I have a 1993 Nissan NX which was in a decent condition and never gave me any problems. Recently it got rear-ended. The other party's insurance took the responsibility and asked me to get an estimate. The estimate says the repair costs are about $5000 and the mechanic thinks the insurance company will buy the car from me. What price would they pay me for the car? I am a student and wasn't planning on buying a new car. What price should I be happy with. I paid about $2800 8 months ago for the car. Would they be willing to negotiate. If yes, how do I negotiate?

"By Experienced on September 16, 2010 7:31 AM

canuhearmenow on September 15, 2010 10:53 PM

Employers have a base of expenses going to salaries, etc. If some of that base was moved (ie no SS), most/many agree that the employees would, over time, demand all or part of that "gain".
---------------------------

Citation please."

Example of employees demanding more: 2005 D203 NUEA contract negotiations when there was over-collection of revenues due to the disputed implementation of the 2002 referendum.

Next question.

-1

canuhearmenow on September 15, 2010 10:53 PM

Employers have a base of expenses going to salaries, etc. If some of that base was moved (ie no SS), most/many agree that the employees would, over time, demand all or part of that "gain".
---------------------------

Citation please.

Where is your study that they won't?

Employers have a base of expenses going to salaries, etc. If some of that base was moved (ie no SS), most/many agree that the employees would, over time, demand all or part of that "gain".

Believe what you want --- I have ran a business and it would work along these lines.

The point is still the same: Using ANY analysis known to sane man, the pension programs of teachers is more lucrative than SS by a magnitude. There really is no arguing this from an analytical or economical sense. That is one of the reasons why the pensions are/will be reformed across the country over the nest 36 months. Bankruptcy is bankruptcy by any other name.

canuhearmenow on September 15, 2010 12:09 PM
Uh, experienced ----- if the employer did not have to pay the tax, it would come to us in our paycheck.

********************************

Boy that's a big assumption. How do you know this? Maybe they would use the money to boost their bottom line. When did employers get that magnanimous? How many pay the bear minimum wage? Do you know how many of my clients are in serious trouble with the IRS and DOR for failure to not only pay their share of the withholdings but also to pay the amount that was taken out of the employees' pay checks?

Please offer us the study that backs this assumption.

Uh, experienced ----- if the employer did not have to pay the tax, it would come to us in our paycheck.

The teacher's pension is still lucrative versus SS no matter how you try to paint it otherwise.

I agree that local payment of all of the obligation is best.

Any time financial obligations are (apparently) dissociated from the person/group receiving the service, there seems to be less incentive to control costs. That was the case with the 20-20-20 raises at career end before the state said anything above 6% raises must be paid for upfront by the districts.

Just like with employers who must factor in all associated payroll costs when offering a salary, so too would local governmental bodies.

Anyway, to the topic. I have no idea how much DuPage County board members should get. All that is mentioned above is salary. What else do they get? Health Care? Pension? Travel Expenses for things they shouldn't? what are they actually doing? You always want to attract good talent, since important decisions are being made.

I am not surprised that county workers here get more than national averages since it is a more expensive place to live that nationally. Are we paying a wage that is similarly higher or do we just accept Schillerstroms junky "DuPage is extraordinary and you get what you pay for."

-1

Experienced wrote:

However, one must understand that the teachers are paying in way more than the non-govt worker (7.65% vs. 11.73%). It is their employer--the school district--that is paying in far less (7.65% vs. 2.69%). If their employer--the school district--would make up the difference, it would come from our property taxes. It is better that our taxes are paying less.

In a way it is better, but in another way it is not. If the school district were required to foot the bill for the entire cost of the pensions instead of fobbing off half or more on the state, there would be less of an inclination to resort to practices that strain the system, such are early retirements, and contracted 6% raises in the last four years before retirement. We end up paying for this one way or another.

La Cucracha on September 13, 2010 8:52 PM
Experienced,

***

BTW, your argument that the electorate votes for the increase is lame. It's a vote out of fear that the ACT scored will drop and their kids won't get into the right school.
-------------------

Go argue with the majority of the electorate. If they are going to act as lemmings, one can't argue with the final results. The people have spoken. At least they had the chance to speak, which is a response to the original statement.

canuhearmenow on September 14, 2010 3:17 PM
Experienced,

***

Even with the idea that they pay in (in total) ALMOST as much as we in the corporate world do, their "payback" dwarfs that of the non-teacher world!
--------------------------------

However, one must understand that the teachers are paying in way more than the non-govt worker (7.65% vs. 11.73%). It is their employer--the school district--that is paying in far less (7.65% vs. 2.69%). If their employer--the school district--would make up the difference, it would come from our property taxes. It is better that our taxes are paying less.

canuhearmenow on September 14, 2010 3:17 PM
Experienced,

We got there because you referred to teacher salaries in the post previous to mine!
------------------------------------

Actually, no. I was merely quoting you so that people wouldn't have to search for your original post. I was addressing tax rates only and that part of your question.

Experienced,

We got there because you referred to teacher salaries in the post previous to mine!

I extended to include pensions since that is part of overall compensation and is also a reflection on how the school district is ran (which eventually gets reflected in our taxes).

Thanks for the further clarification with data, which reinforces my intended point:

I keep hearing people (teachers and other plain old taxpayers) crying the blues about teachers pensions not being lucrative. Even with the idea that they pay in (in total) ALMOST as much as we in the corporate world do, their "payback" dwarfs that of the non-teacher world!

You have again made the case that TRS absoloutely kicks the butt of SS!

Kudos with your data!

:)>

Thom,

Thank you, but I am aware of what the state constitution says in regard to public employee pensions. The purpose of my post was not to ask whether the state could or should live up to it's pension obligations, but to point out that, in fact, the state is required to make a sizable contribution to some of those pensions. For, as you put it, "if you want to compare the retirement contributions of teachers to the private sector you probably should add in 9.4% for a baseline State of Ill. Contribution."

-JQP

Guys and Gals,

Since the USA has exported entire industries:

* Manufacturing

* High Tech

* Textiles

* 30-50% automotive

* 30-40% aircraft

* 90% shipbuilding

* USA now a net food importer

Where do you think the taxable income is going to be generated to pay for all the good that government can inflict on us?

Experienced and Canuhearmenow,

Just like an employer in the private sector who pays ½ of the SS contribution, so too the State of Illinois is responsible for making what you could essentially call the “employer” portion of the TRS contributions for teachers. So if you want to compare the retirement contributions of teachers to the private sector you probably should add in 9.4% for a baseline State of Ill. Contribution. It’s actually supposed to be higher than that, but that’s a long story.

Additionally to answer JQP briefly, the Illinois Constitution states; Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.

So, Constitutionally, the State has to live up to the terms of the pension.

Experienced,

When we're talking about a base consisting of 70% of the tax bill, that's the issue. The extra few cents every year or so may seem piddly to you, but how we got there, e.g. awful union contracts, is THE problem.

BTW, your argument that the electorate votes for the increase is lame. It's a vote out of fear that the ACT scored will drop and their kids won't get into the right school.

Experienced,

I agree with your post, but to co-opt your devil's advocate role a bit, isn't the state on the hook for whatever else is necessary to keep the teachers' pension fund afloat? This would represent an additional, probably significant contribution by the taxpayers to the teachers' retirement.

OTOH, Social Security is very soon going to require additional funding from the taxpayers....

-JQP

error above: 9400 and 90,600 not 9800 and 91,200

-1

There is a tax advantage on the TRS contribution -- Uncle Sam (fed taxes) only takes a bite AFTER the employee portion is taken out. Look at a D203 librairan making $100,000.

9800 to TRS and Uncle Sam starts looking at the 91200 as income for federal taxes.

$100,000 CPA

6200 to SS but Federal tax sees 100,000 of income.

9200 of additional federal taxable income starts eating away

(obviously oversimplified, but you get the idea. I am pretty sure the state also does not tax the TRS contribution or benefit)

I will not rehash other arguments, but I will say to LaCucaracha that nobody should care about the tax rate directly (sort of). They should care about the total tax levy and how their property is valued compared to other properties which must pay for the tax levy.

There has been more than plenty of grousing about this in D203 and D204. D203 had the 2002 referendum which was phased in a strange way to elevate the tax rate beyond what was thought. These extra collections continue today. This was followed by a shift of monies from Operations to Construction, making the latest Construction referendum look smaller.

In D204....well..the whole Metea mess is a never-ending source of discussion.

-1

canuhearmenow on September 12, 2010 5:21 PM

I'm not sure how we got to pensions. It's not relevant to the topic at hand. The person to whom I was responding was talking of tax rates, and not salaries and benefits.

So, let's look at it anyway. Please before I start, understand that I am only trying to present numbers as fairly and w/o bias as I can. I am neither supporting your position nor arguing against it.

So, for your NON-GOVERNMENTAL employee, the employee contributes 6.2% of their wages for SS; 1.45% for medicare--total 7.65%. Their employers contribute the same amount--6.2% and 1.45%--total 7.65%. The total is 15.3%. Additional retirement benefits differ by employer. An employee can max out of SS but not medicare.

For ILLINOIS DOWNSTATE TEACHERS, the employee contributes 9.4% of their wages for TRS plus 1.45% for medicare plus .88% for THIS(retirement health insurance fund)--Total 11.73%. The school district pays .58% plus for TRS plus 1.45% for medicare plus .66% for THIS--total 2.69%. The total is 14.42%. Additional retirement benefits (and there are some) differ by employer. A teacher cannot max out of TRS.

So, if you compare direct employee contributions, you have

Non-govt 7.65%
Downstate Teachers 11.73%

And, if you compare employer contributions, you have

Non-govt 7.65%
Downstate school districts 2.69%

And, if you compare Total contributions, you have

Non-govt 15.3%
Downstate Teachers/school districts 14.42%

Now somewhere in there I hope one can compare apples and apples.

I think your original comparison of 15% and 9% was total employee/employer for non-govt employee vs. just teacher TRS.

If you do total employee/employer you have 15.3% vs. 14.42%--a difference of .88%. Playing devil's advocate though, one could argue that the .88% is negligible and a savings for the taxpayers because their taxes would fund the additional .88% employer contribution.

If you do total employee, you have 7.65% vs. 11.73%--a difference of -4.08%. But playing devil's advocate one could argue that TRS is better than SS.

So, I don't know if you can compare apples and apples anyway.

Experienced,

Speaking of teachers, I am more than a little befuddled by the communities understanding of their pay scales.

An example is here in 203: the avg salary is around $80 per year, plus a retirement pension that is so lucrative as to be as immoral as the big slaries I read about in the corporate world.

Now here is the kicker: I was discussing this recently with some neighbors (two are teachers), and I kept hearing two things over and over again:

>>>The teachers are underpaid for all the work they do (Say what?) as even though they get several weeks/momths off, they do have to work extra hours to correct papers, etc, and

>>>their the pension is not lucrative because they put in (5 of their salaries to pay for it.

Now, none of them would admit (or they just don't understand --- I really don't know) that we in the corporate world put in about 15% (which is clearly way higher than the 9% theteachers pay in to theirs)of our salaries into our "pension" (social security) PLUS whatever else we save for retirement (example:401k)

As I see it, teachers really were underpaid AT ONE POINT IN TIME, but I think we have passed that point years ago. Also, their is a reason their retirement system is basically bankrupt ---- it is just way to lush and cannot possibly sustain under the great weight of itself!

I read a lot about how the crooked wallstreet types screwed up their pensions, but anyone with even a ruidmentary understanding of how pension funds are funded understands that they only got to their previous levels based on the aggressive returns wallstreet provided (and which were used to aggressively project future fund balances)

If anyone else out htere who does NOT have a partisan opinion on this can colorize a bit, it would be appreciated.

La Cucaracha on September 11, 2010 4:08 PM

I'm surprised that the school districts seem to get free passes. There's a little grousing about teacher salaries and more about admin salaries, but not much about their tax rates.

-----------------------------------------

That could be because almost all school rate increases are approved by the electoers in a referendum.

Anon 10:12,

Don't know much about Schillerstrom, but I think the bond issue was a good deal. The County has almost zero debt and their tax rate is puny. Sometimes you need to do things or pay more later, or in different ways. I'm surprised that the school districts seem to get free passes. There's a little grousing about teacher salaries and more about admin salaries, but not much about their tax rates.

Thank God we are almost done with Schillerstrom. Good riddance to him and his heavy handed style of politics. It is a shame we don't have any kind of lame duck, 11th hour regulation that prevents an outgoing County Board Member from saying good bye and at the same time saddling us with 30 years of debt.

Maybe the next elected County Board will have what it takes to roll up their sleeves and start to write some new chapters in DuPage County history... chapters that will eclipse this recent low point in leadership, accountability, transparency, and good management.

Reform and ethics in Illinois government are slowing coming because We The People are demanding it. Good riddance to those who have stood in the way and have only been out for their own ego and self interest.

Stinks,

Have you noticed the foreclosures and the number of properties up for sale including plenty of houses the builders had planned to knock down and replace with million dollar babies, that are now getting a coat of paint and the lawn mowed more than once a month?

The "higher socio-economic class" has maxed out their credit cards; and is now sinking back to what they can afford plus the interest payments on the house, interest on their Benz, their financed Hawaii vacations, and the clothes on their backs financed at 18% with a credit card.

And yes, this could be metaphor for the state of Illinois and the Federal Government who are still binge charging like their is no tomorrow.

By Stinks on September 9, 2010 2:58 PM

I liked being in the upper rankings as a talking point. But losing out to Bolingbrook proves that the rankings mean crap.

If higher property taxes results in the community catering to a slightly higher socioeconomic bracket, then I'm fine with that.

I liked being in the upper rankings as a talking point. But losing out to Bolingbrook proves that the rankings mean crap.

If higher property taxes results in the community catering to a slightly higher socioeconomic bracket, then I'm fine with that.

Extraordinary places quickly become average when their spending reaches heights that cannot be adequately supported by the tax base.

Case in point? Just look at the fall of Naper in Money mag rankings. The property taxes were a big factor in the fall.

From a basic economics view, the people feeding off of the public trough should have compensation somewhere, on average, near the average of the public paying the bill.

Anything else eventually leads to failure (see American car industry and the mid-70s for an excellent example).

The amounts don't seem out of line.

The real money is in policies and spending for various costs and project.

I would gladly pay twice as much in compensation if they would spend tens of millions less.

I suppose it all depends on a person perspective. If you are above their income overall, then it doesn't matter as much. However, if you are below their income level, than it can be irksome.

Schillerstrom comes across as being a bit of a pompous jackass, but I suppose he is right that Naperville isn't an average town. That being said, I'd like to see how we compare in terms of salaries for these people relative to other similarly situated communities. I think that's likely more indicative of the averages to which the article is drawing a comparison.