts.

I notice you didn't give any facts about how many teachers make over $100K, other than to try to confuse the situation with what their actual job is. Now that you bring up administrators, perhaps you can explain why there are administrators in Illinois, making more than the president of the united states?

Tim the same goes in the private sector! Why are there executives making more money than the President?

Tim is not 'also wrong' when quoting the per capita income of the area. The 'protest' took place in Will county, where the per capita income is 23K. These are the taxpayers that this would be on the back of.

All you are offering is distractions from the main problem, that the members collecting the pensions, are not contributing enough to keep it solvent. Even with the full 100% state funds, the fund would STILL be short of actuarial requirements, as specified by the TRS itself.

John - No one cares how much people make in the private sector since they are not funded by taxpayers. You can choose to go with another company's product or services but you cannot choose to not pay taxes.

Brian,

Speak for yourself, I definitely care what the CEO's and excutives are getting. Especially in the banking and automotive areas. We (taxpayers) bailed them out and they give there executives huge pay increases. Needless to say, Illinois throws tax breaks at these same companies who want to jump ship leading to more unempoloyment. This has nothing to do with teachers but our tax base suffers to get these companies to stay in Illinois.

Joe - I'm also concerned with how much in tax breaks those corporations are getting but I'd be even more concerned if they weren't there at all. The purpose of the tax breaks, like you said, is to retain companies in Illinois. Unless the federal government wants to step in and make this uniform across all states, this is a necessary evil for states in our ever-changing economic climate.

The "bailouts" were loans, most of which have been paid back in full plus interest. I respect your opinion regarding high corporate salaries but that has little in common with this pension thread.

This 'protest' was to prevent giving you that 'choice'. One of the options proposed is a 3 tiered system that allows for 401K style investment accounts.

Your union is protesting this.

The union is offering no solutions of its own, other than keeping the status quo.

Tim,

That 401K plan is one that is offered by the same State that can't pay their bills as is. I want nothing to do with the state at all and the State won't let that happen because they can't rob from me anymore and then blame it on me to the taxpayers. You still have not addressed any thing that I have put out there. What about the idea of a contract? What if they came after you and your tax return? What if a bank changed their loan terms on you mid stream? None of that matters to you? We continue to bail out banks and big corporations but refuse to acknowledge that the State has made the mistakes. Please answer those questions though Tim!!

No Joe, none of that matters to me because none of that is what this article is about. How many distractions are you going to post before you address the problem?

The state would not 'own' your 401K under that plan, anymore than the US government 'owns' mine. Let me guess, the union told you that? You would however, probably notice when your union contributions do not add up as quickly as they did when the taxpayers were funneling money into your personal pension account. Perhaps you would notice that YOU need to fund it more on your own, like the rest of the private sector already does.

Here's a what-if for you;
What if the teachers union had been responsible in setting the contributions by its members to not have to rely on the state making payments in the first place?

Contracts are routinely thrown out in court proceedings, especially in bankruptcy.

For calling yourself a teacher, you seem to be blissfully unaware of how the rest of the private sector runs day-to-day.

I'm satisfied that you posted the section that defines a board consisting of union members deciding the contributions, and not the law.

It's still a pension law code enacted by legislation and they are not union members on the commission! They have to follow pension law guide lines and make recommendations and the State will either approve or disapprove !

Except the commission is who recommends the laws to be passed. From the section you 'left out';

"Four of the persons appointed by the Governor shall represent different statewide labor organizations, of which 2 shall be organizations that represent primarily teachers and 2 shall be organizations that represent primarily State employees other than teachers."

You are getting farther and farther from your claim that 'its in the constitution'. You were wrong, and all you are doing is pointing out just how little you understand of this situation.

who said anything about tax breaks for corporations, other than you?

Not all unions are bad, but we aren't talking about all unions. We are talking about the teachers union.

In the meantime, you are asking that same 75+ yr old to pay more taxes to support your pension, instead of taking the responsibility for your own retirement yourself.

You can always tell who is in the teachers union, non-stop distractions to get the conversation off of the topic at hand. That topic being that the contributions made by those who collect the pensions, do not support the payouts being made.

@Tim: nope, sorry. I'm just a regular working stiff like you. I'm just tired of them getting blasted for doing their job.

Illinois allows some corporations in our state to withhold state income taxes from their employees and then KEEP the money. So the employees of these corporations pay state income tax to their company rather than paying their state government. This is state income tax money that could be funding education, pensions, and state government services. The rest of us have to make up the difference by paying higher taxes. We need to look at the whole picture to find answers to Illinois' fiscal problems.

Yes, it was a problem in the clinton years. Just because you were not told this by your union, does not make it untrue.
Here is a report from 1998 outlining the problems with the contribution levels;
http://www.imrf.org/pubs/annual_reports/annualrpt98.pdf

"Contributions and net investment returns for 1998 totaled $1,970.7 million. This represents a decrease of approximately 4 percent from 1997"

The problems go back even further, but the union has ignored every attempt to get it to follow its own actuarial rules in order to fund its own pension. Instead, they took advantage of the law that requires the state to make up the difference, no matter how badly they messed it up. The only reason the state is on the hook for a single dime, is the horrendous mismanagement of the pension fund by its members.

If you are willing to pay more, and want to reform your pension system, you need to let your union know that. Because right now, they are protesting against exactly that, and have been for almost 20 years now. Otherwise, the public will simply vote to cut your funding.

Tim don't be happy for to long! The State will be passing a law pushing the pension payments to the school district for the contributions instead of the State! The pensions aren't going to disappear but your school district tax will be going up!

Olddeegee don't you know by now that Tim thinks he knows everything and is an expert on all the stories posted here!

John,
You already claimed the state couldn't pass that law because it was 'in the constitution'. Now you are claiming they will pass that law? I don't have to know everything, and never claimed to. All I have to do is know more than you, which is an incredibly simple bar to surpass. You have demonstrated that you do not know anything about this situation other than what you have heard others repeat, no matter how factually incorrect those statements are. Even when asked to provide the section of law to support your claims, all you could finally come up with was to post a section that clearly contradicts your claim.

Here's what the state is actually doing;
http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/12844990-418/story.html
"current state workers, university and community college employees and downstate and suburban teachers would be given the choice of giving up post-retirement, 3-percent cost-of-living increases in exchange for keeping state-subsidized health care as retirees.

Those already retired also would face the same choice."

That is fine by me, But it all falls back on the taxpayer anyways. The only people that win here are the Judges and Lawmakers. There pensions are safe. I could agree with this reform if and only if it applied to EVERYONE. So Tim, It is ok that judges and LAWMAKERS aren't part of the package? I hope you have saved some money for those new property tax rates. No matter how you slice it, the state always wins.

Since judges pay a significantly higher percentage than the teachers union in contributions, no I don't have a problem with it not applying to them.

They set their individual contributions to be sustainable, and are not asking for a taxpayer bailout, so I have on quarrel with them.

Tim your tax dollars pays for the judges salaries, pension and pension plans! They will be next on the chopping block as their pension is only about 40 % funded! I care that they make huge salaries and get bigger pensions than the teachers !

Look, if you are unable to run the math yourself, with the figures provided in the actuarial reports, then don't go running around claiming people are 'wrong' just because you can't figure it out. The data is there, but you can't seem to be bothered to do the work.

First, it is not an average for teachers retiring today; rather, it includes teachers who retired years or decades ago who, because salaries were lower in the past, receive lower pensions than a teacher retiring today. The 2010 actuarial report for the Teachers’ Retirement System of Illinois shows, for instance, that current retirees between the ages of 55 and 59 receive average annual benefits of $55,893. Second, even that figure is deceptive because it includes benefits paid to individuals who worked only part of their careers in public schools. These retirees would receive lower average benefits, but they may also have retirement income drawn from another job. The 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in Illinois shows that the average benefit paid to a 60-year-old retired teacher with 35 to 39 years of service—a full working career—was $67,452

Did you even read the report? All of the answers to your questions involve you doing some actual work with the data provided to come to the final conclusion. You know, all the things you claim teachers are so 'important' for? Teaching things like... math.

Just to be clear -
The TRS is a 'biased organization' to get figures from?

I'm glad Tim (and I) finally got through to you, John. After all this discussion, you can finally realize just how much money you'll swindle from taxpayers throughout your retirement. I hope you enjoy it.

I'm mainly upset because of the state of Illinois as a result of this. Again, we could have lower taxes and more ACTIVE police officers, teachers, and fire fighters in lieu of paying every public employee millions of dollars after they're finished working. To think - safer streets, smaller class sizes, and lower taxes. But you and the teachers who rallied for this are right: million dollar pensions for a select few are worth it.

Don't worry John,
Come election day, I can assure you all the voters that have been reading your posts will remember your 'I-got-mine-f-you' attitude when they vote on these pension reforms.

Dont blame me for getting a job with a pension plan , which began many many many years ago! By the way Tim should I be nice and give it back!

Tim I chose to do what I did as for a job and a pension! I sure didn't get rich from the job as for salary wise, but I'm entitled to the pension which I earned! I have friends that worked jobs that made then pretty wealthy and they have pensions and other benefits that far exceed my pension! Do I blame them? No! I'm happy with what I did and accomplished and I say yes that pension is worthy of receiving!

Of course it supports the original point. That pushing off on taxpayers, to support a pension that MOST of them do not make in their own income, is not the right way to reform the pension system.

You can get distracted over me taking the 2008 numbers, or you posting the 2010 numbers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that those contributing to the pension system are contributing nowhere near what they collect from it. And nowhere near what the median income for the area are earning. You want to talk households now? In a 2 person household, with both employed in the local school district, the household income from pensions alone would be well over $120K. Still over your attempt at distraction in using household income being 105K. Union mismanagement is the main cause of the problem, not the 'politicians' or the 'state', or whatever distraction you want to give for taking the responsibility off of those who caused the problem.

The point was, that you seem to have missed, is that a person getting a median pension of 64K, will collect well over 2MILLION over the course of their retirement, only having contributed around 200K in contributions.

No matter what source you draw from, you will never be able to justify the taxpayers contributing by almost a factor of TEN more to a pension fund, than the ones collecting from it.

Tim,
Once again, you rattle off numbers without supporting any of them. Maybe once you show us an unbiased source that says that the pension is $65,000, you might get some people on your side.

Just because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, doesn't make it so.

You just don't the fact that it's been shown that what you're saying is not accurate and you can't find an unbiased source when asked where you got them from.

Seriously, who gives a crap about median household income, etc. Do the math yourself. Someone working 30+ years in the pension system is set to collect over $2,000,000 after paying a small fraction of that. By the news today, however, it looks like the teachers' union's day of reckoning has finally come. As ridiculous as it sounds, however, if everything in the bill passed today is actually implemented, pension plans will STILL be underfunded. Not exactly an earth-shattering math revelation that you can't pay all public employees $60k per year with a 3% raise and free healthcare for the rest of their lives...

Ken, I just showed you the math, and short of showing actual addition and subtraction signs in my post, I even showed you how to do the calculations yourself. Numbers aren't biased, they are numbers. Here's the neat thing, if you do the work yourself, you can see the results on your own. No outside sources or bias involved or needed, just your own brain doing the work. If you can't be bothered to look at the actuarial reports on your own, and to do the work required to get the answer on your own, well that's a shame. Do we have these wonderful 'teachers' to thank for your inability to do math without having your hand held?

So Ken, what numbers do you come up with from doing the math for currently retiring teachers?
(I'm betting that you continue on with posting distractions that have nothing to do with the pension problem)

Agreed. Shifting the burden to local taxpayers is almost a perfect solution. The only better solution would be to increase the contributions of existing workers, and raise the retirement age to 67(still below the private sector, by the way). But the union already blew its chance when they protested against this suggestion last week. The voters were paying close attention to what they were protesting, and it ended up being the single worst decision they have made in decades.

A tax shift gives local voters a say(and a sight, probably for the first time) in what they are actually responsible for, how their districts are actually being run. (Tom Cross opposes this, by the way) Perhaps they will pay attention now, instead of the union being able to get away with writing letters to the editor every few years about how 'great' they are.

When the large tax bills arrive, suddenly a lot of 'supporters' of the current pension system will suddenly be upset at the astronomical increase they now have to pay. Anyone who is for the current pension, but under this reform would then vote against local school district tax increases, is someone who does not understand the situation that is currently going on.

The report most certainly does list individual amounts.
It lists years of service - under 5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, and 50+
It cross references this in table form with years retired - under 1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49
It also lists the average age in each category.
It also lists benefits paid out for disability.
It also lists an increase of $49M in member contributions from 2008-2011, while at the same time, the state contributions have increased $1.13BILLION. Pointing out the majority of the funding is not coming from member contributions.

I also told you explicitly WHY the average commonly used is purposely skewed to a lower amount
I'm using the exact same report I gave you the numbers from. Try reading the entire report, not just the introduction.

Look, if you have never taken a statistics class, you are going to be looking at a bunch of numbers that you are not going to know what to do with. There are over 14 pages of these breakdowns, into every category you could possibly imagine.

I told you what numbers I used, I gave you a link to the report, and told you what formulas were used. If you don't know how to run those same calculations, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No wonder the union is able to fool so many people, they don't even know what to do with the data they are looking at, even when they are looking right at it.

Tim has no idea what he's talking about.
The report doesn't give actual amounts but divides it up in ranges.
Number of
Monthly Benefit Range Recipients (all)
Under $500 6,551
$500 - $999 7,597
$1,000 - $1,499 7,185
$1,500 - $1,999 7,314
$2,000 - $2,499 7,131
$2,500 - $2,999 7,055
$3,000 - $3,499 7,609
$3,500 - $3,999 8,188
$4,000 - $4,499 8,302
$4,500 - $4,999 7,658
$5,000 - $5,499 6,270
$5,500 - $5,999 4,881
$6,000 - $6,499 4,059
$6,500 - $6,999 3,360
$7,000 - $7,499 2,605
$7,500 - $7,999 1,914
$8,000 or more 3,609

He also said that there are 87 teachers in Plainfield 202 making over $100,000 but the link that he provided shows that there are only 26.

The hand holding necessary to even get you to find the information right under your nose is getting laughable.

Start on page 4, of the same report you claim does not exist.
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/pubs/cafr/fy11/stats.pdf

For fun, lets see what result you come up with when you run a regression to the mean on benefits vs assets. You can do that, right?

Tim,

Just wondering, who held your hand when you read the link and determined that there were 87 teachers in Plainfield 202 making over $100,000?

Tim,

I read the entire report. No where in it does it list the individual amounts that each person received nor does it differentiate between teachers and administrators.

Did you read page 106 of the report? How about pages 108 and 109?

If you would be happy to pay more, then why was the entire union publicly protesting that barely even a week ago?

You need to voice this to your union, and make sure your fellow teachers do the same. Because right now, they have no interest in doing this.

NOBODY is criticizing your job, they are criticizing the funding of your pension plan by those who collect from it. You need to be able to distinguish the two in order for the much needed reform to happen. Your contribution is 9.4%, whereas the states contribution is approaching 25%. And you have the gall to claim the state is 'stealing from you'?

Yiur property taxes would drop by a much larger amount, than your pension would drop if any real reform was made. But we are stuck with a mindset that because property taxes keep going up, pensions need to be increased to allow retirees to stay in their homes. Unfortunately, it is precisely because of the increasing pension costs to the taxpayers that property taxes are going up so fast to begin with. The union is stuck in a vicious circle, and is unable to see the protections they are demanding are only needed because of what they are demanding.

While we're at it, we should be talking about other state funded pensions like the one for tollway workers. The average benefit for an employee with 25-30 years of service for 7/1/10-6/30/11 was $47,232

http://www.state.il.us/srs/PDFILES/oldAnnuals/SERS11.pdf

I agree Joe! Same goes for a Chicago alderman who has a part time job and make 115,000 a year and other benefits! Then they get a pension of 80% after 20 years! Where it takes the Police,Firemen and teachers to work 30-35 years to get 70-75%! Now that's the biggest crime out there for pension plans as an Alderman!

As hard as it is to ignore your spelling errors...

Yes, everyone should have to make the same sacrifices. Make it part of your union lobbying efforts. However, if you can't get them to agree with you on that, it is no reason to just throw up your hands and say 'oh, well. we won't reform until you do'. I'm not sure you realize what would happen to your job if the rating agencies downgrade the state again. You think the state isn't paying you now? Just wait until the debt is downgraded.

You collect a public servant pension. When are you going to act like you are actually serving the public, and not your personal bank account?

Tim who in the heck cares about spelling here. That's not the issue here! And if the State is downgraded what will happen? Blame the dam State and politicians! It's their fault!

Who cares what Joe does with his pension! He earned it and doesn't owe anyone an explanation or has to act a certain way!

Tim,

It's so nice of you to point out spelling errors. Too bad you made some of your own.

Anything to distract from the topic of an insolvent pension system.

Pay attention John. Someone already called me a neo-con republican based on my posts.

"Joe Smith

8:42 am on Saturday, May 26, 2012

Tim is a small business owner??? Sounds like a republic-con CEO to me."

funny, how I'm always the opposite of whatever the person who disagrees with me is. It's as if they live in a black and white world where anyone who disagrees with them is automatically on the other 'side'.

Your are an adult John, you should know by now that the world is not black and white. Compartmentalizing people into your world view does no good whatsoever, other than appeasing your superiority complex.

So, I'm a republican AND a liberal. Either that, or I can form opinions by looking at the actual numbers reported, and apply the science of statistics to get an accurate gauge on a fiscal situation, and piss off both parties who are coming from a partisan viewpoint, and not one based on the facts of the situation.

Math is not republican or liberal. It is math.

And that is the disconnect. Public service, means exactly that. Service to the public. If you want to worry about your bank account, join the private sector where your compensation is decided by your revenue generated. Not where your revenue generated(taxes) is decided by your compensation.

Thanks John, I have a long way to go and know that the pension system will be well drained by the time I retire. It is good to hear someone that supports the people that work hard to make Illinois one of the leaders in education but one of the worst in "politics" Tim will never understand and always have an argument to the contrary. We paid in what we were suppose to (no question of that) and now we are the governments scapegoat. Thanks for your support, John.

Jeff,
Do you feel the same way towards judges, politicians, fire fighters, police officers, nurses, tollway workers, janitors...that collect state pensions or is it only teachers that you feel are stealing and have no morals?

Tom one good thing is that State has no control or say so over downstate police and fire pension plans! The State does not contribute any money to the pension plans, so they can't touch them!

Jeff,
I'm not a teacher nor am I a public sector employee. I'm just wondering why everyone is bashing only teachers and not any of the others?

Joe - Going back to school to become a teacher is not an option anymore unfortunately. Because of the union requirements, school districts have to pay teachers more who have received additional education. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a teacher, once hired, from going back to school to get their masters and receiving a 3k-5k pay bump every year for the rest of their lives. Such a crooked system.

And please do not complain about your salary. With your pension, you will make more throughout your lifetime than any other profession outside of medicine and law.

Let's see! Politicians, judges and elected officials will make more in pensions and benefits in their life than a teacher will anytime!

Brian,
It sounds like you're making this up as you go. The unions do not have any requirements that prohibit second career teachers or those that choose to enter the education field later in life.

Prohitibit - no. But if a cash-strapped school district has 200 applicants for one opening, they will not hire someone with additional education due to the mandatory pay increase.

I'm not sure about other school districts but in Chicago, continuing education credits or a masters degree puts you in a different salary "lane" for the rest of your life, a difference of about $3k-$5k every single year.

Brian,
Your assumption is wrong. I know several teachers that have recently (as in the last few weeks) been hired for teaching positions for next school year. All of them have a BA in something else with a MA in education. Believe it or not but sometimes the principals choose the candidate that has the qualifications to best meet the needs of the students. These are districts that also have salary lane increases for experience as well as education level.

Tom - great. I'm happy that the best candidate does get selected occasionally. Happy about the extra $100,000+ that person will make over the course of their lifetime? No, but it's really a drop in the bucket compared to this pension issue.

I brought that up as just another example of the many ways in which unions are actually a detriment to the future of this country's education. This along with teacher strikes, final-year salary bumps, etc. Let's not lose sight of the main focus here though: teachers taking millions of dollars in retirement that could be going into today's classrooms.

It does include all public sector employees, and it will eventually happen to all of them. Teachers on on the line now because they have been the noisiest in resisting any and all reform.

Nobody wants to take away your retirement. We want you to contribute to it more than you currently do, and wait until you reach the same age of retirement as the private sector(69). This is how to keep the fund solvent, and avoid having to ask for a taxpayer bailout.

The AFSCME will have its time as well, as they are the next largest chunk of fiscal waste.

You want to start pension reform in a section of the budget responsible for .03% of state spending?

Or you want to start pension reform anywhere but yours? There are large towns in Illinois where pension payments to public employees now make up 50% of their entire yearly budget.

You're darn right! The legislators have a bigger pension plan as far as benefits than anyone else! Example 85% pension after only 20 years, where it takes a teacher 30-35 years to get 70-75%.

John - Politicians should possibly reduce their pension as a gesture I suppose, but Tim is trying to get at the fact that the money saved will be negligible compared to the masses of teachers and other public sector employees out there.

Same thing when a CEO takes a pay cut when their company is losing tens of billions of dollars: is the $1M saved going to make a difference? No, but it makes it look better when the CEO makes small cuts to worker benefits which WILL save billions.

that "sentence" is very indicative of how public sector employees have been brainwashed by their unions...

This is not jealousy. This is not a "I want more money!" forum. As I've said countless times, I am upset at the fact that Illinois could be a much better state than it is now if not for these lavish pensions.

I surely hope you are not suggesting that anyone can just drop anything and become a teacher. Is your profession that easy? I for one don't think I'd be a great teacher, but that is NOT justification that they should be paid millions of dollars in retirement. Please don't lose sight of our argument in this forum: public sector employees (teachers included) making millions of dollars through outdated pensions.

Brian how in the hell is one teacher going to make millions in pension during their 25-30 years of retirement! What do you mean by millions ? 1-2 million?

Brian, you can go back to school and become a teacher. It takes 4 years of night and weekend classes but you can certainly do it. At least you admit that you couldn't do it. So do not act like you know how to better run a district or pay their techers. I work at a great school that does not focus on years experience and just education but make decisions on what is best for kids. Teachers also don't get any bonuses or bonus pay like my wife does in the private sector for example. Her bonus equals about 5 of my pay raises. I see that you only see the pay bump for doing nothing, but we also see increased contributions to insurance and decreased budgets for materials each year. I use my own money to buy. So when it boils down to it, I may see a $75 dollars more on my check from year to year. Don't try to understand it because you are not an educator.

Joe - Could I go back to school and get an education certificate? I'm a civil engineer and let me tell you that the criteria to get into the civil engineering school is MUCH more stringent than the criteria to get into the educational school. So yes, I could get my teaching certificate. Would I make a great teacher? Probably not - don't really have the patience. Once again, that does not mean teachers should make millions of dollars in retirement which is SUPPOSED to be the focus here.

And why are teachers getting let go and the class sizes increasing every year? Pensions. Thanks, Joe.

Joe - I 100% agree. I didn't mean to pinpoint teachers but did so because of the nature of the news article above. I agree that all public sector employees should make sacrifices to make their retirements a little closer to the private sector.

Simple math problem, Tom. ~$60,000/year in a teacher's first year in retirement. 3% raise every year. ~30 years in retirement.

=~$2,000,000.

The amount actually contributed by the individual is somewhere in the $300,000 range. The state (taxpayers) is then on the hook for the remaining ~$1,700,000. Joe, good luck trying to match those returns.

If the residents of the state can't do a simple interest calculation, exactly what are we paying these teachers for?

How about this - Your pay, and pension, is decided by what the average graduate, starting at the HS level would get paid in the real world. Grades K-12 get the same pay scale, increasing once college level is reached. Why should you get paid so much more than the education is worth to those getting(and paying you for) it?

Brian,

But average pension for a teacher is not $60,000.

Tom - unions often quote a statistic saying "the average pension is a modest $40,000." While true, that includes ALL teachers, some of whom taught for 10 years and then left for another school district but receive a small pension from the original school district. It varies, but pensions are typically based on the average of the last four years salaries and start at 70% of this total. The average final salary for a teacher who has been at the same school district for 30+ years (which is common practice) is $80,000-$110,000. Take 70% of that and you get ~$60,000 as a conservative estimate.

And don't forget the 3% COLA increase every year. Someone making a pension "salary" of $65,000 per year in 1997 now makes over $100,000.

Brian,
Where are you getting your data from that says that the average salary for a teacher with 30+ years is $80,000-$100,000 from? The ISBE study sure doesn't support that.
Are the studies that you're looking at specific to teachers or do they also include administrators?

Tom - It's hard to find accurate data since salaries vary so wildly by school district. Go to this site though and try to find a salaried teacher of 25+ years experience making under $80,000.

http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php

That being said, the upper range is probably closer to $130,000. How's that math problem coming along?

Brian,
I checked many school districts on the link that you gave. The vast majority out of the Chicago area had salary ranges MUCH lower than what you're saying. As a matter of fact, many of the administration positions aren't even close to what you're saying is standard for teachers.

Did you even bother to go to ISBE for the information? If you did, you should be able to find the studies.

Tom - again we're looking for what the average FINAL salaries are to determine what the average pension will be. In the Chicagoland area, an area which comprises 75% of Illinois' population mind you, the average final salaries are typically well over $80,000. If you look at the website I gave you, the highest of the salaries you see doesn't even account for the end-of-career salary bump that teachers get. Even in the downstate school districts, it was hard finding a teacher with retirement years of experience a salary under $70k, although there are a few. The ISBE study backed up this data to a certain extent with the 50th percentile "highest salary" typically being over $70k.

As a reminder, we're looking at the final payout. Even if someone ends their career making only $60k, a 30-year retirement with a 3% COLA raise every year would easily net them over $1,500,000. THIS is what is wrong with the current system.

Brian,
Did you take into consideration that both the website that you refer to and the ISBE study lump all school district employees together. The much larger salaries of superintendents, directors, principals... are included. They do not truly represent teachers.

Marie - I encourage you to look at several of the districts in detail in the following link: http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php. Clicking on a person's name reveals their title (i.e. elementary teacher, principal, etc). I was not including administrator's salaries which are almost always over $100k.

Again, even if a teacher's final salary is only $60k (which is VERY rare), they are set to make over $1,500,000 over a 30-year retirement. While you may think this is modest, this is much higher than a 30-year retirement with social security and a small savings. The point is that lifespans have increased drastically and the public pension system has not made adjustments.

Brian,

It's not so rare. Look at Springfield, Waltonville, Alton, Central 4, Stickney, Dolton, Harvey, Effingham...just to name a few.

Tom - great, you found a few. And I could find dozens where the final salary for a TEACHER is over $100,000.

What's offensive is people like you (Old D G) who sit back like a bunch of zombies and let the powers that be have their way. The teachers do need pension reform - no doubt. But Illinois is one of our greatest states in the union? Whining? It's apparent you don't like these hot topics from other messages here in the patch. You seem to think the elected officials should just have their way and we sit back like a bunch of zombies. Quit whining when people stand up for what they believe in.

Instead of reforming a broken system, your solution is for all private sector employees to move out of Illinois? I would love to see how "great" of a state Illinois would be.

And to be clear, shit really hasn't hit the fan yet with this pension stuff. Like someone said previously, we're going to see local municipalities and even our state's operating budgets have 40-50% of it devoted to pensions! That is not my definition of a great state. I loved the segment on CNN last night when they flat out laughed at our financial problems.

Yeah, I keep forgetting about those 'bright talented people' when they go on strike to raise their benefits that are as high nowhere else in the country, even for a baseline.

I'm glad you negotiated a contract to ensure you get a raise, no matter how bad the ones who are being taxed to pay for it are hurting.
I'm glad you think retiring at 67(still earlier than the public sector) is some form of compromise. Because sitting at a desk all day is hard, compared to the guy that goes out and lays blacktop in the summertime until he is 69, and the women out there with him.

If you seriously care about 'the children', then money shouldn't be what attracts you to the job. I don't remember many creative artistic types going into the job because it pays a living wage(and then some in your case). Money does not buy education, competent people impart education. When done correctly, it lasts a lifetime. This happens so rarely it should be unacceptable. In no way are the majority of 'teachers' competent, much less creative.

The well is dry, if you do not reform internally to make your fund solvent, the voters who are broke are going to do it for you when you keep asking for more money that simply is not there to be taken. If the voters make this reform for you, I can assure you it will be much more unpleasant.

Reform, means change. It does not mean 'tweak'.

Either reform it now internally, or the voters will reform it for you at the polls. This goes for ALL public unions.

Face in the Crowd: if money truly did attract the best talent, I'd be more in line to agree with you. I don't know how to say this without saying a little disrespectful, however, but take a look at the admissions standards to get a degree in education versus medicine, business, engineering, finance, etc. The field of education is not attracting the best and brightest, although their retirements are still leagues ahead of those other sectors.

Politicians' pensions are a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of retired teachers and other state employees.

Please read previous posts. Yes, I'm talking about teachers. Most teachers will start with a pension payout of at least $50k but then receive a 3% raise every single year.

It's easy to complain about the pensions of administrators and politicians, but don't forget that these two groups represent a very tiny fraction of the total pension obligation compared to the tens of thousands of retired teachers.

Brian,

Don't forget that administrators are included in the studies, averages and means. Can you point to one report that is specific to only TEACHERS?

Tom - take a look at the link I've posted numerous times. Just look up a few districts at random. Each person's name has a link to their title (teacher vs. administrator). And remember, you're looking for retirement-level income which includes the end-of-career bump.

Brian,

As I said, I already did. I found A LOT of people with many years in making a lot less than what you claim is the norm.

I'm asking you what study you used that was specific to TEACHERS that says that the average final salaries are typically well over $80,000.

Can you provide us with a link or at least the name of the study/report so that we can see what data you are using to come to your conclusion? The link that you've provided does not have this information.

Do you think if you keep repeating that, it will somehow be true?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-27/news/ct-oped-0427-zorn-20120427_1_teacher-pension-pension-costs-trs

"Q: What is a full pension for a teacher?

A: Seventy-five percent of the average salary in the four highest consecutive years in the last 10 years of teaching, with 3 percent compounded annual raises

Q: So what are those retirees collecting these days?

A: Neither TRS nor the Illinois Education Association, a union group, does that calculation. But the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, estimated it at roughly $65,000 in 2010."

Tim,
Is the figure quoted by the "think tank" a true representation of TEACHERS or did they include everyone collecting a TRS pension?

This question has been asked many times but no one will answer it. Hmm!

Hi Eileen,

The first part of your statement is true that the second version of the bill (proposed by Cross/Quinn) did not have the cost shift (Amendment 3). But, it did include an increase in retirment age to 67 and an increase in pension payments by teachers of 32%. So, in short, it did include teachers. Cross's version included Amendments 4 & 6 I believe. I was in the committee hearings. The only thing Cross seems to oppose is shifting the burden to local school districts. My gut feeling is that the final bill will probably include a cost shift of some sort - probably more gradual than the initial version of SB 1673.

Actually, I meant Johm L. He was the one who responded to my question.

The 'whiners' voted in Wisconsin today for the recall election for gov. Walker. It was a referendum on the sweeping union reforms put in place last year.

Scott Walker won the election, John.
Illinois is next. The voters will eject any politician that does not get this done.

Here you go JM: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/05/Bleeding-Heart-Liberal-Tells-CNN-This-is-the-End-of-Democracy