ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Well, I'd say "stealing" is a bit much since it's legal -- but it is an example of how something being *legal* doesn't make it *ethical*.
True, I was a being a bit dramatic there - but it sure feels like 'stealing'. And though it is probably illegal to break their contract, I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. I will hold out some small hope that they can find something illegal about these raises (conspiracy, bribes?), and maybe null them out, at least. Although prison time would be a better deterrent to others thinking about this (not that it has had much effect on our Governors! ).
You did hit on one important point here: It's not just taxpayers who get hurt by these ripoff pension games like "spiking" -- lesser pensioners who have to watch the solvency of their fund compromised by these should-be-banned spiking games are also under the gun.
I set out to write to our IMRF, but I'll have to wait for authorization via snail-mail to get to the on-line 'secure email' portion of the site. I figure a letter from a member will carry more impact, so I'll wait.
But I read the docs a bit deeper. IMRF is completely separate from any IL State pension, is currently ~81% funded, with a goal of 100% funding. Members contribute 4.5% from their paychecks, employers match that directly to IMRF.
Tough to see how they can get to 100% funding. If she retired today, she would get a diet COLA annual amount ~ 1/5th of the total contributions that have been made. I guess the growth of the contributions that sit there for 20-25 years make up the difference. Ahhh- and she is in sort of a 'sweet spot' on the rules - her part time years were enough hours to count fully toward vesting, and her more recent 'fuller time' (still part-year) higher annual salary is what is being counted towards the "Average Final Earning Calculation" - wait a minute, does that make her a 'spiker'? Nah, she didn't do anything to manipulate this, those are the rules and it just happens that her employment pattern hits the 'sweet spot'. But the payoff on her 4.5% contribution would probably look tremendous if I did the math. I guess the same way that SS looks good at the low levels, but not as you move up in income. Oh, and that IMRF looks to be linear with respect to income, no 'capping' that I could see. Her income is low enough that this won't be any significant piece of our retirement funding, but everything helps, esp with 3% COLA (and some SS from this and previous jobs).
-ERD50