Are you a millionaire?

[muon2]

On paper today, no. However I draw a state pension. If I wanted the same income from a retirement fund it would require about $3M in assets. Does the equivalent count?

Later this year after probate my wife is due to receive real estate from an inheritance. Combined with our current residence it should put our total real estate close to $1M. So on paper later this year it should be yes, regardless of how one answers the pension question.

Should I vote yes based on pension or future real estate, or should I vote no based on current paper valuation?

[muon2]

Still about five years away, if you exclude my share of the inheritance.

Pray for more inflation and we'll all get there soon!

More inflation is the thing that will most keep me away from millionaire status. My pension grows at a fixed 3% per year. If inflation goes as it did last year, more of my pension goes to essentials and I could be forced to sell some of my meager assets.

I only made in the 80ks last year.

Not saying yall are millioniares, but made in total assets.

Most people here were DEFINITELY more privileged than me growing me.

My asset value is only due to my age. Most of my privilege is due to using my talents effectively to move away from the white (non-college-educated) working class which defines most of my family.

[muon2]

On paper today, no. However I draw a state pension. If I wanted the same income from a retirement fund it would require about $3M in assets. Does the equivalent count?

Later this year after probate my wife is due to receive real estate from an inheritance. Combined with our current residence it should put our total real estate close to $1M. So on paper later this year it should be yes, regardless of how one answers the pension question.

Should I vote yes based on pension or future real estate, or should I vote no based on current paper valuation?

You should present value your pension fund as part of your asset calculation, absolutely. You might want to add a percentage point to the discount rate as a risk factor for potential Illinois state insolvency.    You remember that issue don't you, when you broke party ranks?   Add in social security too, using the same calculation, but almost no discount rate, since SS is adjusted for inflation, assuming you get that as a public employee. Maybe your lavish pension is in lieu thereof.

How lavish is it as compared to SS is a question that comes to mind. My monthly SS is $4,087 per month (it got that high due to delaying taking SS until 70 because I am not French  ). Put aside my heart condition, and hey, I do take all my pills and swim every other day, and walk the dog (today it's going to be in Williamsburg* on this glorious day).  So my life expectancy is 13 years, and I assume no default risk from the Feds as opposed to Illinois. So that is 156 months times $4,087, or $637,572.

So yeah, your pension is LAVISH. Damn. You also have almost no unrealized capital gains on your assets that would be subject to taxation either. I am in precisely the opposite situation. Not fair!  

*One of the most fascinating hoods anywhere as the DRA reveals.

Barring a state constitutional amendment my pension is iron clad and past decisions make it clear that it cannot be diminished and is first in line to be paid if the state is short of funds. There was even testimony at the 1970 constitutional convention to that effect and the justices of the ILSC agreed in a unanimous decision last decade. State employees hired after 2010 have greatly reduced pensions, but those of us in the system before that date are considered untouchable. As for an amendment a minor change was attempted a few years ago and the voters rejected it.

Furthermore the recent tax hikes have helped the state keep up with its pension payments and have substantially increased the state bond ratings. Those tax hikes don't directly affect me since all retirement income is exempt in IL; only my part time work is subject to state income tax. Suggestions to tax retirement income here have proven to be a bit of a third rail in state politics, so I don't see that changing soon.

[muon2]

On paper today, no. However I draw a state pension. If I wanted the same income from a retirement fund it would require about $3M in assets. Does the equivalent count?

Later this year after probate my wife is due to receive real estate from an inheritance. Combined with our current residence it should put our total real estate close to $1M. So on paper later this year it should be yes, regardless of how one answers the pension question.

Should I vote yes based on pension or future real estate, or should I vote no based on current paper valuation?

You should present value your pension fund as part of your asset calculation, absolutely. You might want to add a percentage point to the discount rate as a risk factor for potential Illinois state insolvency.    You remember that issue don't you, when you broke party ranks?   Add in social security too, using the same calculation, but almost no discount rate, since SS is adjusted for inflation, assuming you get that as a public employee. Maybe your lavish pension is in lieu thereof.

How lavish is it as compared to SS is a question that comes to mind. My monthly SS is $4,087 per month (it got that high due to delaying taking SS until 70 because I am not French  ). Put aside my heart condition, and hey, I do take all my pills and swim every other day, and walk the dog (today it's going to be in Williamsburg* on this glorious day).  So my life expectancy is 13 years, and I assume no default risk from the Feds as opposed to Illinois. So that is 156 months times $4,087, or $637,572.

So yeah, your pension is LAVISH. Damn. You also have almost no unrealized capital gains on your assets that would be subject to taxation either. I am in precisely the opposite situation. Not fair!  

*One of the most fascinating hoods anywhere as the DRA reveals.

Barring a state constitutional amendment my pension is iron clad and past decisions make it clear that it cannot be diminished and is first in line to be paid if the state is short of funds. There was even testimony at the 1970 constitutional convention to that effect and the justices of the ILSC agreed in a unanimous decision last decade. State employees hired after 2010 have greatly reduced pensions, but those of us in the system before that date are considered untouchable. As for an amendment a minor change was attempted a few years ago and the voters rejected it.

Furthermore the recent tax hikes have helped the state keep up with its pension payments and have substantially increased the state bond ratings. Those tax hikes don't directly affect me since all retirement income is exempt in IL; only my part time work is subject to state income tax. Suggestions to tax retirement income here have proven to be a bit of a third rail in state politics, so I don't see that changing soon.

Would they be subject to Mass income tax if you move there? Just curious.

You certainly were in the right place at the right time, bad weather and all.

MA does not levy an income tax on its own state pensions. It also doesn't levy an income tax on pensions from states that don't tax resident annuitants from MA. It's basically reciprocity without a formal agreement.

IL doesn't tax any retirement income (including withdrawals from private 401ks, etc), so they don't tax the pensions of MA annuitants living in IL. Therefore the indirect reciprocity applies to IL pensions received by MA residents. Seems like a good plan to me.