logo
Civic leaders: State lawmakers still have time to adopt a measured fix for Tier 2 pension problem

Civic leaders: State lawmakers still have time to adopt a measured fix for Tier 2 pension problem

Chicago Tribune27-05-2025
Illinois faces a defining fiscal challenge: a staggering $144 billion in unfunded liabilities across its five state pension systems. This immense burden strains state resources; crowds out critical investments in education, public safety and infrastructure; and undermines economic confidence.
Meaningful pension reform isn't just desirable; it's essential for Illinois' future solvency and prosperity. And a 'fix' to one key pension issue — the need to address some evident shortcomings in the state's Tier 2 pensions — could yet happen before the legislature adjourns on May 31.
The Civic Committee, Civic Federation and Better Government Association have consistently advocated for comprehensive solutions to address this major, intractable issue. Today, we urge the legislature to take a careful and fiscally responsible approach to a specific aspect of the system that demands attention: the growing concern that Tier 2 pensions will eventually fall short of federal 'safe harbor' rules that ensure public pension benefits are deemed equivalent to those paid to Social Security recipients.
Tier 2 refers to the benefit structure offered to people who started working for the state on or after Jan. 1, 2011. The cost-saving new tier raised the retirement age, capped pensionable salaries, lengthened the number of years of salary used to calculate benefits and reduced post-retirement benefit increases. These changes significantly improved the trajectory of Illinois' pension systems, but they also put Tier 2 pensions at future risk of violating safe harbor rules.
Gov. JB Pritzker's budget proposal currently under consideration in Springfield includes a plan to address this risk. Specifically, his plan calls for a $78 million set-aside to address potential Tier 2 compliance costs. This measured approach does what responsible fiscal management requires: It acknowledges the Tier 2 risk, sets aside funds and stops short of overcommitting before more is known. That is the right approach.
Similarly, any permanent changes to Tier 2 should only proceed based on clear, actuarially sound analysis. A well-justified fix is appropriate and necessary but only when federal requirements are in jeopardy, and only to the extent required to meet those legal obligations. Once a pension benefit is promised in Illinois, the state constitution prevents it from ever being reduced or revoked.
We strongly caution against any effort to turn this Tier 2 fix into an opportunity to add enhancements — so-called 'sweeteners' — that would deepen Illinois' already-substantial pension challenges. Lawmakers should resist that temptation. A responsible Tier 2 fix is one of 10 principles of pension reform our organizations published last fall to guide fair and sustainable pension policy.
Illinois desperately needs progress on pensions; this measure is an essential building block for the larger solution ahead. What the state does not need, and cannot afford, is any form of pension 'reform' that makes matters worse. A Tier 2 fix should be no more than is needed, when it is needed, as determined by reliable, public-facing estimates of timing and cost.
At present, the analysis showing exactly when a Tier 2 fix is required simply is not available. No state official, agency or consultant has put out a comprehensive estimate of how many employees or retirees might be affected and when. Such data is needed in order for policymakers, and the public, to understand both the scale of the problem and the timeline by which it must be addressed.
Likewise, there is no complete estimate for some of the more ambitious proposals put forward by those arguing to 'undo Tier 2' by essentially replacing those pensions with the higher level of benefits that put Illinois' pension systems into such fiscal trouble in the first place. For example, cost estimates for a bill backed by a coalition of unions do not include cost projections for local plans, which would also be covered by the bill. Implementing pension changes without knowing the true cost is one of the original sins of past pension reforms — a grave mistake state lawmakers must not repeat this time.
The magnitude of potential costs for making changes to Tier 2 benefits underscores the importance of being cautious. According to a report by the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, implementing the bill would increase the state's pension liabilities by roughly $60 billion and would increase required contributions to the pensions by $30 billion through 2045.
This is hardly the first time these data deficiencies have been brought to light: The Tribune Editorial Board made a similar argument in February, and other civic leaders have said as much, too. Now is the time for policymakers and the public to focus on gathering the essential data that can help draw the map toward responsible pension reform.
Only then will we know if Pritzker's proposed $78 million set-aside is the appropriate target number, one that will address Tier 2's shortcomings and set the stage for tackling even greater pension challenges still ahead.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Here are the facts on 5 damaging Social Security myths that can ruin your retirement
Here are the facts on 5 damaging Social Security myths that can ruin your retirement

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Here are the facts on 5 damaging Social Security myths that can ruin your retirement

Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. The ins and outs of Social Security benefits can seem as complicated as they are crucial to Americans' financial comfort — or even survival — in retirement. Personal finance experts like Suze Orman will tell you that your comfort in retirement hinges on what you can put away out of your paycheck using tools like a 401(k) or an IRA. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) You don't have to be a millionaire to gain access to this $1B private real estate fund. In fact, you can get started with as little as $10 — here's how She put it plainly in an interview with Moneywise when she talked about the plight of the Social Security program and the dangers of not saving and investing for retirement. 'How are you going to pay for those exact same bills later on in life, when you no longer have a paycheck coming in?' For many, the answer is their eventual Social Security benefits, a program you pay into out of those paychecks. But common misconceptions about those benefits can lead to significant, long-term financial hurdles that can tarnish your golden years. You can maximize your benefits and gain more security in retirement if you sidestep these five common Social Security myths. 1. Social Security benefits are not taxed Don't assume you'll get to keep all of your Social Security check. In all likelihood, you'll pay taxes based on your "combined income," which the SSA defines as 50% of your Social Security benefit, plus any other earned income. Suze Orman warns that 40% of Social Security beneficiaries pay taxes on their benefits, so there's a good chance you'll get hit with what she calls the "tax torpedo". If your combined income on your federal tax return is: between $25,000 and $34,000 as an individual or between $32,000 and $44,000 if you file jointly with your spouse, you can expect to pay taxes on 50% of your benefits. more than $34,000 as an individual and $44,000 for joint filers, you could pay taxes on up to 85% of your benefits. People who are married and file separately may also have to pay taxes on Social Security, regardless of income level. Sounds complicated? Consulting a financial advisor can help you maximize your social security benefits as well as ease your tax burden. With you can find the best advisor for your needs — both in terms of what they can offer your finances, and what they'll charge to work for you. is a free service that helps you find a financial advisor who can co-create a plan to reach your financial goals. By matching you with a curated list of the best options for you from their database of thousands, you get a pre-screened financial advisor you can trust. You can then set up a free, no obligation consultation to see if they're the right fit for you. 2. There's no way to calculate how much you qualify for It's true you can't predict your exact Social Security benefit far in advance. That's because the amount depends on variables that can change leading up to retirement, including your income, new government rules and the program's status and fund reserves at the time you start collecting. For instance, the average monthly benefit for retired individuals amounted to $1,978.77 in Jan. 2025. 3. Your Social Security benefit is set in stone You probably have more control over your social Security benefit than you think — even if you're retired already. Here are a few ways you could increase the amount you're eligible to receive: Retire later: You can start drawing retirement benefits between age 62 and 70 and the longer you wait, the higher your benefit will be. Increase your pre-retirement income: Your benefit is based on 35 of your highest-earning years. So if you increase your income before retiring, your SS benefit can increase too. Check your records: Your benefit amount could be reduced if the SSA has incorrect records of your income. If you find an error in your Social Security statement, request a correction at or call 1-800-772-1213. Look into family benefits: Check to see if you qualify for additional benefits based on a family member's work, including benefits earned by a former spouse. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — 4. Social Security will replace your paycheck Even though experts like Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey constantly tell their viewers otherwise, many people believe Social Security alone will sustain them in retirement — but the benefit is only meant to supplement it. This is why starting the process of planning for retirement with investments and savings as early as you can is so important if you hope to keep up your lifestyle. You may not know that you can invest your retirement savings in commodities through your IRA, and that many investors are attracted by gold's stability as an investment relative to the stock market. For example, while the market crashed in 2008, gold prices rose, cushioning the portfolios of investors who were savvy enough to diversify. One way to invest in gold that also provides significant tax advantages is to open a gold IRA with the help of Priority Gold. Gold IRAs allow investors to hold physical gold or gold-related assets within a retirement account, which combines the tax advantages of an IRA with the protective benefits of investing in gold, making it an attractive option for those looking to potentially hedge their retirement funds against economic uncertainties. To learn more, you can get a free information guide that includes details on how to get up to $10,000 in free silver on qualifying purchases. To keep as much money in your retirement savings as possible, even after you begin drawing on your nest egg, consider using an investment app like Wealthfront. With Wealthfront's automated investing platform, the power of compound interest works for you. Their sophisticated "set it and forget it" approach means your money is professionally managed and automatically rebalanced, allowing your wealth to grow steadily over time. Start investing for the long term with globally diversified portfolios or go for a higher yield than a traditional savings account with an automated bond portfolio. Open your account today and receive a $50 bonus to jumpstart your investment journey. Whether you're saving for retirement, a home, or building generational wealth, Wealthfront's low-cost, automated investment strategy can help you achieve your financial goals. 5. You can collect your dead spouse's benefits and your own at the same time Don't count on receiving a double payment if your spouse passes before you. If you're entitled to both a retirement benefit and the survivors benefit, you'll receive only one — the larger — of the two amounts. If the surviving spouse is at full retirement age or older, they can receive 100% of the deceased's benefit amount. If they're between 60 and full retirement age, they'll get between 71.5% and 99%. To offset any social security income losses when your spouse passes, consider purchasing life insurance. By opting for term life insurance through a provider like Ethos, you are helping to ensure that your family will be taken care of after you're gone. Term life insurance offers flexibility when you're seeking affordable coverage while balancing other financial responsibilities. Ethos offers an easy online process that allows you to get up to $2 million in coverage with terms ranging from 10 to 30 years. To get a free quote, all you have to do is answer a few questions about yourself. Then, you can compare coverage and choose the right policy that best suits your needs. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Accredited investors can now buy into this $22 trillion asset class once reserved for elites – and become the landlord of Walmart, Whole Foods or Kroger without lifting a finger. Here's how Car insurance in America now costs a stunning $2,329/year on average — but here's how 2 minutes can save you more than $600 in 2025 Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

We're in our 70s with a $260K mortgage at 3% interest and $1.6 million in savings. Should we pay off our house in full?
We're in our 70s with a $260K mortgage at 3% interest and $1.6 million in savings. Should we pay off our house in full?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

We're in our 70s with a $260K mortgage at 3% interest and $1.6 million in savings. Should we pay off our house in full?

My wife and I are both retired. I am 77 and she is 74. We are both in good health and stay active with hiking and yoga. We have equities, bonds and cash worth $1.6 million. We get $4,500 a month from Social Security. We have a long-term care policy with an annual premium of $9,500 and I have an annuity death benefit of $330,000. We have a house that is valued at $525,000 with a mortgage balance of $260,000 at a rate of 3%. The monthly payment for principal, interest and taxes is $1,235. It is a 30-year mortgage with about 26.5 years left on it. We use a financial institution to manage the investment portfolio and we draw $2,000 from the portfolio to pay the mortgage and other monthly bills. 'Vegas is not fun anymore': $9 cups of coffee and pricier rooms are steering travelers away from the vacation mecca Are Americans squandering their retirement savings on eating out? S&P 500 now more likely to reach 7,200 next year, according to Morgan Stanley's Wilson I hate being in debt and I am contemplating a few options: Regarding taxes, we have not itemized our deductions in the past several years and haven't paid any federal income tax in the past five years and live in Nevada, which has no state income tax, so interest deduction is not a concern. If I did option 3 our monthly portfolio withdrawal would drop to $750 a month. A 5% return on the $260,000 I would take out of the market is uncertain. What do you think? Debt No MoreDebt No More Related: Can I fund my daughter's college education and still retire at 62? I don't expect my ex-wife to contribute. Your perspective – the interest rate being real but the return on your investments being uncertain – is a very interesting take. While it is completely valid, I ask you to think beyond the rates for a moment. For the first two options you provided, where you put $50,000 or $100,000 toward your mortgage, what do you actually gain in the short-term? You'll still have a mortgage, and while the duration would be shorter, they both result in at least another decade (or close to two). If you hate being in debt, I'm not sure either of those will make you feel all that much better if you're still counting down the days until you've paid it off. Obviously, you're in a good place. You've got a $1.6 million nest egg, income from Social Security, a long-term care insurance plan — although expensive given your age and subsequent risk factors — and a death benefit for when life gets harder. You and your wife have set yourselves up for long-term financial success. Mathematically speaking, you could pay off your mortgage from your savings. It would obviously bring a sense of relief, but would that be temporary or permanent? That's something you and your wife really need to figure out before jumping in. Drawing down $260,000 from your nest egg, even when it's as much as yours, is not something you should take lightly. A big withdrawal like that could affect how deep of a return you can get on your investments. You mentioned your monthly draw would also be reduced, which does help matters. Of course, this is all based on being ultra-conservative. You can afford to pay off this house. You didn't specify what portion of your savings was investments versus cash, but even if you had $1 million in your portfolio, various retirement calculators show with an assumed 5% rate of return and a $750 withdrawal every month, that money could last you more than 30 years. The cost of living, especially healthcare, goes up every year, and the money will have to come from somewhere. Many Social Security recipients argue the cost-of-living adjustment that comes with Social Security benefits just doesn't keep pace with the real world of spending. It is fortunate for you that you haven't had to pay any taxes in recent years. Depending on how your withdrawal is generated, such a sizable amount could generate a tax liability. A higher income in one year could impact future Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. An income-related monthly adjustment amount, known as IRMAA, increases premiums and is levied when individuals' modified adjusted gross incomes exceed certain thresholds. You can learn more about that here. Getting back to the rates for a moment. While the return on your investments may fluctuate year to year, and are sensitive to market changes and asset allocation, you have a very, very good interest rate. Right now, rates are somewhere around 6% to 7% and those who have interest rates like yours are trying to hold on to it — some people are actually trying to avoid a move so that they don't have to pay more in interest. It is also important to note that not all debt is bad debt. Mortgages are a neutral debt — if they're manageable within your overall budget and they're not hurting your ability to pay the bills every month. Credit-card debt, on the other hand, is often considered bad debt, given that cards are linked to double-digit interest rates and may be used frivolously. Although investment returns aren't 'real' like your mortgage rate, they're on average higher than 3%. The difference could mean your money is working harder for you and your old age. 'I have Type 1 diabetes': I'm 64 with a $1.3 million 401(k). Is it too late for long-term-care insurance? 'His income is limited': Should I pay $800 a month towards my husband's $67,000 student debt? 'I keep getting the same song and dance': My salary has not kept up with inflation. Is my company cheating me? Sign in to access your portfolio

Warren Buffett's longtime Social Security warning is coming to fruition, with retirees facing an $18,000 annual cut
Warren Buffett's longtime Social Security warning is coming to fruition, with retirees facing an $18,000 annual cut

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Warren Buffett's longtime Social Security warning is coming to fruition, with retirees facing an $18,000 annual cut

In just seven years, Social Security will reach a fiscal cliff that could leave millions of American retirees with drastically reduced benefits, according to a recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). The think tank's new report projects that, unless Congress acts, Social Security's main trust fund will be insolvent by the end of 2032, triggering automatic and painful benefit cuts for everyone relying on the program. How painful? Around $18,000 less per year for retirees who depend on the program. This is not the first time the CRFB has warned about this, and it's a common refrain from no less than the Oracle of Omaha himself: famed investor Warren Buffett. The ticking clock Social Security and Medicare, the two bedrock programs supporting older Americans, are drawing closer to insolvency than many might realize. The most recent data, compiled from the programs' own trustees and enhanced by CRFB calculations, forecasts that by late 2032, Social Security's retirement program will no longer be able to pay out promised benefits in full. At that point, the law dictates that payments must be limited to the amount coming in from payroll taxes—resulting in an immediate, across-the-board benefit reduction. The scope of the cut: $18,100 shortfall for typical couples For millions of future retirees, the numbers are stark. CRFB's estimate reveals that a typical dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 would see their annual Social Security benefit drop by approximately $18,100. The percentage cut is projected to be 24% for that year, instantly slashing retirement incomes for over 62 million Americans who depend on the program. The pain would be widespread but would vary by income and household type. For example, single-earner couples could see a $13,600 cut, while low-income, dual-earner couples face an $11,000 shortfall. And high-income couples might lose up to $24,000 a year. While the dollar cut is smaller for lower-income households, the relative burden is even more severe, devouring a larger share of retirement income and past earnings. Also, these cuts are in nominal dollars; adjusted to 2025 dollars, the actual cut would be about 15% less. What's causing the crisis? Social Security is funded by a dedicated payroll tax, but the gap between what goes out in benefits and what comes in through taxes is growing. The newly enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has accelerated the timeline by reducing Social Security's revenue through tax rate cuts and an expanded senior standard deduction. According to CRFB, these policies increase the necessary benefit reduction by about one percentage point; if the changes become permanent, the benefit cuts would be even deeper. Over time, the gap is expected to worsen: By the end of the century, CRFB adds, Social Security could face required benefit cuts of over 30%, unless lawmakers shore up the program's finances. Despite these dire projections, many policymakers have pledged not to alter Social Security, promising to keep benefits untouched. But if nothing changes, the law automatically enforces cuts when the trust fund runs dry. The CRFB report urges policymakers to be candid about the situation and to work toward bipartisan solutions that secure Social Security's future. Ideas could include new revenue sources, adjusting benefits, or a combination—anything to avoid the 'steep and sudden' cut that looms for tens of millions. Without meaningful congressional action before 2032, the Social Security safety net will be abruptly—and dramatically—shrunk, so Americans approaching retirement will at least want to pay close attention to congressional action on the looming cliff. Buffett's bugbear Warren Buffett has been vocal about the dangers of Social Security insolvency and the looming benefit cuts that millions of retirees could face if action is not taken soon. The retiring Berkshire Hathaway CEO has stated that reducing Social Security payments below their current guaranteed levels would be a grave mistake, and urged prompt congressional action. Buffett, who has signed the Giving Pledge and has advocated for higher taxes on higher earners, has criticized the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes, arguing that higher earners—including himself—should contribute more. He's also suggested that Social Security's finances could partially be eased by raising the retirement age, with the 95-year-old investing legend himself working well beyond the standard end of most careers. CRFB background The CRFB is not just any think tank, either. It's a respected bipartisan institution that stretches back to 1981. Its board has consistently included former members and directors of key budgetary, fiscal, and policy institutions, such as the Congressional Budget Office, the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Federal Reserve. The CRFB regularly produces analyses of government spending, tax proposals, debt and deficit trends, and trust fund solvency (such as Social Security and Medicare), as well as recommendations and scorecards for major fiscal legislation. The CRFB has consistently advanced a centrist position on budgetary matters, regularly advocating for reducing federal deficits and controlling the growth of national debt. The organization has often criticized large spending bills that are not offset by reductions elsewhere, as well as tax cuts that are not revenue-neutral. The think tank favors reforms to federal 'entitlement' programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, aiming to make them fiscally sustainable, an emphasis that has drawn criticism from the left. For example, Paul Krugman characterized it as a 'deficit scold' when he was still with the New York Times. In the Social Security sphere, the CRFB has supported or proposed ideas like raising the retirement age, adjusting cost-of-living increases (using the chained CPI), increasing the amount of wages subject to payroll tax, and progressive indexing (in which benefits grow more slowly for higher earners). The CRFB has also weighed proposals for new revenue streams and some means-testing of benefits. On the right wing, the CRFB's proposed reforms to Social Security have drawn criticism for, as Charles Blahous of the Manhattan Institute put it, creating a structure more like 'welfare' than an earned income benefit. Still, the CRFB is widely respected in policy circles as a knowledgeable, data-driven budget watchdog, with a long track record of analysis and advocacy for sustainable fiscal policy. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store