I looked up Greece. Debt to GDP is about 180% only ones worse are Zimbabwe and Japan. Although in Japan most of debt held by citizens I believe. About half of Greeks still below poverty line and they still have about 25 percent unemployment and have not straightened out their problems with collecting taxes. 2016 saw a small increase in GDP but don't know significance of that I think their numbers are not very accurate.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

This is starting to make Puerto Rico look not so bad.

---

_____________________
Fester from Detroit, Mi

Oh no, PR is still way worse, but this may break the union stranglehold on IL

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/...t-without-tax-hikes/

Read Chapter 2 to have your mind blown

Greece and Italy are ones to watch

Italys banks are stuffed and greece, well, lets be honest, feta and olive oil aren't getting them out of the hole they are in

Whats of far more interest to me is when the eventual inevitible seperation from the euro occurs because they need to devalue a sovereign currency to service debt how the EU will continue to allow them all the benefits of membership whilst undercutting the other members whilst at the same wanting to screw 100bn out of the uk for future budget commitments

Vested pension benefits cannot be discharged. Pension plans and payouts can. That is a good article and gives some good suggestions for changes to the law.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Pensions are a mess so many places. I am POA for my dad who gets a teacher's pension. So I am following the whole thing.

Here is a scary article.
https://www.the74million.org/...e-investment-returns

As a gen Xer I can see gen Y getting screwed again with their parent's pensions falling apart.

A) Preliminary budget passed
B) Won't pass a final budget today
C) Fucking pussies are kicking the can down the road
D) 4 Billion deficit
E) No material changes

massively disappointing

The article was kind of light on explaining why

This has a better explaination:

https://www.nytimes.com/...s-pensions.html?_r=0

Did you see the trib article saying Madigan wouldn't call it for a vote until he got at least 30 republicans to agree to vote yes so he could share the blame? He's something like 2 votes shy of a super majority but now he wants bipartisanship? I hope this new Fed. Prosecutor will find something on this guy and get him out of office.

So, basically, they're still screwed. Thanks, good to know. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Sounds like a hot time in the EU this year, mate. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

What would this mean for me? I've been paying into the IMRF system for 18 years. I was hoping to retire from my current career in 5 years and move to another state, but now I'm getting concerned that it might not happen. IMRF is purportedly the most financially stable (90-something precent funded?) of all of Illinois' pension systems, but the worry that politicians will find a way fuck this one up as well weighs heavily on my mind.

Anyone remember when Quinn said that a 50% raise in the personal tax rate would fix everything? People voted for it and I don't think anything changed (except the amount in taxes I/We all paid out).

This article is a bit dated, but it shows the problems the IMRF was having prior to this latest crisis.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/...linois-pension-fund/

All of this is pure speculation, but pension funds are not immune from the IL crisis. While vested pension benefits cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, the money still has to come from somewhere. If there is no money, benefits cannot be paid at current levels. We are in uncharted territory here b/c a state has never gone bankrupt. But, the speculation (and it is PURE SPECULATION at this point), is that non-vested benefits (that would apply mainly to new hire who have not been in the system long enough to be vested) would be dramatically cut and pension payments would be reduced. In addition, retirement age would likely be increased. So, your 18 years of payment would not be lost. But, your retirement age could be increased and your payments could be slightly delayed. Again, pure speculation at this point. But, the chances of you completely losing your 18 years of contributions is simply not possible under current law. It would take dramatic changes to the law and, even then, those changes would likely primarily affect new and future hires, not long-term employees/contributors.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I should have become a school administrator.

IMRF implemented a "tier 2" plan for all new hires several years ago to address some of this. It increased the service years to be vested from 8 to 10 and the minimum retirement age went from 55 to 62. That was in 2011 I believe. Doesn't look like it's helped the overall outlook much. I'm in tier 1 and only pay 4.5% of my check. The employer pays I believe 11.5%. I'm vested as far as service years, but not to minimum retirement age for a few more years. I guess if it starts to get really ugly in the future I can cut my losses and pull my 4.5% out and put it in my solo 401k as I'm also self-employed. This would, however, be a pittance compared to what is now becoming a theoretical future pension payout over a lifetime.

4.5% v. 11.5% is a fucking joke.

Pfft, thats nothing!

Im Australia, the employers must pay 9.5% of ordinary time earnings into a fund for their employee retirement.

What do you think the employee's must pay?


Zero.
Zip, nada, nothing!

AND, its mandated to go up in coming years to 12%

Employers or the government? The bullshit is he's a government employee and only pays in 4.5%, can retire early (relatively speaking), has good (relatively) cheap healthcare and doesn't have to pay into social security or Medicare... Thankfully I get to pay more in taxes to fund this nonsense.

Private employers.
Government employees receive 15%+ (depends on what branch of the public service you are employed by).

I'm not against government employees, believe me. I'm retired military (and as some here have reminded me in the past, that makes me a government employee myself ;-) and my wife is a federal civil servant when she's not doing the Guard thing on extended active duty stints. But I get the distinct impression nowadays that many believe that we pay taxes for their convenience, and that it's our natural duty to prop up the failed pension systems that many are -- and through no fault of their own -- finding themselves caught up in.

What happens when private pension systems go belly up, as many have (including that Teamster system in NY/NJ)? And I think a couple of county pension systems down south somewhere have bitten the dust during their bankruptcies, correct?

Note: I've never held a civil servant position during my post-military career, so maybe I'm missing something here?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."