Friday, February 22, 2013

"Temporary" Tax Hike = Permanent

  • The 2011 state income tax increase would be made permanent and the receipts dedicated to pension payments under a plan floated Wednesday by state Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie.

    Lang’s proposal also would require state workers to pay 3 percentage points more of their salaries toward their pensions, and the minimum retirement age to receive full pension benefits would be 67 for all five pension systems.

    But Lang’s plan does not call for any reduction in pension benefits, something he said makes his plan constitutional. Other pension measures floated so far call for changes in cost-of-living adjustments to retiree benefits, something Lang said makes the bills unconstitutional.
A 3% wage cut while the economy staggers through a double-dip recession.  Brilliant.  That's the kind of forward thinking we expect from democrats.

Labels:

33 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The 2011 state income tax increase would be made permanent and the receipts dedicated to pension payments..."


Once again, making those who've EARNED those pensions, the enemy.


rb

2/22/2013 12:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By By Quinn you lying asshole. Anyone with half a brain knew the tax would be perm. Democrats never cut taxes and when they get a little extra they spend it.

2/22/2013 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there is one person in this state that believe the Illinois income tax increase was "only temporary" that person would be the biggest idiot in the State of Illinois.

I do not know of one voter who believed the lie of Quinn and the General Assembly that the tax hike was temporary.

Keep voting Democratic, people. Look how well it is working out!

Stop voting Democratic. Get all members of the General Assembly who voted for this tax increase, out of office in the next elections.

The Democrats are in panic. They will not reduce or eliminate welfare programs because they are paying those who are enslaved by the system to keep voting Democratic.

What will the Democrats do when the tax payers start fleeing the state in larger numbers than what they already are?

DON'T VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

2/22/2013 12:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haye to have to agree with Lou Lang but state workers have a much more generous ension with a shorter time to vest.

2/22/2013 12:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone should vote these guys out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2/22/2013 01:00:00 AM  
Blogger West Side, Inside Do-Nothing said...

All these grandiose plans at the Working Man's expense, but not once will you hear a fucking peep about diminishing the entitlements ladled upon the non-contributors or the freebies heaped upon those in our country illegally.

Many work a second job in order to provide a better-than-average life for their family. The extra income is invested, put into college savings plans, spent on necessities and things of the sort. Households are run frugally and any disposable income is little and far between. There's no new car every other year. No $200 shoes or $500 jeans. No hair weaves or phony cartoonish fingernails. No trips to the casino to drop a grand or two on the craps table.

There's a serious fucking problem when people that have never worked a day in their life have more cash in their pocket than someone that's gainfully employed. Like people who get to stay (in their government-subsidized) home and get high, watch TV and fuck all day while their kids are babysat by the public school system.

It's unfathomable that better medical and dental services are available to the unemployed/uninsured than people paying for medical coverage out of their wages. Or our seniors that have paid into Social Security for 40 years. Our our servicemen and women returning home and out of work.

Disgusting that child birthing costs and immunizations are free to illegal immigrants but the insured have to cough-up copays for the same services.

Etcetera, etcetera. Ad nauseam.

And now these cocksuckers that make the laws want the worker bees to contribute even more and wait til they're 67 years old to be eligible for a full pension?

FUCK. THAT. NOISE.

My promise: to spend as little money as practically possible in this hellhole city and Cook County. I also purchase a lot from out-of-state retailers online. I'll gladly spend the extra time and burn the extra gas to travel out of county if it means less money going to the welfare leeches and those that seem to have mastered the concept of sticking their hands out but refuse to assimilate by even "hablo-ing Ingles".

Rant \ OFF.

2/22/2013 01:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Instead of robbing the workers and making us poor, think about regulating link card fraud, section 8 fraud, unemployment fraud, and etc. I'll take whatever pension you are having senator.

2/22/2013 03:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once you declare bankruptcy, all contracts are null and void.

You start from square one.

At a $100 Billion pension deficit - not to mention operational budget deficits, Illinois can declare bankruptcy.

Just sayin'.

2/22/2013 03:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Involved in the push for the casino in Rosemont? These politicians don't care about us.
They seem to give themselves raises and don't touch their benefits or pensions.
Now they are trying to pass an extreme goal of age 67, ridiculous

2/22/2013 03:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well "Lands" plan DOES cut benefits according to the scoil.

Our fucking benefit is defined as 50 years old plus 20 years on equals 50 percent of salary.

Sorry fucktard, but THAT is already defined, as stated by the scoil.

So fuckoff dickweed, the scoil already shit all over the assumption that ANY calculation for benefits can be changed.

And that fucking includes trying to force employees to pay more as well.

2/22/2013 03:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Money everywhere for pet projects and entitlements and politicians pensions but NOTHING for the government employees!
Madigans idea is cut everything and increase their contribution my way or the highway!
Have yet to see the politicians cut their pension and increase their contributions!

2/22/2013 04:01:00 AM  
Blogger stormy said...

didn't expect anything less out of the most corrupt state of illinois.

2/22/2013 06:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And aren't we all just so surprised? NOT!

Regardless of whether you are on the paying end or the receiving end of a public pension the citizens must realize where the problem is.

It was the LEGISLATURE, not the employees who granted the pensions that are in existence and it was those same LEGISLATORS who failed to honor a commitment which THEY made. So they are dishonorable people (again, Surprised? Not so much) who are now saying it's the fault of the employees.

Face it: they pandered to the unions and to anyone else they could to keep their spot at the public trough where they could steal and wheel and deal never intending to honor their word.

2/22/2013 06:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So IL dems want to tax you more, screw your retirement , and take your guns away? Wanna vote for more democrats?

2/22/2013 08:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A 3% wage cut while the economy staggers through a double-dip recession. Brilliant. That's the kind of forward thinking we expect from democrats."
---


Any acceptable alternative suggestions?

2/22/2013 08:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So instead of paying 9% of our pay into the pension we will pay 12%? I say NO FREAKING WAY.

Look the pension fund is already broke and we are supposed to pay more into it? I have six years on the job and I will NEVER see a penny in pension benefits. Yet I am supposed to pay into it?

How about we cut the pension benefit from 75% of your salary to something reasonable like 30% of your salary. If after 29 years on the job you don't have a penny saved up for your retirement then it's not my responsibility.

2/22/2013 08:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christ. Bitch more. At least he's trying to keep benefits intact and force the state to catch up.

2/22/2013 08:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry SCC, this makes sense if the CPD pension did it. 3% more to ensure viability is reasonable. And after taxes, it's closer to only a 2% take-home reduction. No change to COLA? Right on.

Do not think for one second that something does not have to change in funding our pension.

2/22/2013 10:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Lang guy is one of the biggest lackeys in Springfield. He does nothing of value except line his pockets with casino investors money.

2/22/2013 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger SpankDaddy said...

Democratic mantra. Say one thing, do another.

2/22/2013 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger SpankDaddy said...

Did anyone really believe anything else?

2/22/2013 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

States cannot declare bankruptcy.



“There are two reasons why state governments currently cannot use the federal bankruptcy system to reorganize their debt. First, the federal bankruptcy code does not allow—and has never allowed—state governments to declare bankruptcy. Since 1937, the bankruptcy code has allowed ‘municipalities’ to declare bankruptcy. The term ‘municipality’ is defined in the bankruptcy code as a ‘political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a state.’ This definition is broad enough to include cities, counties, townships, school districts and public improvement districts. It also includes revenue-producing bodies that provide services which are paid for by users rather than by general taxes, such as bridge authorities, highway authorities and gas authorities. But it does not include state governments.

“The second reason stems from the U.S. Constitution. The contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits state governments from ‘impairing the obligation of contracts.’ As originally understood and enforced, this clause prohibited state legislatures from passing any laws to relieve either private debt or the state government's own debt. Beginning in 1934, however, the Supreme Court began to interpret the contracts clause more flexibly and not as an absolute bar to state debt relief laws. Even under the flexible modern approach, however, the Supreme Court in 1977 reiterated that ‘a state cannot refuse to meet its legitimate financial obligations simply because it would prefer to spend the money (on something else.)’ Thus, were Congress to amend the federal bankruptcy code to authorize states to repudiate debt, the Supreme Court would then need to decide the novel constitutional question of whether such debt repudiation would nonetheless violate the contracts clause of Article I, Section 10.”

2/22/2013 02:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, many PO's dont live long enough to even collect their pensions. So let me get this straight he wants PO's to work 40+ years and retire at 67? How about going back and finding all the hacks that are collecting pensions after 4 years and yank that from them putting the money towrds those that work for a living.....These jag offs are unbelievable

2/22/2013 03:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry SCC, this makes sense if the CPD pension did it. 3% more to ensure viability is reasonable. And after taxes, it's closer to only a 2% take-home reduction. No change to COLA? Right on.

Whats wrong with you? How does 3% more INSURE anything. They can change it again if you allow this change. If the po's put in 3% more and the city does not put in their share like for the last 20 plus years, our 3% will insure nothing. No one even claims anything will be insured, this is just a way to get the police to pay in more
SB 3538 was passed 2 years ago regarding new hires and pension reform. It gives the city from 2015 to 2040 or 25 years to put in their share and get the pension funding up to 80% Its a law and it mandated the city to put their share in, but no thats not good enough They want us to pay more
Dont fall for the city BS

2/22/2013 05:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

50% at age 50
60% at 55
65% at 57
70% at 60
75% at 63

no cola until age 65

this will keep cpd pension funded

2/22/2013 05:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"A 3% wage cut while the economy staggers through a double-dip recession. Brilliant. That's the kind of forward thinking we expect from democrats."
---


Any acceptable alternative suggestions?

2/22/2013 08:16:00

Yeah how about starting with cutting unnecessary government spending on lifetime benefits for the mutts and their litter. Next, cut taxes and regulation to make IL a better state for businesses which create jobs thereby increasing the amount of revenue for the state/government. Those are just a few things to start. You are a real dumb fuck if you think the left wing policies of the last 4 years are the answer.

2/22/2013 07:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2/22/2013 08:16:00 AM
Anonymous said...
So instead of paying 9% of our pay into the pension we will pay 12%? I say NO FREAKING WAY.

Look the pension fund is already broke and we are supposed to pay more into it? I have six years on the job and I will NEVER see a penny in pension benefits. Yet I am supposed to pay into it?

How about we cut the pension benefit from 75% of your salary to something reasonable like 30% of your salary. If after 29 years on the job you don't have a penny saved up for your retirement then it's not my responsibility.

2/22/2013 08:28:00 AM

If this comment is from a cop, well,....he/she shouldn't be one for far too many reasons to try and list here. Scary stuff. My bet is that it has to be a troll.

2/22/2013 09:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



How many sit ups must I do at 67?

If they don't give me a head start and hop on one leg, can that enhance a misdemeanor to a felony,

When the courts bring back those who retired at 50 or 63 do I have to change my furlough split?

No one is allowed to commit a crime until THEY are 67! NOW THAT'S A BETTER LAW!

2/22/2013 10:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

paying extra on the mortgage each month to get it paid off.. selling and getting the heck out of this state so when I retire I can some of MY money in MY pocket.. let the illegals pay for all the BS they created..

2/22/2013 11:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
2/22/2013 08:16:00 AM
Anonymous said...
So instead of paying 9% of our pay into the pension we will pay 12%? I say NO FREAKING WAY.

Look the pension fund is already broke and we are supposed to pay more into it? I have six years on the job and I will NEVER see a penny in pension benefits. Yet I am supposed to pay into it?

How about we cut the pension benefit from 75% of your salary to something reasonable like 30% of your salary. If after 29 years on the job you don't have a penny saved up for your retirement then it's not my responsibility.

2/22/2013 08:28:00 AM

If this comment is from a cop, well,....he/she shouldn't be one for far too many reasons to try and list here. Scary stuff. My bet is that it has to be a troll.

2/22/2013 09:13:00 PM

Or the mayor's office.

2/23/2013 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't these supposed genius minds arrive at any alternative to balance the budget besides raising taxes and salary cuts. I know many City of Chicago retirees that would happily donate a day a month working an inside desk job or wherever needed to ensure current and retired city employees could keep their benefits and keep taxes down.

2/23/2013 03:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know many City of Chicago retirees that would happily donate a day a month working an inside desk job or wherever needed to ensure current and retired city employees could keep their benefits and keep taxes down.


So long as I can continue living outside of Cook County.

2/24/2013 10:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a state university worker, 8 % of my earned income is forwarded to SURS for my retirement. Additionally, the state shares in the cost of my retirement, at an amount that varies actuarially each year, averaging 9.1%. I also am supportive of shifting who pays the employer portion of my pension, so long as it is done the right way... That cannot be dumped on my employer in one year, or even 5 years... there's no way that unplanned cost be assumed by another entity that quickly. Right off the bat, I have no qualms about paying an equal share to what the state (employer) pays. I am NOT ok with having my retirement benefits reduced... even if I am far away from retirement. I have spent a number of years in this position with the expectation of promised pension benefits. Had I known that the promised benefits would be changed, I may or may not have chosen to accept the employment, but at least it would have been with the understanding of what would actually be my future. The government and the media need to stop vilifying us... We are not draining anything. Maybe it's up to the public to decide if we should or should not have been made the pension promise... but it's been made, and it wasn't made illegally, so it stands. The government and the media need to focus on finding whatever the right balance for new employees who have not yet had a pension promise be made to them. Anything other than that is illegal and unconstitutional. We do not get to claim social security so that shouldn't be a part of the conversation.

2/27/2013 01:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts