Proposed State Constitutional Amendment on Ballot?

[EMDX6043]

Well, when those companies go bankrupt, or out of business, I think that a judge should list the "golden parachutes" along with all the other "assets".
Why would a judge treat the golden parachutes different than a pension?
That's my question.
Seems to me, if you can't pay one, then you can't pay the other.

Calling a pension a "promise" is the problem. The golden parachute is probably spelled out, and enforced, through a "contract".

 

[actaeon277]

Calling a pension a "promise" is the problem. The golden parachute is probably spelled out, and enforced, through a "contract".

My pension is also spelled out in a contract.
Then again, I'm one of the few that still has one.

 

[Ericpwp]

My company just dissolved its fully funded pension. Everyone got a lump sum of what they had in their account, though it's not what they would have been paid out over their lifetime. I opted for the 401k option knowing that pensions would be going the way of the dodo.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm still hesitant to vote yes. If we already have an amendment prohibiting debt, why do we need this? I just think there a Trojan horse hiding here somewhere.

I'm also not in favor of pensions being first in line. Maybe that's the Trojan horse?

The language we have in the constitution right now basically says, "don't have debt, but if you do have debt, it's ok." It's more of a guideline.

The amendment makes any budget shortfall carry over into the next budget, which does not currently happen. It is a more rigid approach and fixes the original language.

We HAVE to pay the pensions, just like we HAVE to pay our bond debt. If we don't pay it, we become Illinois. Plus it's the right thing to do. When these people were hired they were told they would have a pension.

Now, I'm hearing a lot of "well since MY pension was dissolved, no one should have a pension" That is just nonsense. It's spiteful sour grapes. If we want to phase out pensions, that's fine, but as honorable and trustworthy people, we should be expected to honor our debts and our commitments.

My company has a pension plan as well. It may not be there when I retire, and I accept that, but it is obviously not what I would like. My company has also stopped enrolling new employees in the pension program. They actually stopped that years ago. I think it was the right thing to do, as a company doesn't need to carry that kind of debt.

I also think we should stop enrolling people in social security, and phase that out as well. Retirement plans are the sole responsibility of the individual. However, I do not advocate lying or welching on obligations either. I believe Hoosiers are better people than that.

 

[KLB]

I agree. However, you are essentially the boss for all these public employees. What kind of boss are you going to be?

Going forward, if you don't think public employees should have pensions, then that should be something that is debated (and I'll stand up and say that pensions need to go). In the mean time, they do have pensions, and the ethical thing (in my opinion) is to fully fund them.

So, times are tough at some point. You are saying the state should take the money they have and give it to the pensions. Anything left over can then go to the paying of the expenses for the year. As opposed to, times are tough, pensions take a hit just like everything else.

 

[ATOMonkey]

So, times are tough at some point. You are saying the state should take the money they have and give it to the pensions. Anything left over can then go to the paying of the expenses for the year. As opposed to, times are tough, pensions take a hit just like everything else.

Some costs are fixed, some aren't. Everyone deals with that in their budget.

If I don't make enough money, I can't decide to pay less on my mortgage and damn the consequences.

I can decide to eat out less, buy less expensive clothes, etc.

The state can do the same thing. Pensions are a fixed cost expense. Hopefully, if someone has the guts to do it, they can stop enrollment and just grandfather everyone in. If that happens, that expense should decrease every year, and we'll all be happy. We have plenty of fixed cost debt that HAS to be serviced regardless of the financial and economic climate.

Paying what you owe is not an US vs. THEM debate. We owe the money, we should pay it.

 

[alabasterjar]

Indiana is in the top 1/3 when it comes to fiscal performance, as reported by a George Mason University study in 2015. May not be stellar performance, but still respectable IMHO.


As far as pensions go, I have been told that Indiana's pension is well funded... Subjectively, that sounds good... Objectively, I don't have any idea what that means... The following graphic from Nerdwallet (?) Indicates that we are average... Goes along with being at the bottom of the top third, lol.
View attachment 71425

 

[alabasterjar]

Point of the previous post was that it doesn't appear that this amendment is a back door attempt to try to fix or stopgap an insolvent pension fund, but to clarify the state''s fiscal policy. The public employees retirement fund is not only a pension for state employees, but also municipal employees and teachers. I know that my employer pays a portion of my plan, but I pay a portion, as well.

 

[lonehoosier]

Public pensions not at risk if Hoosiers ratify balanced budget amendment to Indiana Constitution
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_6a421cfe-c98c-5129-9c6a-21758731282e.html

 

[indyblue]

My company just dissolved its fully funded pension. Everyone got a lump sum of what they had in their account, though it's not what they would have been paid out over their lifetime. I opted for the 401k option knowing that pensions would be going the way of the dodo.

I rolled my pension into a 401k when I first learned that the pension funds could "disappear" at the company's discretion. Thank the lord I did too.

 

[actaeon277]

I rolled my pension into a 401k when I first learned that the pension funds could "disappear" at the company's discretion. Thank the lord I did too.

They steal from 401ks also


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/401k-theft-7-signs-your-employer-is-stealing-your-savings/
401(k) Theft: 7 Signs Your Employer is Stealing Your Savings

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/can-my-employer-steal-my-401k/
Can My Employer Steal My 401(k)?

The good news: Your 401(k) is probably protected if your employer goes out of business. Just make sure you take the following precautions.


retirement interruptus: Can Someone Steal Your 401(k)?
Can Someone Steal Your 401(k)?

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/some-employers-steal-from-401k-plans-2010-07-22
Some employers steal from 401(k) plans

 

[Libertarian01]

If you really want to kill bad budgeting pass a Constitutional Amendment (or modify an existing one) that defines HOW the government may collect and spend money. ANY deviation from that rule is wrong, otherwise there are simply workarounds.

For example, Doug's amendment reads, "The state may only budget for next fiscal year no more 99% of what it collected in the last fiscal year from the following revenue streams..." Any excess money could be put into a rainy day fund not to exceed 25% of last years revenue, at which time excess money will be handed out as a tax refund equally next year.

When you define what is legal and make everything outside of that illegal it is much harder to break the law.

They'll never let it happen. Keeping a politician from spending money is harder than keeping drugs from a junkie. If they want to spend it, they'll find a way.

Regards,

Doug