Are you worried about your own retirement? With the downturn in the economy, did your 401k and savings take a big hit? If so, you're like millions of other Americans forced to confront a dramatically different outlook for their post-work years. But one group of pensioners is largely insulated from such concerns — outgoing Illinois lawmakers.
The retirement benefits Illinois legislators receive are far more generous than those most of their constituents could collect working full-time jobs, reports Scott Reeder of the Reeder Report, using data from an Illinois Policy Institute analysis in a piece published on Watchdog.org.
The anticipated pension benefits of the 34 lawmakers who will depart the state legislature in January show these pensioners will see better returns than they ever could have investing on their own dime.
State Sen. Chris Lauzen, who has been in office since 1983 and served on the Committee on Pensions and Investments, the Subcommittee on Pension Enhancements and the Subcommittee on Pension Reform, put $141,358 into his state pension plan. The Kane County Republican will leave office with a projected annual pension of $63,384 and a lifetime payout of more than $1.8 million, reports Reeder.
An annuity with that kind of payout through the private sector would cost 10 times as much at $1.4 million, according to analysis by Jonathan Ingram at the Illinois Policy Institute, who computed the pensions of the outgoing legislators and the cash a private-sector worker would need to be able to purchase an annuity of equal benefit. (You can see the results of Ingram's work in the chart that accompanies this post.)
How do experts on pensions view these figures?
“Public pensions are inherently corrupt because it is the lawmakers deciding what their own pensions will be,” said Frank Keegan, an editor with State Budget Solutions. ...
Edward Zelinski, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York and a national authority on pensions, called the Illinois legislative pensions “offensive.”
“I can’t say it is the most egregious in the nation, but I can say it is hard to believe there are many – or any – that are more egregious,” he said.
The lawmakers who leave office in January collectively are eligible for more than $25 million in pension payouts. The state legislature still has no plan to fix the $200 billion state pension shortfall, either.
Patch on Politics appears on the Patch network throughout the Chicago area.
Fraternities Gangs Colors Loyalty Allegiance In the line of duty Symbols Brotherhood Danger I read some of these descriptions in an article the other day. The commonality intrigued me.
Is Chris Lauzen going to collect his pension from the State AND take the salary from the citizens of Kane County?? That, though completely legal, is double dipping. Not contributing to a second pension funds for a future payout is really not the issue. It would seem that Lauzens income in 2013 will be his salary plus his pension plus his free healthcare paid by the State of IL taxpayers. And John knows this. BTW, legally he may HAVE to pay into the second pension fund.
Is Chris Lauzen going to collect his pension from the State AND take the salary from the citizens of Kane County?? That, though completely legal, is double dipping. I don't know but maybe she can ask someone in her own very close family like circle? Do these politicians really think that their neighbors are so stupid?
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/budget/state-personal-income-taxes-on-pensions-1.aspx If you have any knowledge of an economy you would certainly understand the importance of this state remaining tax free for retirement income. It helps those who are not in the workforce, it attracts people from other states, and can serve as economic development for the state. Forty-three states impose state income taxes on retirement earnings. Why be the 44th so the citizens of this state can move to the remaining six? Then who will foot the bill when they aren't paying any taxes towards the state and they still get away with paying no state income tax. You should try just a basic google search before you just make baseless claims. Use evidence to support your claims.
and instead look at flat numbers.
Can you explain how you got this information? Where does it say in our tax code that social security is not taxable federally until it is over 34K/ Boy, I hope you are right, but unfortunately either you are misinformed or I am misreading your statement in the blog above. Fred Cregier
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p915/index.html Income Thresholds Used in Social Security Taxation Formula for Individual Filers -If you file as an individual and your combined income exceeds $34,000, then up to 85% of your Social Security benefits may be taxable. Note, this does not mean you will be taxed at an 85% rate, it means that for every $1 in SS you collect, you can be subject to whatever tax rate you are in (based on your TOTAL income) for $0.85 of that amount. I bet if were to list the REST of your income(i.e. combined income), I could tell you exactly why your paying tax on your SS income.
*When they have been sentenced and jailed for corruption and are serving terms in prison - and NOT even in "hard time" prison facilities. *Also - it is about time to establish "term limits"! *Yes - I know they have been "elected"... *Government needs to have "fresh blood" not the same-o, same-o of politicians being in office as long as they can be wheeled in on a gurney. *Why should politicians continue to receive salaries *when they are on "prolonged sick leave" and *unable to attend and participate in legislative sessions for which *they accepted as their sworn obligations *when they swore on the Holy Bible when they accepted office? *Stupid question!!! *Those duly elected officials make sure they receive their "entitlements", regardless, when they are first sworn in to their respective office. *Again - the logic continues to elude me. Granny Gruntz