Skip to comments.Retired College Teacher With $152,000 Pension Claims Pension Reform is Theft (Illinois)
Posted on 05/02/2012 5:07:10 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Retired College Teacher With $152,000 Pension Claims Pension Reform is Theft
April 27, 2012 By Bill Zettler
Michael Corn, a retired college teacher, recently wrote a letter-to-the-editor at the Daily Herald equating the unfunded Illinois pension system with theft. And I agree it is theft but I would argue the thief is the public employee not the legislature or taxpayer as Mr. Horn claims.
Mr. Corn laments that he paid 8% for his pension and for that unholy contribution he feels he has earned his $12,707.59 monthly pension or $152,490.84 per year. Mr. Corn paid his 8% for all of 31 years too. Wow thats impressive. The rest of us have to work 40 or 45 year careers in order to get our pension (Social Security) at age 62 or 67 respectively. But then again teachers are special.
Now the greedy private sector taxpayers, the weirdo 95% of citizens without state pensions, who are responsible for paying for Mr. Corns $152,490.84 annual pension, contribute 6.2% to their own pension (called Social Security) and at age 62 after 40 years of contributions can take down a huge maximum pension of $22,260 annually or about one-seventh of Mr. Corns annual pension. So Mr. Corn contributes at a rate 22% higher but for 9 fewer years but receives 7 times the pension. And Mr. Corn retired earlier too at age 59. What a terrible deal for Mr. Corn. No wonder he is complaining.
(Excerpt) Read more at championnews.net ...
Many people planned their retirements based on their 401Ks, the equity in their house, etc. etc. Their plans didn't work out in part because of the overspending that has sent the economy into a tailspin, including overspending on public pensions. I generally agree, it's the system and not him that is to blame, but it would be a good bet that he has been voting over the years for those most responsible for putting the system in place.
I absolutely don't credit him for ‘superior wisdom’ in choosing a path that lead to a big pension. I also don't give that kind of credit to chronic welfare recipients who abuse the system and don't have to work for a living.
Currently, I'm hearing more and more about Social Security being broke, and that SS benefits will need to be "means tested", or perhaps people won't see any SS benefits.
If his employer, the government, doesn't have the funds to meet pension obligations, then my attitude is "Welcome to the party, pal"
Tell that to former GM bondholders...
To what extent does the Illinois State Constitution grant the legislature the authority to promise money on behalf of future taxpayers? If a crook buys something on credit with a promise that I'll pay for it, when I've agreed to no such thing, I'm not obligated to pay one dime to the merchant. The merchant is free to go after the crook, if he can, and I'd wish him the best of luck doing so. Fundamentally, though, the fault would lie with the crook and with the merchant who was willing to accept his phony promise--not with me.
Try telling a cop to go FK himself when he stops you for not wearing a seat belt. Is that law in the Constitution? How bout talking on the cell while driving? There was no problem talking on the CB back in the 70’s, so whats the difference with a cellphone.
I , for one, would extract blood from someone if they fkd up my future by breaking promises that were made concerning my future pension payouts.
Who is the crook? I hope you mean the Illinois government.
“Taking that from him is, indeed, theft.”
No, it won’t be theft, it will be bankruptcy.
“I , for one, would extract blood from someone if they fkd up my future by breaking promises that were made concerning my future pension payouts.”
You’ll have to extract that blood from the taxpayer turnip. That which cannot be paid, will not be paid. It matters not what promises government made to government employees.
A lot of Illinois benefit recipients, including pensioners, are not going to get what they think they are going to get.
NO! The taxpayer did not default on the promise made. The legislators are the ones who reneged on the agreement.Their heads would roll.
“NO! The taxpayer did not default on the promise made. The legislators are the ones who reneged on the agreement.Their heads would roll.”
You can claim this, but the legislators don’t pay the taxes.
This nonsense ends in bankruptcy. There is no other possible end.
WTF is wrong with you ? They passed the law. They are responsible to back it up. I’m getting tired of dealing with all the pseudo conservatives on this site.Grow up.Quit whining.
“WTF is wrong with you ? They passed the law. They are responsible to back it up. Im getting tired of dealing with all the pseudo conservatives on this site.Grow up.Quit whining.”
Bankruptcy is law too, my friend, and it was passed too for just this reason.
They (Illinois retirees) won’t get what they expect, not because someone is not conservative enough in your opinion, but because mathematics is an exact science and there is not enough money from taxpayers to provide services for which taxes are paid, and simultaneously pay lucrative pensions.
Illinois hasn’t hit the debt wall yet, but they will be among the first, if not the first (a race with California).
This will be repeated in many, if not most states, and municipalities. It will probably be repeated at the federal level before it’s all over.
You can have services, or you can pay retirees with the tax money. You can’t have both.
Now who’s whining?
So I guess they should renounce their citizenship, move to Mexico, come back to the US, and get $$ for free like the illegals do?
“So I guess they should renounce their citizenship, move to Mexico, come back to the US, and get $$ for free like the illegals do?”
Different issue (but you knew that), same result.
The financial reality will be stark for anyone who thinks taxpayers are willing and able to finance their chosen way of life in perpetuity - by paying taxes so that welfare recipients and government retirees can retire in the style they have become accustomed.
The founding fathers observed that individuals have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This trumps any agreements reached by union members, government employees, or welfare recipients.