Posted on 07/04/2014 10:40:22 PM PDT by george76
yesterday's decision in a key Illinois Supreme Court case has set off a first-class explosion in state and local government, potentially punching tens of billions of dollars in holes in their collective budgets.
Some elements of the court's decision are drawing intense debate. But if the overnight consensus is anywhere near correct, everyone from City Hall and the Capitol to your local village and school board will have little option now but to dig deep, cut services and raise taxes a lot and labor unions little incentive to compromise.
"The law in Illinois is now crystal clear: Politicians cannot break the promises made to Chicago teachers and other city employees," crowed the Chicago Teachers Union in a statement. "Recently passed laws to cut promised retirement benefits are clearly unconstitutional."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagobusiness.com ...
So you believe promises made by politicians are somehow sacred or sacrosanct? Once a promise is made by a politician it must be kept not matter how ridiculous?
Pensions can be funded by actual hard money deposits into trust accounts that are invested in hard assets (not government bonds). Or they can be funded by promises to pay future promises which means the politicians promise to pay future benefits by collecting from future taxpayers. Unions comprised of the teachers you are so sympathetic towards opted for promises and not hard money. They did so to maximize current salary and benefits and betting they could force taxpayers to cough up even more later on. No sympathy.
I've been there, just done it. The PPRMD is already wondering why their tax receipts are down, despite the new rain tax they imposed.
That’s why you have to move out at an early enough stage in the death spiral.
One question is, at what point will the non-public-employees of Illinois turn on the public employee unions, and support politicians who will pass right-to-work laws like Wisconsin and Michigan did?
true but it’s easier for renters to escape that than property owners. they can just move out. property owners still have to pay taxes, full building or empty building.
Bleed to death slowly or leave while you have the means. The smart approach is to never settle in a liberal cesspool from the start. I moved out of CA in Dec 2000. I rent a room in San Diego. My wife and kids are comfortable in Idaho. I’m uncomfortable, but able to walk away immediately if necessary.
Correct. Worse, the rents stagnate or go down as renters leave, unit supply increases and the landlords see less revenue and increasing costs, at least short term.
Thats a laugher statement.
Grow up?
FRiend, an attitude like that is a great big part of the problem. Money, money, money. Get the most you can, regardless.
I HAVE turned down a good job. Why? Because it was union. And unions are evil.
What about teachers who went "on strike" or threatened to strike unless they were paid copiously?
There's a resort area in Wisconsin, "Door County" (the penninsula that isolates Green Bay from Lake Michigan).
A significant portion of the property owners there are Chicago Public School teachers.
I hear you. I’m on countdown to finally leave Chicago. If all goes according to plan, next summer I will make the move to Florida.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.