62 Comments - Big Jake - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:06 am: Regardless of whether or not you feel the benefits are out of line and too good there would not be a crisis today if the state had made its payments. Zero state employees missed meeting their obligation to the systems. - Cassiopeia - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:10 am: Regardless of how the system got to this point the only way to insure that it will be there is for it to be reformed and this includes having employees pay more. The unions are doing a disservice by opposing meaningful reform that helps save their members retirement. Sure the state did not fund the systems like they should have, but we need to deal with now and not rehash the past. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:14 am: A commenter said it best yesterday, taxpayers are getting extended services that the skipped pension payments are paying for. It is time for them to pay up. - Liberty_First - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:14 am: FACTS: -Employees were hired with a contractual relationship including a specific pension. (employees can be laid off to save the state money.) -The state constitution protects these benefits to stop elected politicians from turning the state into a banana republic. -Too high or not, legislators could simply cut salaries. -The politicians are bad managers of the state’s funds. -The politicians are spending money everywhere and want to continue to take from the pension system. -The pension system could act as a bank to help balance the budget when income is low provided it is funded when income is high instead. -State spending is out of control. -Reduce programs - reduce state employement -72% of state spending is direct payments to vendors - someone has to manage those payments. Do we expect the typical high school graduate to be able to manage these programs? -The criticism of salaries and pensions is largely hype by some narrow interests in Chicago who want to enrich themselves. - CircularFiringSquad - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:14 am: Since the underfunding has been occuring since the Ogilvie days, it seems a bit rash to enact the Commercial Club plan. The funds have operated at 40% for most of their history We oppose this bill until states are given the same option as employed by Commercial Clubber Jffrey Smisek of United Airlines. He opted to dump his pension fund into a federal bailout program so all taxpayers get nicked Talk about running government like a business. Fire, Aim, Ready! TeeHeeeeeee - Bushrod Johnson - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:23 am: The state did get here by underfunding the pensions and it is to the advantage of employees and the state as a whole (lawmakers and taxpayers) to work out a compromise to stabalize the system. The problem with simply increasing the workers contribution is it does nothing to recognize how we got here. If we continue to spend more than we take in once we have shifted the whole burden of the pension to employees and reduced their wages to the point new employees simply go elsewhere other debt payments will have to be sacrificed to continue the spending. You can not spend more than you take in you must either take in more, spend less or do both. The workers don’t want to sacrifice yet because state has not and I believe after this will not make the pension payments no matter how much the employees pay in. They have not so far, this bill has no provision or poison pill to compel them to adequately fund it in the future and the legislature will simply vote to spend the money elsewhere as they have before. Nothing the employee have done or said in the past has stopped that nothing they do or say in the future will either. The state is equally uncompelled and unlikely to make the matching contibutions to the 401 style plan which makes it a poor option as well. There are no good options but until the state makes its contribution faithfully for a long period of time and lives within its means no one will have faith in its retirement system, bonds or solvency. - Rob Roy A.K.A. Ignorant Troll - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:42 am: Jake is absolutely correct the problem was not caused by the paying out of so called golden parachute pensions, which by the way they (the politicans) have a more golden plan than any of the other state employees. Their plan starts at 3% for each year of service were as Corrections starts at 1.67% for each year of service. It takes a corrections employee 32 years of working to attain the same level of pension % that politicans reach after 20 years. I say they should have to catch up the payments they didn’t make while they took pension holiday after pension holiday. And after that if they would like to make some changes to the system going forward including a modest increase in employee contibutions, or other changes should be negotiated as it is a binding contract after all. Nobody else would have been allowed to skip payments like they did and not have went to jail. - Katiedid - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:43 am: I voted no, although I do think some type of reform is likely necessary. As previous commenters have pointed out, this is not a new problem. This therefore lends us the time to craft a real reform package. And, yes, taxpayers (a group that, by the way, includes public employees) will need to shoulder some of the “pain.” They did receive increased services because of the failure to properly fund the pensions and now the piper needs to be paid. True reform needs to include a mechanism that mandates the state make its full payment. Only then should we look at increasing the payments by the members or some other potential changes. Otherwise, it’s not reform, it’s pandering. - Save the Pensions w/Reform - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:47 am: @Liberty_First, When the teachers were given a second year of sick time for their retirement was that a pension ENHANCEMENT? Did they pay more into their pension for that extra year? The answer is yes it is an enhancement and no they did not increase their contributions. Shouldn’t it be reasonable to ask them to pay for the value of the benefit? - DuPage Dave - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:48 am: Sorry, taxpayers have not given too much. That is the sole reason for the pension mess. We state employees have paid our required share. The State has not. Anyone who says otherwise is full of beans, including the Northwest Herald. - Wensicia - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:57 am: It bothers me that the people whom have met their pension obligations are asked to pay more. It also bothers me to hear some say taxpayers are suffering when they have mostly benefited from money used to fund services for them instead of going into the pension funds. What bothers me the most is the fact this reform does NOTHING to ensure the state will meet its pension obligations in the future. I vote NO! - RetiredStateEmployee - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:00 pm: The biggest problem is the reform doesn’t address the underfunding by the state. The state could defer even more if the employees paid more. How about increasing all state employees salaries by the required state contribution, then make the contribution the responsibility of the employees. Kind of a reverse Edgar plan where the state picked up the employee contribution in lieu of a raise. Any future changes would be employee only decisions and the state would be left out of the discussion. - Anon - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:03 pm: I voted no. I could support the proposal with one small change. Under the bill, if a Tier I employee opts into Tier II, their Tier I benefits are frozen as of July 1, 2012 at the salary at that date. I would be fine with the bill if after July 1, 2012, the employee would accrue Tier II benefits, but the prior Tier I benefits are based on the salary when the employee ACTUALLY retires. I think this proposal would still be unconstitutional, but that is a separate question. - Rich Miller - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:07 pm: ===It takes a corrections employee 32 years of working to attain the same level of pension % that politicans reach after 20 years.=== However, they pay in at a much higher rate. - Rich Miller - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:08 pm: ===this reform does NOTHING to ensure the state will meet its pension obligations in the future.=== Not true. - Reality Check - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:15 pm: This isn’t reform, it’s a plan to destroy the pension funds entirely by forcing participants to opt out rather than pay astronomical rates that jump again every three years. That out-migration would fast reach a tipping point causing the funds to collapse. - Gregor - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:19 pm: Not for any changes to employee pensions for current hires, and not for bumping them into lower tiers. They did nothing wrong. I would be for a new arrangement for all new hires. I recognize that this doesn’t solve the immediate crisis, but it is a step. - Justice - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:39 pm: What forces the state to hold up it’s end of the bargain? The employee must be ready to contribute more and more every successive three years in the very unlikely event the ‘now’ contributions aren’t enough. I for one have zero trust in the state holding up their end of the bargain and 100% faith that employees will be required to pay in more each time the ‘opportunity’ for review rolls around. It is unfortunate that not only unions contributed to this mess, but many administrations wrote themselves checks on the backs of the current employees. That includes the acts of politicians with little moral fiber and lots of “let the next guy worry about it.” As much as I hate to see this reform enacted, it must be done and comes because we let it happen under our watch. What else are we losing track of? - Matt Penning - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:43 pm: I voted no. I am a State of Illinois employee. The unfunded obligation is the result of easy fixes that our legislators and governors have taken in the past, and we as the electorate have tacitly approved by re-electing our representatives. All parties share part of the blame. We in Illinois have enjoyed a low income flat income tax at the expense of neglecting rising needs which have been paid for by fund raids and pension holidays, among other fiscal sleights of hand. I know of no way of forcing our representatives to enact a real (not imaginary) balanced budget. There are few statesmen-legislators who would make the tough choices, or be willing to make the hard compromises with those of the other party, for the good of all. I continue to hope for folks with those qualities to rise up and run for and win elections. One possible alternative to fund pensions: put a tax on retirement income, not a flat tax but a graduated tax. Dedicate this to the pension obligation, and to other retiree-age initiatives and services. It’s a thought I have not heard discussed. I’m willing to shoulder my part of the solution, not the entire load, but my part. - Desert Dweller - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 12:48 pm: I voted yes, even though I am a state worker. I will go the 401(k) route and contribute more than what I currently have to, with the employer pickup of 6%. Give me the opportunity to achieve a better ROI with my money than what the state would provide. - Anonymous - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:03 pm: Desert, and what if shortly before you intend to retire your 401(k) loses half its value like has happened to many in the recent past? - wordonthestreet - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:20 pm: The bill I saw appeared to say that SERS members would pay 24.89% of “compensation” into retirement if they want to stay in Tier 1. While I do think current employees should pay more than they currently are paying, 25% is too much of a hit. The current system was set up at a time when state employee salaries were quite low, and to attract and retain good employees, the state offered guaranteed benefits upon retirement (pension and free health insurance). This promise kept many of us in government jobs at which we were quite competent, instead of running off to better-paying jobs in the private sector. Today, due to the infulence of the unions and that Blago guy, state government jobs pay much better than they used to, and I question the need for enhanced benefits to attract/retain competent staff. - Adamharrisonstevens - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:23 pm: As a high school math teacher I’m angry with the lack of problem solving and logic skills employed by the gov’t. You’re eroding the middle class and pitting us against the people who have even less. Tax the rich and corporations fairly and this wouldn’t even be an issue. I hope you all get voted out of office and regret making us default on our loans which our current salaries barely cover. - naek - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:23 pm: public employees are taxpayers, too. so we’re paying twice. anyone who buys a product is paying for that company’s employees’ wages and benefits. how about legislators who consider their work here a part time job, volunteer instead of getting paid and getting benefits. they voted not to make the state’s full payments to the systems for years. maybe, since they are at fault, they should be the one’s who pay. - Pam - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:23 pm: NO NO NO to SB 512. The only way to ensure lasting reform is to include the people who these changes will affect at the negotiating table! Why are state workers being punished for the politicians inability to manage their money? If there are problems within the current system, then fix those loopholes. The first thing that needs to happen to save these pension systems is for the ILLINOIS STATE GOVERNMENT to pay its fair share, which, incidentally, is LESS than what they would have to pay for us if we received Social Security! Why should I trust that this will solve the problem? How can we trust any of them if we have not been involved in the process??? - ProudPublicServantg - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:31 pm: This bill is intellectually dishonest at its core. First, it’s almost certainly unconstitutional, as Cullerton has acknowledged; it allows the legislature to look as if they’re actually doing something while understanding that they’ll have to try again later. Secondly, there’s no guarantee that the legislature won’t use the additional funds generated for other purposes. The bill is a charade, plain and simple. - ProfReggie - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:32 pm: Why penalize teachers for what the state legislature and the governors have done? There needs to be a much fairer way to balance the budget and treat the teachers. - OldF - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:35 pm: Until someone does a study of HOW THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN if the legislature had NOT borrowed funds, withheld payments etc. the problem is NOT with the pension systems but else where. - jimbo2600 - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:35 pm: We worked for it and we paid our part. If they want to make changes, they should not just listen to the Civic Committee. To think that someone like Miles White of the Civic Committee who saw his pension and deferred comp increase in value by more than $5.5 million last year has anything in common with the average worker in Illinois is absurd. - Soccertease - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:36 pm: No. Changing the pension for new hirees is fair game, but not for current employees (except the general assembly retirement system(GARS) since they are the ones that caused this pension mess by not paying the employer normal cost year after year). - sk hicks - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:43 pm: I don’t support this version for reform, although I believe changes are necessary. Pension abuses (see Ronen, Granburg, E. Jones & too many school admins. to mention) may not be “the” reason for instability, but those practices must cease before penalizing long term, front line staff. Changes need to be the result of well thought, reasonable compromise; not an end of session, get out the door & take no questions, see ya in court vote. - Save the Pensions w/Reform - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:44 pm: Rich, My guess is this poll may be a bit skewed. Most of your viewer audience is somehow associated with government. Lots of those folks have some skin in the game. I may change my position and say lets let the whole system implode. In the end most of our tax dollars will pay for pensions. When we have to start cutting education to pay for pensions then I would love to hear the crying from all the teachers in the state. - hisgirlfriday - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:47 pm: No. MJM and other state legislative leaders and their governors have over the years created this mess by using the states’ pension funds as a piggy bank to break into the week before June 1 when there’s not yet any budget deal year after year after year. Now they seem to think the answer is teachers and state workers pouring more money into the system so there’s more money for MJM and the legislative leaders to raid? I am not a teacher or state worker, but as a citizen I have received their services for decades and as an Illinois taxpayer I employ them. So as their boss and as their client, I don’t want this action taken in my name by the state legislators against my employees. There are abuses that can and should be curbed when it comes to overpaid school and state administrators and the final year pension sweeteners that some boards dole out and leave state taxpayers with the tab for. But from what I can tell this legislation goes too far to punish teachers and front-line state workers who are having a tough time as it is and who do not get Social Security. I expect this sort of attack on teachers from Republican states, but not Illinois, at least not the Illinois I know and love, the state which stands for Learning and Labor. - Happy Returns - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:52 pm: It’s doesn’t sound very fair - especially the 3 year revisions idea. Punt on 2045 as the goal, and reset for 2060 with 80% funding - we are trying to push hard in hard times to save money 30 years from now. - JimF - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 1:54 pm: I am a retired teacher who “takes home” about 3,500 a month after paying for health insurance. I think this plan does hit employees too hard. Also: @Liberty_First, “When the teachers were given a second year of sick time for their retirement was that a pension ENHANCEMENT? Did they pay more into their pension for that extra year? The answer is yes it is an enhancement and no they did not increase their contributions. Shouldn’t it be reasonable to ask them to pay for the value of the benefit?” This was a benefit to the employers not the employees. It was an additional incentive for teachers to work even if not well to conserve their sick days. This meant schools didn’t have to use and pay for substitute teachers - benefit for both school and students. - The Whole Truth - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 2:07 pm: I vote a qualified “yes” for the simple reason state finances are such drastic cuts need to be made. The qualifier is that pensions appear to be the most drastically affected while being the most innocent in terms of how their situation came to pass. Until we see similar drastic cuts to entitlement programs and the administrative areas of education, especially Universities, pension “reform” will always be perceived as the unfair shame it is. Spread the pain out fairly across the board, focus on the the most egregious areas of waste and inequity, and we might start to see some buy-in to the cuts that have to be made. - volleyballgirl - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 2:32 pm: The current crisis is a direct result of the government “dipping” into our pension funds. If it hadn’t been touched, the money would be there. Why should public employees be forced to pour more money into it when nothing has changed? - Cornerfield - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 2:39 pm: No. The recalculation thing every three years is onerous and is the poison pill for me. I don’t have a huge problem with paying more for my retirement. Figure out what contribution is needed by actuarial methods for each retirement system. (That was conveniently left out of the “fact sheet” yesterday.) The state kicks in 6% and the employee picks up the rest. The state should take care of the catch-up due to its history of underfunding. To make the catch up easier, I agree with Happy Returns’ suggestion @1:52. Punt to 2060 instead of 2045 and shoot for 80% funded. - HANAL - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 2:54 pm: Because it is intended solely to make up for past budget manipulations, rather than a fair analysis of employer/employee cost-sharing, it should not stand. It will be a heavy financial burden for most of the current State employees. - South - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 3:49 pm: As a 15 year State employee if the SB512 is not overturned in court I will be seeking employment outside of Illinois. The pension increase, tax increase and health care increases it never stops. Alot of State employees work every weekend, all holidays and diffrent shifts Illinois is out of control. - JustMe - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 3:55 pm: I voted no on this bill, but reform is needed. The costs of the current defined benefit plan have to be taken into account very clearly in setting employee compensation. An employee taking home $30,000 in cash and whose current pension plan requires $3000 in contributions is making $33,000, and employees should be given the choice between taking the $33,000 in cash or in cash plus some plan, properly priced. Then everyone knows what they’re getting. But the current bill is an accross-the-board pay cut, because it gives that same employee a choice between taking home $27,000 plus his $3,000 pension or taking home something between $27,000 and $30,000, with a smaller pension. But this is a pay cut, forcing the employees to bear all the cost of reform. - redeft - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 4:52 pm: The problem arises from the state not making its contributions during many years. It is not due to excessive benefits. All taxpayers benefitted from lower taxes, or expenditures on other items when the state refused to pay its obligations to the pension funds. The remedy should not be solely on the backs of workers who have always paid their share. Workers gave up raises and other benefits for this system. Under the proposal, the state will pay only 6% of salary into the plan. This is less than the state would pay if state workers were covered by social security–the state would then have to pay 6.2%. Of course, state workers are not eligible to collect social security based on work they did as public employees. - Fed-Up - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 5:22 pm: OldF makes a valid point in asking for a study to show what would have been if the state had played by the rules all along. If such a study would show that the system would still have been broken (albiet it would be broken to a much lesser degree) then make some fixes. I am praticularly worried about our educators. One of the reasons they accept salaries below what they could make in the private sector was that they knew in the end that they would have a great retirement program. As far as the arguement about sick days for pension, the number of days is limited and everyone beneifits because lower paid teachers replace the higher paid ones. If we continue to screw with teachers who will want to teach? If you think things are bad now in education I can just imagine what the future holds. - waitress practing politics... - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 5:26 pm: I have read the summaries of this legislation. It is by far the first to really try to fix this. A while back, I spoke to someone whose brother lost all his pension cause his employer spent the employees’ pension funds. This man said, “Hey, you have to take care of yourself.” Pay more in, get more out or invest in your own 401K are options here. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 6:10 pm: State hasn’t made the payments off and on for 50+ years. There must be a guaranteed plan for the State to make both current and missed payments first before any changes should be considered. A contract is a contract. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 6:14 pm: Jim F, As a former SERS employee, I got credit (at the 50% rate) for my unused sick days. I also *paid* the applicable retirement rate for them to be considered part of my service time. So yes, I *did* pay for my sick time to be part of my creditable service. - Adamharrisonstevens - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 6:41 pm: I’m a third year teacher, and with rent, student loans, car loans, gas prices, utilities, and basic living expenses - I haven’t been able to save a penny - let alone even think about finding a house for a family. I don’t get paid until next wednesday, and I spent my last 15 dollars this morning. Taking away more with this bill will put me over the edge. And like I said before, I hope all the legislators who support this lose their next election and never recover politically.. . - Tallgrass - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 7:06 pm: I voted no. Two points: The more that people drop out of Tier One, the less money there will be to fund future Tier One pensions. Also, if the state doesn’t fund its end, we will be back in the same place in the future. That being said, I could swing the extra percentage contribution for myself, but I would worry about ever getting my money back. - x ace - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 8:03 pm: Reduction of benefits or increase of contributions for those already employed is bait and switch. - Enough Said - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 8:05 pm: Maybe we should take the funding in the General Assembly’s pension fund and put it into the other pension system funds to help stabilize them. Why are we giving a bunch of part-time employees like legislators “Cadillac” pensions. Then we should cut the legislators salaries in half. Again, why are we paying a bunch of do nothing, part-time employees so much. They do not complete their work and should not be paid like they are full time employees that actually accomplish something. “Pension reform” is nothing but code for let’s screw the employees for the State failing to live up to their pension obligations. If the legislature had made their pension contributions over the past 30+ years, the pension systems would not be underfunded. - the Dark Horse - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 8:22 pm: Simple: It’s illegal, it’s unfair, and it opens the door to further improprieties down the road. - Wensicia - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 8:45 pm: I know many whom visit this site are state workers, like myself, I’m an educator. However, I hope the poll results show a change in attitude towards the negative opinions concerning public employees the past year or so. - AC - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 10:05 pm: While I don’t support the pension reform bill, I support the state increasing their pension contributions to make up for the shortfall that they created. I also support the state negotiating increased pension contributions from union members at the next contract. - riddlemethis - Saturday, May 28, 11 @ 11:11 pm: Why is 2045 even the goal? A “new hire” age 25 (teacher)who retires after 33yrs in 2045 wont be allowed to draw their pension till age 67 - some 9 years afterwards. They should be reforming the last reform bill ! - Palatine - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 12:44 am: I find the results to be very interesting. I’m sorry to say the current system won’t work and changes have to be made. - Man in the Middle - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 7:44 am: Even the most conservative or libertarian voter must be concerned that this “reform” is essentially a breach of contract - changing agreed terms of employment after the fact and without employee consent. In my opinion, what needs to happen instead is for the employer-portion of the pension costs to be paid into an externally-managed pension fund (such as TIAA, Fidelity or T. Rowe Price) by the university or school or agency actually employing each such worker, with the state’s role becoming to require the payments to be made, as it does now for municipal employees. I see no other way “reform” can guarantee even a penny of retirement benefits is actually deposited into credibly-managed retirement accounts. - No-name Nick - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 8:27 am: The argument that state employees aren’t under attack is disengenuous at the least. The proprosal reduces our pay and /or benefits by more than doubling our contribution, the new so called health insurance providers don’t cover my county so now I have 2 cchoices. One moreexpensive to me and my family and the other more expensive to me and my family. Recently our agency’s office was moved so now we have to pay for parking to the tune of $65/month. All reducing our monthly income. I sincerely think that the legislature has looked at the future wage increases in the current contract and decided to use that money to pay for these”reforms’. - JustaJoe - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 8:40 am: No, I don’t support it. I agree with the “no” comments above, and I’ll add that the hype and this action is less an attempt to really fix state finances, but rather slight of hand to deflect attention from legislators’ long-standing financial irresponsibility. If 72% of state spending is direct payments to vendors, take a look at the waste in many of those vendor contracts, and that includes waste in procured services….who’s minding the store? - stuckinthemiddlewithyou - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 10:40 am: I do not support any pension bill that increases employee’s contributions and diminishes their benefits. Here’s a way to solve the pension problem. Pass Lang’s gambling bill allowing for five additional riverboat casinos. Prior to any investors seeing a dime of that money, the revenues should be used to shore up pensions. Quinn needs to realize that breaking promises and constitutional protections will only send Illinois into a unrecoverable financial tailspin. - Obamas Puppy - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 11:32 am: Considering that the editorial is factually incorrect this reform is an attack on anyone getting a paycheck from any government period the unions just happen to be the ones with the clout to fight it. - teacherdz - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 11:55 am: I would be happy to take all the money I have contributed for the last 20+ years and take care of it myself. My other privately funded retirement plan (which I put in place when I saw how IL was mismanaging my fund) is doing just fine. If I had all the 8.5% back I had been contributing, I’d be happy to manage it. But someone else mentioned that since I also pay IL state taxes so am paying into my own fund - this is confusing and unfair on so many levels, no wonder the general public can be easily misinformed. Finally, the services provided to the people of IL by public employees would be 4 - 5x higher if provided by private sector companies. Go ahead and make all the schools and universities private - see how much people will complain then about how much it costs to educate their kids and produce competent employees to maintain the economy. See how much they’ll be willing to pay for services currently provided by the state. See how violence, crime and protests will increase. It’s a recipe for anarchy, be careful what you wish for. Basically, the culture in the U.S. has become very selfish and greedy at every level, it’s quite sad. - Double D - Sunday, May 29, 11 @ 12:04 pm: I have paid in 7 to 10 percent to TRS from Day 1. The taxpayer has been granted services by skipping required payments to my system, nor have they had to make SS payments. Sorry but if taxpayers want services they must pay for them. PS…how much did the president of the Commercial Club of Chicago make last year?….oh yeah 28 million. Until you can convince me this is nothing more than corporate Illinois wanting its hands on another pile of cash I will fight tooth and nail with anyone who thinks the payments are unsustainable. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.