Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner: Judicial system “broken”
Next Post: Former Hawaii governor to be state’s COO
Posted in:
* Jamey Dunn…
According to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau this year, the percentage of the population age 65 and older increased from 4.1 percent in 1900 to 14 percent in 2013. The Census Bureau projects that by 2030, nearly one in five residents will be 65 or older.
The demographic trends in Illinois are similar. Census estimates for 2013 peg Illinois’ over-65 population at almost 14 percent.
By 2030, that number is expected to go up to 18 percent, meaning that an estimated 2.4 million people in the state will be 65 or older.
And that means higher costs for services like Medicaid and even prisons…
Thirteen percent of inmates in the Illinois Department of Corrections are 50 years old or older, according to statistics compiled by the Chicago Reader. If current trends bear out, the number of inmates 50 or older will double within six years. Incarceration costs for older inmates can be twice as expensive as those for younger ones.
…Adding… From IDOC…
Based on the average cost of approximately $22,000 per year inmate in IDOC, incarceration of its 7,729 inmates over age 50 costs approximately $170 million per year. That is roughly 13.4% of the Department’s annual budget–between 1/7 and 1/8 of the budget, which is much, much less than the “one third” stated in the Illinois Issues/WUIS piece.
Don’t forget the tax revenues lost as well…
If all of that doesn’t seem like a big enough challenge to Illinois, the state will also see its revenues shrink as more of its population leaves the workforce. Illinois relies heavily on income taxes but does not tax retirement income. Senior citizens also get a break on their property taxes, which fund local services and schools.
So, while seniors demand more from the state, they will be paying fewer of the tax dollars needed to keep the whole operation afloat. The Census Bureau estimates that by 2030, when all the Boomers will be over the age of 65, there will be fewer than three working age people to each person of retirement age in the country.
“On the revenue side, I think the issue doesn’t get enough attention,” says Kurt Thurmaier, chair of the Department of Public Administration at Northern Illinois University. “You have a smaller and smaller group of younger people who are earning income, and the equation just doesn’t balance.”
Oy.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:38 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner: Judicial system “broken”
Next Post: Former Hawaii governor to be state’s COO
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Wouldn’t taxing the meager incomes of retirees that are already demanding “more from the state” cause them to demand even more from the state?
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:43 pm
I am well over 65 and I could never understand why we were not paying at last some taxes. My income is $25,000.00 a year but I sill should pay something.
Comment by reflector Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:48 pm
The good news about older prisoners is that you don’t have to put up fences are tall or walls as thick…..oh and you can have less gaurds.
So that’s good, I suppose.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:54 pm
The aging of the population won’t affect real estate funding of public schools. The schools get their “pound of flesh” under PTELL based upon increases of the previous year tax revenues plus inflation and new construction coming on the tax rolls. There’s also additional “loss and cost” charges they have levied in anticipation of some not paying their taxes. If the loss and cost is too high and too much tax is taken, guess what. They don’t have to give it back or give a credit in the next year.The senior tax break rip off, given even to millionaires, doesn’t hurt the schools, it just overburdens the remaining tax payers who pick up the extra tab for the senior breaks.
BTW, how does it make sense to keep people who’ve served a lot of time already incarcerated for non-violent crimes once they’re over 65? Of course the Bernie Madoffs should be in the slammer forever, but it’s hard to figure why someone who stole cars in their 40s should be in jail in their upper 60s. Just sayin’…
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:56 pm
Baby-boomers are moving south.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 1:58 pm
If you tax retirement income those who are able will leave, the poor are the ones that will stay. Remember retirees pay property tax, sales tax, as well as other taxes. Forcing out the middle class retirees is not the answer!
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:04 pm
“Senior citizens also get a break on their property taxes, which fund local services and schools.”
Seniors are notorious for not having school age children living with them. Since most property tax dollars are to support public schools, I don’t take much stock in the above quote.
Comment by MikeMacD Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:07 pm
I don’t know — isn’t the whole point of the exercise to live longer and well?
If people living longer is the problem, I guess I would say it’s a good problem to have. Sure beats the alternative.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:08 pm
==while seniors demand more from the state==
Like how? Don’t require the services of schools at any level of education but pay into them. Pay higher health insurance premiums because we use the services more—but pay for them. Park district? Pay for that, most probably don’t use to the extent that kids do. Seniors pay alot of money for things that benefit other age groups.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:09 pm
Arizona Bob has an interesting point about the inmates age 65+. If someone in that age group has serious health problems, particularly if that would render the inmate incapable of re-offending, why should the state have to pick up 100% of the cost? Give that inmate an early release, and enroll him in Medicare. The state probably will still have to pay the Medicare premiums through Medicaid, but that’s a lot cheaper to the state than paying full freight.
Comment by cover Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:13 pm
Something I didn’t see in the article…d
Is this data part of income and expense (budget) projections/models currently used by government agencies?
Comment by Left Leaner Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:16 pm
Here we go again. Talk about taxing pensions. This is the new PC replacing the let’s reduce or obliterate pensions now that appears to be going down the drain.
In 2012 there were some $8.356 billion in ‘tax expenditures’ of which $1.913 billion were related to pensions, about 23% of the total
Want to go after something go after everything and then reduce the tax rate back to 3%- maybe less.
Funny how the above data never seems to be mentioned and we get a regurgitation of the same old “let’s attack pensions” with other exemptions never being mentioned. Yea, everybody likes their exemption but not necessarily someone elses.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:16 pm
And with that, *downstate commissioner* wins the ‘most tasteless comment of the week’ award.
Comment by Left Leaner Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:39 pm
reflector===
Upset that you’re not paying taxes? Just like Rauner, you could DONATE some of your income and feel better, don’t you think?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:40 pm
Well, yes, but give the elderly inmate a release to where? If you’ve been in jail for a decade or more, how many folks will want to take you in and care for you 24/7. Ah, mass incarceration. So many
unintended consequences.
I believe the Japanese have considerable experience with elderly, infirm inmates. Maybe somebody should do an information-gathering tour.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:44 pm
Try and get through a primary on either side selling this argument. Especially with the population growing…and staying here. Oy is right.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:46 pm
this of course means that 14% of State Employees should be older than 65…at least they’ll still be contributing to the pension systems and not drawing from them
Comment by spidad60 Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 2:51 pm
In a State with a shrinking tax base, where the tax base is becoming poorer, where jobs are being outsourced or automated causing wages to decrease, where the cost of living is constantly increasing, where the next generation is burdened by student loan debt levels that approach mortgage debt, how does anyone think these hundreds of thousands of multi-million dollar annuities will be paid? The Supreme Court can’t print money (unfortunately). If Europe goes into a several year deflationary cycle, our stock market could lose 30% or more. The pension system is in a riskier place than the politicos are stating.
Comment by Millennial Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 3:30 pm
@MikeMac
=Seniors are notorious for not having school age children living with them.=
Actually, that’s not as true as it used to be in nearby Chicago suburbs.
Many grandparents become guardians of their grandkids so that they can attend better suburban schools. That happened a lot in my SW Cook district. As long as the guardians legally reside in the district, you have to enroll the kids.
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:12 pm
Tax retirement income? Those seniors vote! Remember when Rosty dissed them?
Comment by anon. Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 4:26 pm
Illinois needs to increase revenue by taxing retirement income. Most retirees want to be part of the solution to Illinois’ fiscal problems.
Most retirees won’t move because they want to live near their children and grand kids. Retirees don’t want to miss the fun of spending time with their grandchildren and watching them grow up.
Moving to another state is very expensive. Also, traveling to visit family and friends may cost even more than paying state income tax on retirement income.
Comment by Enviro Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 5:18 pm
soylent green is people.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 9:18 pm
Illinois just enacted Secure Choice to help low income employees save 3% of their income for retirement because the majority of the population does not have enough savings for retirement. If a tax on retirement income in enacted, we would have to have an exemption or a rebate for the lower income workers. As for the higher income earners who have enough assets to retire, a recession can wipe out considerable assets. If the retiree has to use their principle for living expenses as many did in the last recession, the assets start downward spiral even if the market comes back. Probably taxing retirement income will be necessary at some point, but it could well lead to great hardship for middle class and low income retirees.
Comment by DuPage Grandma Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 9:29 pm
Anon @ 4:26PM
Thanks for reminding of some of the greatest video footage of a pol running for cover. If I recall, a senior lady threw herself on Rosti’s car. Walker and all. Would be worse now. Seniors are healthier.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Jan 22, 15 @ 9:57 pm
Prepare for the Enemy De jour to be shifted from public employees to seniors.
Comment by CharlieKratos Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 8:56 am
Actually, it was already seniors … but just the sub-set that received government pensions … so this would be more of an expansion than a shift.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 9:01 am