It's Time To Face Facts: Pensions Are Unsustainable And Need To End.

Taxpayers are sick and tired of footing the bill for the Ponzi scheme that is government pensions.

Chicago has been grappling with a growing crisis of unfunded bonds and pensions that has led to ever-increasing property taxes, with no end in sight. Unfortunately, the never-ending tax increases are leading to taxpayers fleeing the city in droves, and taking tax revenue with them. This is creating a death spiral of debt like what ultimately led Detroit into bankruptcy.

In 2014, Chicago’s debt had already been reduced to junk-bond status by several credit agencies. Additionally, the population had been reduced to below the levels last seen in 1920, taking close to $18 billion in taxable income out to the suburbs between 1992 and 2010. The budget shortfall for the city of Chicago and the Chicago Public Schools was expected to total over $1 billion between 2014 and 2016, and as of 2014, Chicago’s per capita pension liability was the highest of the country’s 25 largest cities.

In 2015, the unfunded liability for Chicago’s four pension plans amounted to $20.1 billion. However, because it was a mayoral election year, the city chose to raise taxes far less than what it needed in order to fund the police and fire pensions, falling over $500 million short of the legal requirement just for those two pensions. Analysis showed that the city of Chicago would need to increase property taxes by over 150% in order to fully fund the pensions it was responsible for, and that says nothing about issues with underfunding of pensions at the state level.

In 2016, Chicago raised property taxes again, working toward fully funding the pensions by 2048. Yes, 2048. Some property owners saw increases of over 30%. Others saw their taxes even double when hit simultaneously with reassessments and higher tax rates. Still more reported property tax bills tripling, quadrupling, or more. The politicians had little sympathy for them, saying that everyone knew this was coming for years because of the lack of funding for the pensions, and the fact that property tax rates had been kept artificially low for years.

In 2017, property taxes were raised another 10%, once again to help fund those pesky pensions. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-property-tax-increase-met-0614-20170613-story.html Where the funding shortfall for the city’s pension funds was a mere $20 billion in 2015, today reports show that it is at a staggering $137 billion. https://www.theblaze.com/video/pension-crisis-every-person-in-illinois-owes-11k-toward-crushing-government-debt?utm\_content=buffer774ba&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=twitter.com&utm\_campaign=theblaze That’s how much they are SHORT, not how much is actually owed. City officials have already admitted that more increases are coming down the road.

The more taxes are raised, the more people move out of the city, leading to decreases in actual tax revenue. In 2015 and 2016, people weren’t just leaving Chicago for the suburbs anymore, but the Chicago metropolitan area declined in population both years. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-census-population-loss-met-20170322-story.html The 2016 loss was the largest loss in population for any metropolitan area in the country. Worse still, people are leaving the state. Illinois ranked 3rd in 2015 when measuring the number of people moving out of the state, and had been in the top five for the previous five years. http://abc7chicago.com/society/illinois-ranked-3rd-on-list-of-states-people-are-leaving/1147112/ When the city and state are attempting to bridge gaps in pension funding as well as overall budget shortfalls, raising taxes to the point that it is driving taxpayers away is counterproductive.

The bottom line is that the gravy train of government employee pensions needs to end. This isn’t just a Chicago problem. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas school resource officer who failed to enter the Parkland, FL school during the recent mass shooting to mitigate the tragedy has recently been awarded his pension after he “resigned” (retired) from the Broward County Sheriff’s Department - a pension that amounts to over $100,000 per year, far more than most people make while they are still working! http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-scot-peterson-pension-20180515-story.html A pension like this is simply outrageous for anyone, especially on the taxpayer's dime.

In the private sector, companies have long since figured out that pensions are unsustainable, and have moved to 401K plans. An analysis showed that in Oklahoma, where teachers have been striking for higher pay, their pension benefits are worth 23% of their salaries. https://fee.org/articles/no-teachers-are-not-underpaid/ In the private sector, the average employer match into a 401K is only 3%. The teachers could get an increase in pay by changing to a 401K with an employer match greater than the average 3% in the private sector, but less than the 23% that is currently going into their pension benefits. The cost savings could go into their take-home pay, making them happier, and saving taxpayers money.

Why should government employees get a pension that is worth more than six times the retirement benefits that employees in the private sector get on average? Especially when those private sector employees are the ones footing the bill for the extra retirement benefits. The unfunded pension liabilities are bankrupting cities across the nation, because they are flat out unsustainable. They are effectively a giant, government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. It’s time to put the old, ill-conceived idea of pensions to bed once and for all.

No. Pensions are gamed, that needs to stop. But eliminating them? No.

Maybe we should only guarantee just enough of a pension so retirees (who protect you, fight fires, teach your children, make the courts operate, plow your streets, ensure your trash is collected, etc.) can purchase a can opener for the dog food they will have to buy.

Whoops! Dog food is expensive too so strike that idea.

Better yet.....Studies show that most people with 401Ks can’t afford to retire and live the same life style as they had when they were working. Even defined benefit pensioners end up having to take part time jobs. Folks are just outliving their savings. Heck, retirement should be just for those who make the biggest bucks or are the biggest risk takers so let’s just make everyone else work until they drop dead. That would be the compassionate thing to do.


Current political climate prevents fixing gaming. As long as left responds to any reform as ‘throwing granny off the cliff’ public
pensions (including Social Security) will not be reformed.

Pensions are archaic and unsustainable. They’ve survived way past their expiration date. Time to change. One segment of society should not have fund another’s retirement.

I agree with this article and I'm near retirement age. If government were smaller and only doing what it should instead of all the intrusion it does, the cost of living wouldn't be so high for everyone! These pensions raise property taxes on the very folks trying to save in their 401k plans. It's wrong for these government workers to live high on the hog in retirement at usually a younger age than those of us in the private sector. It's hard to save when everytime you turn around, taxes are constantly going up as well as the cost of everything. Government regulations are always costly and passed onto the consumers. And since folks are living longer and healthier why not raise retirement age to 70? Unless health issues keeps one from working, let folks work longer and save more. We should be putting our energies into reducing not just the size but the intrusion of government into our lives making the cost of living more affordable for everyone. As long as government greed at all levels with no concern for the tax payers continues we will come to an Atlas Shrugges moment! Lord have mercy on America and those too ignorant to see what's coming!

Variation of ‘granny off the cliff’. What is your realistic proposal to fund these pensions?

Forced retirement, arbitrary retirement age, then all these promises of pensions, SSN and et cetera. This on top of all the welfare & other goodies promised all the time (cell phones?) have now come back to bite all of us. It's now time to pay the piper that progressive liberalism has been pushing around for near a century now. These were designed as ponzi's and never were intended to do anything more than make the populace complacent to Big Brotherism.

Pensions seem like an artifact from another time. I would rather we strengthened social security rather than save pensions.

As if in a capitalist society you wouldn't be able to find people to do government jobs without the promise of a lifetime payment.

I believe we should sunset all government pensions, social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc. None of those are functions of government and those departments and all their employees should be eliminated. Also eliminate property taxes on homes and cars and everything else. At some point, we should own our home, our car, etc.


Pension disaster caused by under funding from the beginning, poor or even no investments, raids on what looked like a surplus, and ignoring actuarial tables, Social Security has always depended on younger generations, no investment built into the system. Many pensions were hit by the crash of 2000 because they were tied to Enron and other tech companies. There was little diversity in the investments. People can retire at 49 if they have thirty years of service. Public safety people have less required time because of health matters. Those in administration for years have the high salaries not the rank and file. There are the double and triple dippers. Ignoring the actuarial tables is ignoring the longer life expectancy. It isn't as well known, but tyhe government backs up private. and union pensions that have gone bust. Cost of living increases are a flat rate, so those with a larger amount in the beginning gain more. Then some disability amounts to early retirement.

I don't believe Americans are perpetually stupid. If we get rid of pensions and even get rid of Social Security (except for honoring what people have already put into them), people will eventually learn how to save and invest for their future.

FICA takes 7.65% of your paycheck. Since your employer matches that, you're really paying 15.3%. I don't have to tell self-employed people about this. And 12.4% of that is just for Social Security pension -- the remainder for Medicaid. So think about it, 15.3% of your income goes to D.C. for them to hopefully give it back to you .... under their terms.

Let's do the math. If you make $30K per year from age 20 to age 60, and put 12.4% of that into investments, making 10% return per year (I average 12%, but I plan on 10%), here's where you'll wind up:

At age 59 you will have put in a total of $148,800, but it will have grown to $1,646,000. The if you withdraw 4% per year at age 60 to live on, you first year would be $72K. Then the next year would be $76K. Then the next year it's $81K. Why is it growing? Because most of your wealth is still invested and making money (10% return). So each year when you pull 4% of it for withdrawals, it's 4% of a pie that's bigger than it was last year.


Pensions are a way for local governments to kick the fiscal can down the road. Instead of paying workers competitive wages in the short run, they cut their current wages and promise a big pension in the future.

It's basically deficit financing.

We end up here for the same reason we end up with Federal deficits: unrealistic thinking.

People want low taxes and all of the government's goodies*. When math intrudes, they run a deficit. It's as simple as that.

(* People also don't want us to go into long term debt, but not as much as those first two things so here we are).

We should be phasing out all pensions. I don't agree with going in and slashing an established contract (existing retires and those employed with certain pension promises). The government should keep its word. The problem is the promises made in the past. I do not think it is ethical to take someone that has worked for 30 years with a certain promise of a pension and decide to cut it at the end. We need to make adjustments for new hires and can make adjustments to COLA increases, etc. Now when we get to bankruptcy, it is a different matter. At that point, we are breaking promises to all of the creditors, and pension recipients are no higher on the totem pole than other creditors and reductions at that point should be considered.

The idea that people will not work for the government if pensions are eliminated is just false. Wherever it has been done, there isn't any significant increase in the lack of new workers. The truth is that we are a now society. We might like the idea of more 25 or 30 years from now, but it doesn't have a major impact on new hires. Most people care about the now. It is the teacher unions, other government employee unions and organizations and the progressives that oppose ending these programs.


We can't fund them. That's the point.

Get the unions out of government! The concept of collective bargaining is two parties negotiating the pay, benefits and working conditions. It works to a degree in the private sector because there is two parties; the one representing the workers, the other representing the company. They have decidedly different goals. The company must make a profit to stay in business. With government there is only one side, union workers and management, and no one sitting on the other side of the table. That should be the taxpayer, but no one is representing their interest!