Illinois payments into state pension systems on hold

[fskimospy]

Then what solution are you suggesting? Rethinking budget priorities is off-limits, you don't like regressive taxes (which is the main revenue source for Chicago), Chicago is already at the limits of their ability to service debt, and you probably think the pension deals signed with workers should be honored without question. Are you planning to annex a few million more citizens into Chicago to expand the tax base?

I've already said earlier in this thread that I think the union's pension demands are unreasonable?

 

[glenn1]

I've already said earlier in this thread that I think the union's pension demands are unreasonable?

You said the demands would make the system insolvent, which isn't the same thing as unreasonable. The union could argue that the system could be made solvent given far higher tax rates or increased borrowing (presuming this was even possible, and still ends up being paid by taxpayers). I'm asking if you would expressly reject that line of reasoning given the current state of taxation and debt in Chicago.

 

[fskimospy]

You said the demands would make the system insolvent, which isn't the same thing as unreasonable. The union could argue that the system could be made solvent given far higher tax rates or increased borrowing (presuming this was even possible, and still ends up being paid by taxpayers). I'm asking if you would expressly reject that line of reasoning given the current state of taxation and debt in Chicago.

I imagine any solution will require both, actually. The unions will definitely have to contribute, and probably more than the 2% they are being asked for currently.

 

[Roflmouth]

I guess letting worthless government workers unionize and buy every Democratic lawmaker wasn't such a great idea, huh?

 

[chucky2]

I guess letting worthless government workers unionize and buy every Democratic lawmaker wasn't such a great idea, huh?

What are you talking about? Those workers and the Pols that they elected benefited for decades, it was/is a splendid idea for them. You can't think they give a F about anyone else, namely all who get to pay for their dealings, right? Think of the children and They feel your pain and all that...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A bunch of people (union) are making demands that the entire city has to pay for their retirement. Something tells me there might be some overall objection to that sort of notion.

Seriously, fuck these incompetent union people that honestly think everyone else needs to pay more to give them a fat retirement pension paycheck.

Ask the union members if they want to pay more taxes for someone else's pension.

 

[1prophet]

That's a clusterfuck of biblical proportions. They've dug the deepest hole in the country and they're trying to raise money for more shovels.

Look at the brightside, if they dig deep enough maybe they will reach China and bring back all those millions of outsourced middle class jobs that helped fund the public sectors pensions and benefits through their taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

A bunch of people (union) are making demands that the entire city has to pay for their retirement. Something tells me there might be some overall objection to that sort of notion.

Seriously, fuck these incompetent union people that honestly think everyone else needs to pay more to give them a fat retirement pension paycheck.

Ask the union members if they want to pay more taxes for someone else's pension.

Actually, they are demanding what was previously contractually agreed to. When you sign a contract do you expect the other side to uphold their side? If not, I have a bunch of contracts I'd like to enter into with you, haha.

I think in the end the reason the unions should compromise is that the city/state is simply unlikely to be able to come through on their end, and half a loaf is better than none. The idea that they're somehow greedy and wrong for saying the city should uphold contracts they sign though? Get fucked.

 

[michal1980]

Actually, they are demanding what was previously contractually agreed to. When you sign a contract do you expect the other side to uphold their side? If not, I have a bunch of contracts I'd like to enter into with you, haha.

I think in the end the reason the unions should compromise is that the city/state is simply unlikely to be able to come through on their end, and half a loaf is better than none. The idea that they're somehow greedy and wrong for saying the city should uphold contracts they sign though? Get fucked.

The unions elected government officials that in exchange for the unions vote provided pensions as a form of a kick back.

Its the same big money that dem's always complain about, except when its unions electing them. Then its ok. There was no other side of contract negotiations, it was the union on one side, and the guy the union elected on the other.

The biggest loser the tax payer.

 

[fskimospy]

The unions elected government officials that in exchange for the unions vote provided pensions as a form of a kick back.

Its the same big money that dem's always complain about, except when its unions electing them. Then its ok. The was no other side of contract negotiations, it was the union on one side, and the guy the union elected on the other.

The biggest loser the tax payer.

You have no sense of irony. Even though I think interest groups of all kinds have too much power over our elections it doesn't mean that suddenly contracts don't count because they are with the wrong people. I'm sure you would be plenty happy to do it that way though, because you're basically a wind up right wing robot.

But hey, that's why I want a compromise here. We already established that you are incapable of compromise. In fact, you couldn't even describe what one looked like, hahaha.