Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign update
Next Post: Champaign County won’t investigate, Durkin calls for subpoenas and testimony under oath
Posted in:
* Finke…
House Republican lawmakers complained Wednesday that most of their ideas for property tax relief were rejected by Democrats on a property tax relief task force and that the ideas advanced by Democratic lawmakers won’t be effective in curtailing property taxes.
However, Rep. Sam Yingling, D-Grayslake, one of the leaders of the task force, said he’s still waiting for Republican lawmakers to recommend changes to a draft report prepared by the task force that could include their proposals. […]
Among the ideas Republicans said weren’t included in the report were pension changes for future employees, further relief for school districts from mandates dictated by the General Assembly, expanded property tax relief programs for seniors and more emphasis on consolidating school districts and other local governments. (The draft report does call for school and government consolidation). […]
“The House Republicans have not submitted their edits yet,” [Yingling] said. “They are the ones that released a draft report. My position has always been that in order to tackle the property tax crisis we need to have all four caucuses moving forward together and that everything is on the table.”
If the House Republicans don’t produce their edits, Yingling said the task force will have to decide how to move forward.
* Capitol News Illinois…
Among the Republican proposals not discussed in the draft report, according to Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, of Elmhurst, was cutting pension benefits for new employees of local governments and school districts and capping pensions for school administrators.
“We propose capping administrator pensions so that they can’t exceed the average household income in the state of Illinois, because administrative pensions are going absolutely crazy and driving costs up,” she said. “None of these were up for debate or up for consideration.”
In a separate interview, Rep. Sam Yingling, a Grayslake Democrat who served as one of the co-chairs of the task force, said Illinois did reduce pension benefits for new employees in 2010 when it adopted the so-called “Tier 2” pension plan. But he added federal law requires that in workplaces that offer pension benefits in lieu of Social Security, the benefits must be at least as generous as what Social Security provides.
He also noted the state now offers the option of opting out of the pension plan in favor of a 401(k)-style savings plan and that it is also offering buyouts of future benefits.
In response to the charge that House Republican ideas weren’t considered, Yingling said the draft report was sent to all four legislative caucuses — Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate — for their suggested edits, but that the House Republicans so far have not responded.
…Adding… Hannah Meisel…
HB 348, which passed the legislature in the spring, consolidates townships in McHenry County, with an eye on other areas of the state emulating the consolidation model in the future. Former Gov. Bruce Rauner, with whom McSweeney did not get along, vetoed similar bills in the past. Durkin, with whom McSweeney has also sparred with, voted present on the bill in the spring.
Local government consolidation was also a top recommendation made by the task force in its report.
Task force co-chair State Rep. Deanne Mazzochi (R-Elmhurst) also voted no on McSweeney’s measure, and defended her vote to The Daily Line on Wednesday, saying any movement for government consolidation should respect local desires.
“One of the problems I think we have down in Springfield is we assume that there’s going to be this one-size-fits-all model that applies to everybody as the best, most perfect form of government,” Mazzochi said. “That’s actually not true. We see it because we made special rules for Chicago, we make special rules for downstate, we have special considerations for the suburbs. So again, when we’re talking about consolidation, I’m much more in favor of things that are grassroots bottom-up as opposed to Springfield top-down.”
That makes zero sense. From the bill…
Provides that the board of trustees of any township located in McHenry County may submit a proposition to dissolve the township to the township electors or township electors may petition for a referendum to dissolve a township.
That looks pretty darned “bottom-up” to me.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 9:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Campaign update
Next Post: Champaign County won’t investigate, Durkin calls for subpoenas and testimony under oath
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Capping large administrative pensions is an excellent idea. Every dollar counts.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:03 am
“Among the Republican proposals not discussed in the draft report, according to Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, of Elmhurst, was cutting pension benefits for new employees of local governments and school districts“
There they go again. Republicans want to cut the middle class but are unanimously against taxing the wealthiest more. Since the wealthiest are still being served and protected by the ILGOP, which super-rich right winger will be the next to buy the super minority party?
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:09 am
=Capping large administrative pensions is an excellent idea.=
Beyond finding a convenient scapegoat how exactly does capping administrative pensions to the average household income “help”? What exactly do you believe an administrator should earn? What do you consider to be “large”. And while you’re at it maybe you should tell us what you earn so we can decide if its reflective of your worth.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:15 am
===wealthy government workings paying their fair share?===
No pensions are taxed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:23 am
As it relates to capping administrator pensions, this will cause two immediate issues.
First, the market may tend to adjust and school districts will increase current compensation levels to offset the loss due to the cap on deferred compensation.
Second, given that most administrators start their careers in the teaching ranks, the proposed administrator pension cap will prevent many teachers from making a career transition to the administrator ranks due to the potential reduction in pension benefits.
Comment by Occam Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:28 am
A Republican talking out of both sides of their mouth? Can’t be.
A bill is filed that clearly leaves the decision to eliminate townships to the most local of governing bodies, and the knee-jerk reaction is it’s bad because it originated in Springfield. Like it’s going to originate somewhere else.
Repubs talk big about less government, then, come a national or financial disaster, they’re the first ones to scream for daddy.
Comment by efudd Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:28 am
=== It’s for the children.===
Argue like an adult. I’m done feeding you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:29 am
===Who could object to public spirited , public servants helping the reform process. It’s for the children.===
What official in the history of Illinois has been successful running on a platform of taxing retirement benefits?
Comment by njt Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:31 am
You know you’re going to keep feeding him.
Comment by SSL Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:31 am
Steve,
Numerous administrators from other state agencies, namely law enforcement, retire with six figure pensions.
What should the ceiling be for them?
Don’t give me gobbleygook about how you wish everyone could have a generous pension, but we can’t afford it.
No, give me the figure that you believe should be the ceiling.
We both know you won’t.
Comment by efudd Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:33 am
Capping administrator pensions is still nibbling around the edges. People want their tax money spent wisely, but then don’t want to pay someone six figures for overseeing $25million, $50million or $100million dollar annual school budgets. No one with qualifications is taking a superintendent job for a $75k and a $50k a year pension.
Consolidation is no guarantee of savings as I pointed out previously.
Both parties evading tough solutions, even in proposal form, which is really disheartening for the future.
Comment by Shemp Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:35 am
OW
You just deeply insulted teachers. I never heard of the phrases “what about the children” or “it’s for the children” until I started listening to articulate teachers explain their commitment to public education. Only backward types dismiss the persuasive eloquence that teachers articulate.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:35 am
-efudd-
Based on historically low interest rates and the present value of current pensions: a good start would be $125,000. But, that could change if interest rates revert to the mean of where they’ve been historically.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:38 am
- Steve -
I didn’t insult the teachers. Move on from me. Argue like an adult.
To the post,
It should also be noted that Durkin gave the indication that there was nothing that could’ve persuaded Raunerites to support the progressive tax.
It’s important to note that Raunerites want concessions, but won’t concede the main point to get concessions.
There’s only 44 in the House. You’d think they’d leverage better.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:40 am
School superintendents in smaller districts are the wealthiest people in town. We are forced to pay a super. $175K with a great pension. The supers have a ‘club’ so they know how much each is making and how to get more.
Paying taxes on pensions is wrong, the average Joe that still gets a pension cannot afford that tax, it’s as bad a taxing Social Security money we have already paid tax on.
Comment by Uncle Ernie Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:45 am
If you’re going to cap pensions, then salaries beyond a certain salary threshold shouldn’t be subject to pension contributions, like social security. No point of paying for something you won’t get.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:47 am
I might agree to the capping of admin pensions to the average household income. Yes, being a principal or a superintendent should be on the higher end of the bell curve, but if we cap an individual’s pension to the household average I think that could work. I don’t know what other pension cuts they’re proposing though.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:50 am
“…saying any movement for government consolidation should respect local desires.” Who defines “local desires?” Thousands of townships in Illinois are not going to voluntarily dissolve themselves. In Whiteside county, Union Grove township supervisor Rick Deter transferred township funds to the Morrison school district, instead of using the funds for general assistance to help families in need. Why? Because voters’ kids attend the high school and this gets him votes.
It’s impossible for any reasonable person in Chicago or Cook county to comprehend how totally corrupt some of these rural townships are. They are an antiquated good old boy system that “serves” only a few insiders, generation after generation. Abolish townships if you want to balance the budget.
Comment by Buford Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:51 am
==We are forced to pay a super. $175K with a great pension.==
I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts your district picks up your super’s pension contribution. I know mine does.
==average Joe that still gets a pension cannot afford that tax, it’s as bad a taxing Social Security money we have already paid tax on.==
Pension contributions are tax deferred. Social Security contributions are not. Joe never paid state income taxes on his pension contributions.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 10:52 am
Mazzochi Is another in a long list of Republicans who talk a good game but don’t have answers for their hypocritical votes. For a high-priced attorney who misses several days of session for her legal work, you’d think she’d be a little more prepared for these types of questions. Leader Durkin should probably prepare his witnesses a little better…
Comment by Jeannie Ives Stunt Double Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:06 am
The GOP knows their proposals aren’t going anywhere. Don’t get yourselves in a lather arguing about something that will not happen.
Whatever proposals that result from this effort will be window dressing at best.
Comment by SSL Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:08 am
Abolishing the townships will do nothing. The functions of the townships will be transferred to either a county or municipality.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:11 am
Given that about 70% of local property taxes are for the local school districts, nobody wants to acknowledge the two big elephants in the room; they just want to nibble around the edges of local spending.
The first elephant is, between local property taxes and the state contribution, we still aren’t adequately funding the school system as currently structured (more on that in a minute).
The second elephant is, under the current situation, if we are to lower property taxes then the State contributions must increase and, given the current situation, that means even more state level taxes to fund increased school spending.
I qualified both those statements relative to the current tax and budget situation.
soapbox warning /s
From my somewhat naive perspective, one of the big drivers of school. spending has been the explosion of administrative positions over the last 50 years … and this seems to have a direct correlation to the expanded / increased state and federal regulations imposed on the schools. Every new mandate seems to require new administrative personnel to do the paperwork showing compliance. And you now have personnel dedicated to funds chasing (grant writing). Compared to years ago, there is a ton of administrative bloat.
You can’t do much about federal regulations but maybe the Legislature should look at reducing state level mandates causing this.
Another step, as much as I hate expanding State agencies, maybe it would be better if the Office of Education was expanded to do the back office operations for all the school districts; things like HR compliance, payroll, insurance administration, initial screening of job candidates, etc., maybe even administer the investment if excess funds. You could leave the hiring, salary and actual expenditure decisions with the local school boards while moving some of the administration load to a shared staff.
Note: I am suggesting the State directly pay for this central expansion and NOT charge the districts for the services provided. It could even be set up on a regional level and use some of the existing local personnel to staff the regional offices. That should provide some immediate relief though shifting the personnel cost away from the local districts and also provide long term overall savings through greater efficiencies.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:14 am
= expanded property tax relief programs for seniors =
This does nothing to solve the problem of high property taxes, it merely shifts the tax burden to other taxpayers - a point specifically mentioned in the draft report. Did the HGOP even bother to read the draft?
Comment by cover Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:18 am
== Joe never paid state income taxes on his pension contributions. ==
Today almost all retirement savings are tax deferred with the exception of Roth IRA’s where you pay the taxes up front. But a lot of years ago, longer than most of us have been alive, some pension contributions were taxed. A very, very (laughably) small portion of my state pension is exempt from federal income tax. We’re not all retirement state income tax exempt, that few dollars would also be state exempt.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:22 am
were not we’re
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:23 am
I don’t have the numbers, but I’d wager the state opt out program for pensions, if brought to the county and municipal level, would save very little overall in the grand scheme of things. Republicans want property tax relief, then propose some real cuts somewhere. Employees didn’t rack up the deficit and it should not be balanced solely on cuts to their benefits.
Comment by Fixer Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:31 am
== While administrative bloat is certainly a piece of increased educational costs.. .I’d argue that federal and state mandates contribute a huge amount as well. ==
I believe the mandates have caused the adminstrative bloat. You can’t fix the bloat without removing the mandates
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 11:58 am
=== Abolishing the townships will do nothing. The functions of the townships will be transferred to either a county or municipality. ===
While I don’t contend that abolishing townships will make a huge dent in property tax bills, arguing that the savings will not be huge is not a reason to keep them around.
1. Not all functions of a township of a township will have to be absorbed by a municipality or county. Townships provide some critical functions but also a lot of nonsense just to justify their existence. For example, my township mails out postcards to residents regarding voting information/polling locations — that is duplicative of the role of the county clerk. And much of what townships do is dole out taxpayer money in the form of grants to local charities — it makes the township trustees feel super good, but it is not a core function of government to be dishing out year charitable donations — municipalities and counties will not have to pick up the slack on that.
2. There will be savings from reduced administrators, staffing, etc. e.g. Instead of every township in the county hiring their own law firm, the county/municipalities can rely on their existing law firms.
This is a no brainer.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 12:07 pm
=It’s important to note that Raunerites want concessions, but won’t concede the main point to get concessions.=
And it further encourages hostage taking. Nobody gets what they need until I get what I want.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 12:24 pm
How is capping administrator pensions any more Constitutional than curtailing state employee pensions?
If you do not want your superintendent to have a $200K Pension, then do not pay him or her a $250K salary.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 12:36 pm
I’m assuming the overwhelming majority of administrators are Tier 1 and you can’t touch them. But Tier 2 does have a cap on pensionable salary, so that’s already in place. It’s just not as ridiculously low as what the GOP wants (for 2019-2020 it’s $115,928.92, see https://www.trsil.org/employers/payments/contribution-rates_earnings-limitations).
Comment by MyTwoCents Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 1:12 pm
Fixer 11:31: Fwiw having just retired I asked SERS how many state workers have taken the opt out. One in four if they are to be believed.
Comment by Steward As Well.... Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 1:13 pm
Steward, 25% is an astoundingly high number if it is true. Far more than people with limited life expectancies or other issues that make the opt-out a good deal. But also I guess you can scare a lot of people if keep telling them that their retirement system is going broke.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 2:24 pm
== 25% is an astoundingly high number if it is true ==
== But also I guess you can scare a lot of people if keep telling them that their retirement system is going broke. ==
As PT Barnum supposedly said … there is a sucker born every minute.
And in other news, life insurance salesmen still make a comfortable living selling unsuitable annuities to people …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 2:33 pm
= Fixer 11:31: Fwiw having just retired I asked SERS how many state workers have taken the opt out. One in four if they are to be believed. =
SERS’ figures are for the “COLA buyout”, where new tier 1 retirees basically get a tier 2 COLA and get paid 70% of the difference. That’s not the same as opting out of a pension altogether.
Comment by cover Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 3:36 pm
It’s unconstitutional to limit pensions even for fat cats. Only way to do it legally it to legislate salary caps. Why in God’s good name should any of these fools be making 300k plus. Limit Admin salaries to 300 K. If they don’t like it let them quit
Comment by Sue Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 5:42 pm
All administrators capped at $300K or only those deemed “fools”? And why so generous? As long as we’re spitballin’ why not cap it at $30K. Can’t see any of them saying no, fools as they are.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jan 9, 20 @ 6:48 pm