Perhaps if teacher salaries weren't doubled for the 2 yrs before they retire, so as to obtain larger pensions, there wouldn't be this problem now.

Please vote YES on Amendment 15 to SB1673, we can't afford it or perhaps the state should just go bankrupt and you get nothing. Time to suck it up, you are going to have to pay more just like the rest of us.

If this amendment is so important, why don't legislators take the lead by reducing their salaries, perks, and pension benefits first. I forgot, in Springfield it's "do as I say, not as I do."

People need to check with their school district teachers contracts. Many, many school districts (aka the taxpayer) pay the required 9.4% TRS contribution on the teachers' behalf. So in essence, you may be surprised to see how many school district taxpayers are also footing the bill for that. It is all public record and easy to find. If a teacher did pay their own required TRS contributions, then I think retirees are entitled to what they were promised. But when the taxpayer is paying their required 9.4% TRS contribution for them, well, different story. Just sayin . . .

Vote NO ! on amendment 15. Its the right thing to do!

Sells, where did you get this information? Is your comment based on facts or opinions?

Ann Paul is correct, SOME school district boards do pay all or a portion of their teachers 9.4% TRS contribution... but Mokena, Manhattan, Frankfort, and Lincoln-Way 122 teachers, ALL, PAY 100% of the 9.4% required into TRS. Their respective school boards contribute 0%/zero dollars...and the districts that do pay on behalf of their staff, those teachers usually pay for it in reduced salary or in benefits.

The article writer...from Move On and Soro's group of libs says, in part, "in whom we entrusted our future." Now, teachers are highly educated folks. I'm sure one of the character building things they teach the kids is personal responsibility. This in many ways. If for years they entrusted someone else to look out for their deposits and future retirement money WITHOUT catching the fact that the money is going elsewhere why is it now, once again, someone elses responsibility to see they get paid. They should have been on top of their retirement accounts years ago and bitched then. But no, they had too sweet a deal to raise a stink and bring attention to their gravy train. I say, adjusted the pensions down to the norm of others in retirement. A bankrupt State can and should meet it's obligations but in a reduced form.

Look, I'm for paying a *fair* amount by what ever means we can and that will mean higher taxes. What I have to consider though is all our senior citizens who, like the teachers, planned on something foundational as they go into and stay in retirement on fixed incomes. A senior shouldn't have to move out of their hometown because they can't afford the taxes...WHICH WENT UP IN AN INORDINATE AMOUNT DUE TO THE TEACHERS NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Let's be fair to all here!

I vote NO and here is why:

An analysis by the Illinois Policy Institute of data from the Teachers’ Retirement System, the Illinois State Board of Education and hundreds of teacher contracts found that in nearly two-thirds of districts across the state, teachers don’t contribute the full “employee share” toward their pensions. In fact, most of these districts don’t require their teachers to contribute anything toward their own retirement. Instead, the contributions are paid for or “picked up” by school districts – and by extension, local taxpayers. During the 2009-10 school year alone, this little-known perk cost taxpayers more than $430 million. This subsidy is on top of what the state – and by extension, state taxpayers – pay into the teachers’ retirement funds through district-paid employer contributions and state funding. To give a recent example, in 2010, the state paid more than $2.2 billion toward TRS to cover the “employer share” of the benefits.

In Chicago, city property tax payers pay the pension costs for teachers in the Chicago public school district. Those same taxpayers, through their state income tax, also help pay the pension system contributions for school districts outside Chicago.

As a union member I believe that all retiree's deserve the pension they have earned. That is what we all strive for, retirement enjoying life and our grandkids. Why do people think its ok for CEO's to make millions of dollars but want our teachers to get paid rock bottom, sorry that makes no sense. The kids of this community deserve the best we as parents can provide.

The point is that public sector pensions are UNBELIEVABLY more generous than what the rest of us get. Our "pension" is Social Security. The average SS benefit now is about $14k/yr; the average teacher pension in IL is abour $43k -- three times as much. The SS benefit maxes at about $26k year, and you have to wait to 67 to vest in full benefits , which is usually after 40 or 50 years in the labor force. Average benefit for teachers currenty retiring is about $70k. And the total private employee contribution is 12.4%, whereas the total contribution of a teacher and employer is about 10%. The failure of the state to contribute in some years contributed to the problem but the problem would exist no matter what. Even if the contributions had been made al these pensions would be severely underfunded -- unless you make unrealistic assumptions that very safely invested funds will always earn 8-10% a year. The "we paid for it" line is a crock of $h!t. You paid for at most a quarter or a third of your pension check, and are looking to the rest of us (and our children) to make up the difference, financial consequences be damned.....

If someone want's to hand out blame for this look to your Union. Your Union has donated to the Democrats almost exclusively in this state and the House not the Governor funds the budget. Call Mike Madigan and tell him you want him to cut his 230+ member staff (who by the way are not worried about their retirements) that only exist to help elect Democrats to state offices. This is a failure of the Illinois House of Representatives and no one else.

Its a matter of math. At 9.4% of a $55,000 salary, the annual contributions (if fully paid) are $5,170 over 35 years. That adds up to $180,950 in contributions over a 35 year period. Assuming (not always accurate) a 6% ROE, which would be extremely generous nowdays, this totals up to approximately $506,000. Divided by $43,000 and assuming all else in this perfect six-percent model works, there is enough money in the till to pay for about 12 years of benefits.
Since most teachers are living well-beyond their 12 years, I think I'm starting to see the problem. It is not a matter of politics, or Republicans or Democrats. It is simply that the numbers do not add-up.
And frankly, I do not know of a single Constitutional provision or Amendment that entitles one to their "Constitutional Right to a safe and secure retirement." There is contract law, and employee-employer dually mandated provisions within that law, but nothing in our Constitution guarantees you any amount of money from any one person to another, neither does our Constitution guarantee any American can retire comfortably into the sunset. That is bona fide entitlement, "me-first" gibberish.

Good thing Ms. Soto in Conneticut did not have that "me first gibberish" mentality.

I believe a couple percent of that amount the teachers claim they paid is for an "instrument" that allows them to cash out in lump sum at retirement for a certain amount. You might think of it as an annuity. I see retirtement figures in the 130 to 140,000 range! As for who paid those monthlies. It was like the jewish madam...you got it, you sel it, and you got it. In most cases the district gave the teachers their retirement deduction included on their check in the gross and then deducted it. This, I am told was an accounting issue and likely a contract requirement by the union which always demands payroll deductions...to save them having to collect and book keep. As to what is fair. I say average out the pensions nationwide and arrive at a figure that is fair and affordable. That beats bankruptcy and getting nothing.

Why do none of take onto account that most teachers are underpaid for much of their careers.... they teach our children... protect them and in many cases are the only mentor they have. Society is not their fault. Most dont judge why a kid is the way they are. The teacher shows up, wipes noses and educates. Most out their heart and souls into their class.... and you idiots are comparing them to bernie madoff... and mad they get a retirment....
Education and health should be funded as much as the military is. After a strong military the health and educatiin of this country is a security issue jusst as much as it is a moral one.

Leave the teachers pension whole. If you diagree, give up your own money. And I'm not a teacher.

@ new lenox teacher, you CAN get Social Security and your teacher Pension!

Ummm, Kerry, I am a retired teacher and receive NO SOCIAL SECURITY. Not sure where you get your information from, but teachers do not pay into ss.....so you don't receive the ss. AND.......if you did work a part time job in the summer, and paid into ss, because your TRS benefit is higher, you won't receive ss. That's just the law.

Kerry....no, you are wrong. That law changed (maybe about 10 years ago), and is based off of percentages. They are two public pension systems (government paid), both paid into by employees. Social security for people who don't work for a government position, and TRS, IMRF, SURS, and others systems for those employees who worked in a governement position. Honestly, I don't know how government retirement systems like IMRF and SURS work.....I know IMRF workers do pay 4.5% ss, and 4.5% IMRF, unlike TRS workers (teachers and administrators) that pay 9.4% completely into TRS....nothing goes to SS. However, teachers do pay into medicare, and can receive medicare insurance at medicare age.

Now, "juvenal" must believe TRS benefits are better than SS benefits.....and I have to say that just depends on your final position, how many degrees (depending on individual school contract), and where you retired from. Teachers retiring out of Hinsdale will have a great retirement due to the financial wealth found in that town, however teachers out of Joliet won't. There are many, many factors involved. I can say that school districts do not offer 401K and IRA, nothing of that nature....simply 9.4% into TRS.

Teachers are taking a big hit for being the reason for the pension crisis that exists today....some say they are "bloated"....however, many, many groups from both sides of the aisle were at the table when the pension formulas where written.

Continued from above.......

Seems like no one in the state government wanted to prepare for when the "baby boomers" hit the retirement age....this should have been though of years ago, and worked on, but the state government kicked that can down the street, and here we are. There is not a single teacher out there that would disagree that there is a pension crisis. What upsets us the most is that proposals and so called solutions and rushed, and pushed through without all groups having educated input, just politicians putting a quick fix bandaid on the situation, and kicking the can further down the street for future generations to fix.....Illinois is so notorious.

There is also the fact that Illinois politicians used money earmarked for state retirement funds for other projects, which is really what caused the pension crisis, but that is the untold story here, which is unfortunate.

This is a mess, but to say it is all the teachers' fault, is unfair

Mary ,if you paid enough into SS you CAN collect both.

Mary TRS benefits are much better than SS.

Also, if you are in IMRF , you can collect SS as well.

I think all of you people who are focusing on public sector retirement benefits should look at the big picture. At this point in time our business leaders are determined to make sure their profits come at the expense of those who can not defend themselves.

In the sacred business world, corporate pensions have been looted for years and in many cases left the government with the bill. The long term plan for these greedy leaders is now at the point where the only pensions they have left to destroy are social security and public sector pensions.

We need to stand together and quit attaching each other, since everyone without a high six or seven figure salary will be left with nothing. It will all be stolen from us like this country did to the Indians, African slaves, Middle-Eastern oil, etc. I love my country but since we are finding it difficult to steal from other countries we are now turning on our own.

Think about the big picture.

capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g.

Mary, you also know that you can collect IMRF at the age of 55. You get 3 % raise each year.

I worked for 20 years, but was not in IMRF the entire 20 years. There is no penalty to take the pension at 55. IMRF advises you not to wait as there is no advantage to waiting.

With IMRF you get full pension at age 55.

In School District 230 (Stagg, Andrew, Sandburg), TRS is paid 100% for the administrators. See what happens when a school administrator from another district (Carol Baker in 218) is voted into office. Prior to her being on the board, the administrators paid thier own TRS. That's a 9.4% raise they get each year. If the voters were smart, they would not re-elect her or Laura Murphy to the school board. Ben Twietmeyer is a 218 teacher also. You want our taxes to go up and up and up, keep voting for these people. My spouse and I are looking to relocate to a different state as soon as we can.

Take a moment to view what teachers in 230 make at
http://www.suntimes.com/data/14314316-666/database-search-for-illinois-teacher-and-administrator-salaries.html

and at
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/ftf/ftf_salaries.php

Go ahead and tell me teachers are underpaid!

Taken directly from 230 website. It was very hard to find I might add. It's hidden.

https://district.d230.org/Publications/CompensationReport2012.pdf

Look at what they make under retirement enhancement and other benefits.

One thing public employees don't like exposed about their cheating the Social Security system is that 'retirement" benefits are not all it pays for. It also pays for disability checks (often of questionable justification), welfare, and widow and orphan benefits. Often these recipients paid little or nothing into the system, but are eligible for the benefits nonetheless. Public workers who don't contribute to SSC don't support the disabled and indigient as those of us in SSC do, and it's time that public employees started paying their fair share to the needy instead of shirking that duty with ALL their contributions going to their personal benefit.

Also, SSC benefits paid by taxpayers are limited by outside salaries. Since public pensions are given so early that recipients more often than not get second careers, often by subsitute teacheinig where they "retired" from or other public jobs. they should be subject to the same pension reductions as SSC recipients for salary income.

It's time for making public employees pay their fair share, and suffer the same limitations, as the rest of us. They currently pay for less than half of their benefits, FAR less than half when end of career spiking and early retirement prorams are considered. It's time to "level the playing field" for new employees and those not yet retired!

Your all fighting the wrong battle.