On Thursday, April 5, 2018, Michalene McElligott <michalene@krislovlaw.com> wrote:
Dear Annuitants/Participants and Retirees,
I too wondered about the decision reported in the news about Judge Cohen’s ruling that the Park Employees pension amendments were unconstitutional and ordering refunds.
Here is a copy of his decision, finding that, like the Jones and Johnson v. MEABF case, the amendments to the Pension Code that reduced benefits and increased participant contributions violated the Constitution’s Art.13, Section 5, the Pension Protection Clause. While it seems like he’s ruling in participants’ favor in other cases, he probably views them as the same, enforcing the statute as it was in effect, against subsequent adverse changes. In our case, our claims are based on those statutes PLUS our claims that the City contracted to be the coverage, and induced you all to rely on it - both of which he rejected as not enforceable, and was upheld by Justice Simon.
I’m not saying that I agree with any of this, but that’s what the response would be.
We are still working towards a battle on April 30 because he held that the Funds do have a primary obligation to provide you all with a retiree healthcare plan, and he seems to want to push them in that direction. We’ll see.
Happy to answer any questions.
Clint
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
krislovlaw.com
Krislov Law is a Chicago based law firm which advocates tirelessly for their clients in high stakes litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and taxpayers,and is dedicated to protecting consumer, investor and taxpayer rights in class action matters.On Thursday, March 29, 2018, Michalene McElligott <michalene@krislovlaw.com> wrote:
Participants,
Since the next hearing will be more involved than a short status report, Judge Cohen has moved the April 19 hearing to Monday, April 30 at 10:30 a.m., Room 2308.
Annuitant turnout will be helpful.
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
From: Clint Krislov
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 3:39 PM
Subject: Retiree Update-Settlement Negotiations-Confidential Attorney Client Communications
Dear Retirees,
As you expected, the matter did not settle today, and likelihood seems slim.
The short description is that unless the city steps up with a contribution, it’s unlikely that we’ll get anywhere. We are to report back to Judge Cohen on April 19 at 10 a.m.
I think there is certainty under the law and decisions, that the Funds will have to pay up their subsidies from 1/1/2017 to the present and going forward. We don’t need a settlement to get to that result. Our well-published position is that the Funds have two obligations: 1) to provide a plan for all of their annuitants, and 2) to subsidize it at the $55/$21 or $25 monthly amount.
As to the funds, their public statements are that they have no obligation other than to process withholding and subsidies. I don’t think that we can settle with the Funds without a permanent obligation to provide a plan for all of you, at least for those of you who were hired by mid-2003. Based on the appellate court’s ruling that the protected class is anyone hired before the execution or effective date (7/31/2003) of the 2003 settlement, there will probably be some tension over whether the term “execution” means April 3, 2003 when it was first signed, or July 31, 2003, the date of its execution, meaning the date it went into effect. I know this only affects a small number of you, but it is something that will need to be decided.
The big question is whether the City will contribute to retiree healthcare costs beyond the subsidy. Our position on this is that there has to be a contribution by the city; maybe either make everyone medicare qualified or equivalent, or pay a minimum percentage of the person’s healthcare costs. We’ll keep you posted.
I know that some of you would waive a portion of your COLA in exchange for the city’s either making you medicare covered or equivalent, or in exchange for a portion of your healthcare costs, and that there are others who would not waive any portion of your COLA under any conditions, at all.
We haven’t agreed to anything yet, and we won’t agree to a settlement that just gives you the subsidy. If there’s going to be a settlement, the city will have to contribute to the costs of coverage, or there simply won’t be a settlement. And any waivers will be at each individual’s decision.
Regards,
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
krislovlaw.com
Krislov Law is a Chicago based law firm which advocates tirelessly for their clients in high stakes litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and taxpayers,and is dedicated to protecting consumer, investor and taxpayer rights in class action matters.FYI:
Participants,
We received a call yesterday from Judge Cohen advising that he wants to continue the settlement conference scheduled for today, March 9, to next week, and we are likely going to get this re-set for March 15.
As you recall, the meeting was set as an in-chambers negotiating session (mediation), and was not a public hearing. We will confirm the date and inform you shortly.
Ken Goldstein
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
www.dailyherald.com/news/20180109/biss-illinois-suffocating-under-too-many-pension-systems
Biss: Illinois suffocating under too many pension systems
dailyherald.com
FYI
From: Clint Krislov
Subject: Retiree Update: March 9 Negotiating Session (Not a Public Hearing)
Participants,
As you know, Judge Cohen has set an in-chambers negotiating session for March 9. This is an in-chambers mediation, not a public hearing.
Each of the three groups (us, the City and the funds) presented a confidential position paper in which we were to set out the following:
What we think the court decisions require of each group.
What efforts at settlement have been made.
What each would propose as a settlement.
As to No.1, it’s no secret that that our position is that the court has declared that the Funds have a primary obligation to provide healthcare plans for all annuitants, but they’re obviously not doing that. And the Funds disavow anything other than an obligation to pay subsidies at the 1983,1985 levels, and the city believes that the court let it out other than to levy a tax to support the subsidy.
As to Settlement efforts, it’s no secret that the city has just refused to negotiate or offer any counterproposals to provide healthcare for any of you other than the Korshak and Windows retirees, and not exactly what even they are entitled to.
We really do appreciate all of your submissions, and incorporated them into our submission; the main point being that your participating in the City’s/Funds’ annuitant healthcare plans is what got most of you into the nonqualified-for-medicare-without-penalties position that you are in, and that fundamental fairness requires them to fix that.
The core of our proposal focuses on those of you who are not medicare qualified, either by age or quarters; especially for those of you who will probably never have sufficient quarters. We have not and cannot waive anything for you.
Some of you would be willing to waive the COLA in exchange for coverage; some of you are unwilling to waive your COLA under any circumstance. If there is such an offer, in exchange for medicare coverage or 55/45 cost sharing, it will be your choice for you to make for yourself, considering your own situation.
We do think that the City and funds need to address the costs (including penalties for delayed signup) of getting you all medicare covered or equivalent, unless and until you qualify yourself. Or having the city wrap most of you into the Korshak and windows group, 55/45 cost sharing, hopefully with subsidies.
In the meantime, you all might contact your trustees, ask them to rethink their disavowing their obligations to provide you with coverage. With fiduciaries like them, who needs enemies?
We go into the negotiations with hopes and demands for you.
We’ll let you know how this proceeds.
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
krislovlaw.com
Krislov Law is a Chicago based law firm which advocates tirelessly for their clients in high stakes litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and taxpayers,and is dedicated to protecting consumer, investor and taxpayer rights in class action matters.www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/opinion/investor-class-pensions.html?smid=fb-share
Opinion | The Real Reason the Investor Class Hates Pensions
nytimes.com
It’s not about a funding crisis — it’s about turning retirement savers into passive investors.www.pionline.com/article/20180226/ONLINE/180229886/chicago-policemen-pension-fund-sells-private-e...
Chicago Policemen pension fund sells private equity portfolio to improve liquidity
pionline.com
Chicago Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund's board of trustees authorized internal investment staff to get out of private equity.teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/search/label/pensions
teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.pe
A writer must “know and have an ever-present consciousness that this world is a world of fools and rogues… tormented with envy, consumed with vanity; selfish, false, cruel, cursed with illusions… He should free himself of all doctrines, theories, etiquettes, politics…” —Ambrose Bierce (1...FYI:
Dear Retirees,
It is with great disappointment to report that I have received in the mail the attached denial of our motion seeking the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of its denial of our petition.
This casts the Appellate Court’s decision as the last word on the City and Funds’ obligations, even though we, the City and the Funds trustees differ greatly over their obligation to provide healthcare plans for their annuitants.
As you know, the Circuit Court has scheduled an in-chambers negotiating session for March 9, 2018, with submissions to be delivered to the court on February 26, 2018, explaining our view of what the obligations are, what efforts have been done to pursue settlement, and what we each would propose.
While I share your great disappointment at the courts’ decisions to this point, we still intend to push for the best negotiated classwide settlement we can for you, and for the annuitants, all of you. Your emails and calls have made us very aware of your varied situations, and we will fight still to get the best possible settlement, with choices that will hopefully address each of your situations. But, rest assured that we cannot, and will not, waive any of your individual COLA or pension rights. We will propose a class settlement that will offer alternative packages, so that each of you would be able to select, as fits your particular situation.
I cannot predict how this will come out, but we will certainly do the best we can, and keep you apprised. Be assured also that any proposed settlement will be very publicly vetted, with your right to object or opt out.
Since the courts have still not certified the case as a class case (except for the pre-8/23/1989 retirees), its holdings are not actually legally binding on those who were not signed as plaintiffs. On the other hand, it would be a long shot to hope that a new case filed by someone else would not result in the court following the decisions in this case.
In the meantime, keep sending us your descriptions of your situations:
Age
Date of Hire
Which Fund
Date of Retirement
Gross Annuity
Medicare Qualifying Quarters
Cost of your Healthcare, and
Your health situation:
to help us prepare for these negotiations.
And while I know it’s financially a strain, your contributions are still needed and appreciated.
We’ll be back to you before the 26th.
Sincerely,
Clint
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
krislovlaw.com
Krislov Law is a Chicago based law firm which advocates tirelessly for their clients in high stakes litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and taxpayers,and is dedicated to protecting consumer, investor and taxpayer rights in class action matters.www.nwherald.com/2017/10/17/illinois-pension-chief-taking-pensions-away-from-elected-county-offic...
Illinois' pension chief: Taking pensions away from elected county officials is illegal
nwherald.com
WOODSTOCK – Louis Kosiba, executive director of the $35.8 billion Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, showed up to the McHenry County Board meeting Tuesday night to let board members and the public know Chairman Jack Franks’ resolution to kill pensions for all elected county officials is illegal...www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article199757439.html
Pension fund hits milestone: It’s earning more money than it’s paying out
sacbee.com
Higher payroll contributions and a rising stock market gave CalPERS a more stable financial outlook.www.businessinsider.com/rhode-island-court-decision-could-be-a-warning-sign-for-social-security-2...
businessinsider.com
A federal court ruled that Rhode Island could retroactively cut municipal pensions, potentially paving the way for similar decisions for other programs.www.nirsonline.org/2018/02/new-case-study-examines-how-dismantling-pensions-triggered-mass-exodus...
New Case Study Examines How Dismantling Pensions Triggered Mass Exodus of Public Safety Workers
nirsonline.org
Palm Beach Town Council Reinstated Pension Plan After Unsuccessful and Costly Shift to 401(k) Accounts Webinar on Thursday, February 15th at 1 PM ET to Review Findings WASHINGTON, D.C., February…From: Clint Krislov (clint@krislovlaw.com)
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 10:47 AM
Subject: Retiree Update-Attorney Client Communications-No one is proposing that your cola be taken away over your objection
Participants,
While I asked that our prior communication not be facebook posted (you know the city and funds’ lawyers all read these too) regardless, the proposal that I presented was to give you all options which you could each choose for yourself.
No one is proposing to waive anything for anyone.
The idea is to offer something to the city, in exchange for the city’s providing an acceptable plan, but each person to select the package that works for that person.
And all of this presumes that there is a desire in the city to reach a resolution, as well; and the court’s power and desire to get to a fair resolution.
At this point, the responses seem to be as follows:
People who are over 65, don’t have qualifying quarters for medicare, and don’t have a compounded cola, (especially those who are already into their 70s) may be willing to sacrifice the cola in exchange for the benefits of being medicare qualified.
People who have colas that compound may have to estimate whether the colas will grow beyond the healthcare premium amounts.
People who are under age 65 and don’t have qualifying quarters yet, are mixed in whether they would give up the cola during the pre-age 65 period or take a 55/45 cost sharing without waiving cola.
People who are under age 65 and do have qualifying quarters for medicare coverage are mixed in whether to waive the cola for the period til they reach age 65.
People who are near or over age 65 and do qualify for medicare probably shouldn’t waive anything. They should be compensated for the extra costs they have had to incur during the 2014-7 “phase out”.
The difference in cost between making someone Medicare eligible ($442 +part A delay penalty, plus $138 or $184 +part B delay penalty) vs. the City paying 55% (based on the blue cross $1514 single premium, 55%=$833.00, leaving a premium of $681.00) the cost to the city is pretty close either way, but the annuitant’s resulting cost for a medicare supplement would be less than paying the remaining share of the blue cross premium.
So, just responding that you’d never give up the cola is fine, but then I’d like to know either:
what you want the city and funds to provide for YOU, and
what you’d be willing to offer them in return for that.
Those of you who want to fight this to the death without compromise are certainly entitled to your opinion, and maybe I share your anger with the City and funds’ trustees’ abandoning you.
But, at the same time, there are people whose situation may motivate them to approve an acceptable compromise.
I’m trying to structure something to meet everyone’s needs.
And, by the way, we need an infusion of contributions.
Your many responses that identify what you would accept for yourself or where we need to tweak this-- are really helpful.
Those of you who just want to complain about me or the proposal, or just tweet on facebook, ought maybe to get a good lawyer and pay him or her.
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
FYI
From: Clint Krislov
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 1:14 PM
Subject: Retiree Update re: Report on the hearing last Friday, where we are heading, and what we need from you
Dear Retirees/Annuitants,
Sorry for the delay in communications. Michalene was out Friday and our server crash and reconstruction made it difficult to get full blasts out quickly. Regardless, here is a report on the hearing last Friday, where we are heading, and what we need from you.
The short story is that the court has set March 9 for a settlement negotiation with Judge Cohen.
We are required to present the court, by 2/26/2018, with (1) our view of what the appellate court ruling requires of the City, the Funds, and annuitants, (2) what efforts have been made to settle the case, and MOST IMPORTANT: (3) our proposal to settle the matter.
For that, we need your input on what you believe an acceptable settlement would be. We need your input, because we want to propose something that is both realistic, but meets your needs, in each category of annuitant.
At the Hearing:
Things are proceeding on both the main health care issue and on the $2.1 million that the city pocketed.
On the merits, I told the court that we had met, that we had complied with the city’s request for a detailed proposal on December 18, but the City has refused to respond after more than a month. While Judge Cohen was not pleased, he decided it was time to sit down with the City, the Funds, and Annuitants’ counsel and see if there is a possibility of negotiating a resolution.
We are required to present the court, by 2/26/2018, with (1) our view of what the appellate court ruling requires of the City, the Funds, and annuitants, (2) what efforts have been made to settle the case, and MOST IMPORTANT: (3) our proposal to settle the matter.
Although I proposed a week for submissions, the judge gave the city their full requested 30 days which is sort of typical. He was not happy that the city has chosen just not to respond to our proposal but as usual he’s pretty deferential to the city’s requests.
On the $2.1 million from Blue Cross, which the City kept entirely for itself, he scheduled submissions on the same schedule and we’ll see how that plays out.
In the meantime, we are working on the following proposal, and which we think will need some adjustment, based on the feedback we’ve had so far.
Confidential Settlement Negotiations
As we view it, the most vulnerable group of you are those that do not qualify for Medicare, either because you are under age 65, or were hired before 4/1/1986 and do not have quarters to qualify for Medicare. Depending on your age and situation, some of you would be willing to give up your 3% COLA in exchange for being Medicare qualified, and some of you will not give up your COLA under any circumstances.
Per our discussions, we proposed a structure/framework for a possible settlement. You have asked for a settlement proposal that is as definitive as possible, and we are working on identifying the numbers of each category of affected participants.
The current context. We view the current status as affirming the Circuit Court’s July 21, 2016 declaration that each of the four Funds have primary obligation to provide retiree healthcare coverage for their annuitants, and the obligation to subsidize retiree healthcare costs at the rates set in the 1983 and 1985 statutes, expanded to include all persons who became participants (i.e., hire date) before the execution of the 2003 settlement. You understand as well that we have a core group of vulnerable people, whose City work did not qualify them for Medicare coverage, and believed that they had been assured of lifetime coverage under the City retiree healthcare plan; at fixed rates and subsidized.
We understand the views that some of the defendant city and funds have expressed that the only obligation is to subsidize, and we would fight that to the end, of course. And, as well, if the Illinois Supreme Court reconsiders and grants leave to appeal, that will also change the terrain.
Additionally, while we have heard the expressed view that the City and Funds have no money to pay these obligations, it is also true that in terminating retiree healthcare, the City cut $137million from the City’s $3+billion appropriation, choosing to use that money somewhere else. As for the Funds and their trustees, where have you been while the city was not contributing, and going down to Springfield to get legislation passed that resulted in the Funds being so underfunded. It is hard to feel sympathy for trustees who just let it happen.
Figuring Out Where You Are In All This
MEDICARE, IN A NUTSHELL FOR THOSE WHO DON’T QUALIFY, EITHER BY AGE OR QUARTERS.
The cost of buying into the Medicare system is currently a three part purchase, with penalties for those who didn’t sign up at age 65. You can check Medicare.gov, but as I understand it, you can purchase Medicare coverage on the following basis:
Part A (in-Hospital) premiums www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html
If you buy Part A, you'll pay up to $422 each month in 2018. If you paid Medicare taxes for less than 30 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $422. If you paid Medicare taxes for 30-39 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $232.
In most cases, if you choose to buy Part A, you must also have Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and pay monthly premiums for both. Contact Social Security for more information about the Part A premium
Part A late enrollment penalty www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/penalty/part-a-late-enrollment-penalty.html
If you aren't eligible for premium-free Part A, and you didn't buy it when you are first eligible (i.e., at age 65), you have a 10% penalty, which lasts for twice the number of years you could have had Part A, but didn't sign up.
Medicare Part B (Doctors) www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html
Depending on your income level, the monthly premium for Part B is either $134 (individual income $85,000 or less, joint less than $170,000) or $187.50 (for those with income up to $107,000/$214,000).
[It goes up for those with higher incomes, but we think most of you are in these described situations.]
But Part B Penalties are much greater and are permanent. www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/penalty/part-b-late-enrollment-penalty.html
Each monthly Part B premium is increased by 10% multiplied by the number of years that you didn’t sign up after reaching age 65, and the penalty is permanent; i.e., as long as you are buying part B. And retiree health plans do not qualify to exempt you from the late signup penalty.
Part D (Drug plans)-these vary based on provider, and while there is a penalty for not signing up by age 65, I believe that you do get excused for periods you were in another drug plan.
Medicare Supplement Plans are extra, but you have to have A and B coverage in order to buy a Medicare Supplement plan.
Medicare Advantage Plans (a/k/a Part C); usually cover everything, including drugs, but are limited networks like HMOs. The plan premiums are low, but they require that you are in Part A and Part B, in order to purchase them.
So each of you have to factor into the desired choices, the situation that you are in; and of course whether you prefer Medicare or some other plan.
Someone who is retired but below age 65 will be able to sign up at age 65 and pay the premiums without penalty and get a medicare supplement. The rates may go up, but you don’t have a late signup penalty.
Someone who is retired, and now age 75 or older, is in a different situation. Your current Part A premium will be $465, and your Part B premium will have a 100% penalty (i.e.,10% for the past ten years you didn’t sign up), so your part B premium will likely be either $268 or $375, depending on your income level. So, just to be in Medicare A and B will cost you about $732 or $839 per month; with drug coverage you’ll be around $800 or $900 per month premiums, plus of course your out of pocket charges. (about $10,000 to $11,000 per year).
THE 3% COLA ISSUE.
If your gross annuity is $60,0000, the COLA is worth about $1,800 per year. For those with $80,000 annuity, the COLA is worth about $2400 annually. For some of you that is compounded, which increases its value. All that said, We think that each of you should be able to select the plan coverage combination that best meets your situation and needs.
So, we propose to resolve the case on the following basis:
As we stated at our meeting, the resolution for Participants must provide a healthcare plan that is permanent, affordable, and Medicare qualified, or equivalent, and from which each annuitant must be able to select the package that works best for him or her.
We plan to propose a Class Settlement, subject to negotiation of a definitive agreement, with usual procedures for preliminary approval, notice, hearing, and final approval;
and include provision for payment of reasonable attorneys fees and costs, to be negotiated after agreement to substantive terms. And all of this subject to further review and revision in light of the actual value of costs and benefits described.
Class Definition. Class definition to include all persons who became participants by execution or approval of 2003 settlement. (might consider including all those who became participants by June 30, 2013 per terms of settlement.)
Statutory Subsidies. All class members will receive statutory subsidies 1983 and 1985 amounts for life, regardless of other benefits, and receive back payment of subsidies not paid for 2017 to first payments following settlement’s effective date.
Commitment to Permanent Coverage. The City and Funds will together offer a plan whose benefits are at the current Blue Cross PPO, HMO and Medicare Supplements. We encourage you to inquire about other insurance organizations, comparing costs and benefits. Alternative plans are of course welcome, but these must be equivalent plans. And the plans can be for an insured plan, rather than the City provider, but they must be no less than the norm for the marketplace.
Korshak and Windows retirees’ benefits are fixed for life (i.e., City pays 55% of costs, funds subsidize at statutory levels, nonmedicare pays medicare rates, annual audit and reconciliation).
Post-8/23/1989 Retirees: All other class members given opportunity to elect to either
Have the City pay 55% of healthcare costs for life (no waiver of COLA); nonMedicare qualified people pay Medicare rates, fund subsidies to be determined, annual audit and reconciliation
or
Have the City make you Medicare qualified in exchange for your individually waiving a portion of 3% statutory COLA in exchange for obtaining benefits of korshak/windows subclasses, and be Medicare qualified, or guarantee of equivalent.
a. Waiver for those under 65-effective for period until person qualifies for medicare. However, upon reaching medicare eligibility, the person may again elect to waive the cola, or not.
b. For those over 65, waiver for lifetime.
Compensation Fund $15-25 (tbd) million for those harmed by 2013-2017 phase out. We think that this may appeal to individuals who would not agree to waive their COLA, but might qualify for Medicare in the near future. The purpose of this is intentionally to appeal to those who would otherwise object or opt out.
People who opt out of the settlement would be free to litigate their claims on their own.
We’ve got a lot of work ahead, between now and March 9, and if the supreme court rules for us that will turn things around.
We invite your questions, comments and suggestions. If we’re missing anything, we want to know it.
Now would also be a good time for another round of Contributions-either by check or the LawPay site:
secure.lawpay.com/pages/krislov-and-associates-ltd/operating
Regards,
Clint Krislov
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
T.312-606-0500
Facsimile: 312-739-1098
Email: clint@krislovlaw.com
Website: www.krislovlaw.com
krislovlaw.com
Krislov Law is a Chicago based law firm which advocates tirelessly for their clients in high stakes litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and taxpayers,and is dedicated to protecting consumer, investor and taxpayer rights in class action matters.www.sj-r.com/news/20180126/daiber-suggests-taxing-retirement-income-to-help-pay-for-pensions?rssf...
Daiber suggests taxing retirement income to help pay for pensions
sj-r.com
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Daiber put some distance between himself and his primary opponents Thursday afternoon by suggesting the state taxcapitolfax.com/2018/01/26/daiber-biss-open-to-some-form-of-retirement-income-tax/
Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Daiber, Biss open to some form of retirement income tax
capitolfax.com
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Daiber put some distance between himself and his primary opponents Thursday afternoon by suggesting the state tax retirement income to help pay pension obligations.www.wlsam.com/2017/12/19/ives-out-with-a-rescue-plan-for-states-pension-problem/
Ives out with a rescue plan for state's pension problem
wlsam.com
By Bill Cameron, WLS-AM News (CHICAGO) Governor Bruce Rauner's Republican primary challenger, State Rep. Jeanne Ives is out with what she calls a "transformational" rescue of the state's gigantic pension problem. Ives wants to let public pension plans go into bankruptcy and eliminate the wordichicagocitywire.com/stories/511289175-chicago-police-pension-bailout-may-be-derailed-by-out-migra...
Chicago police pension bailout may be derailed by out-migration, financial expert says
chicagocitywire.com
Chicago’s police pension bailout in the General Assembly's budget deal this summer could be derailed if the state continues to empty out as Illinoisans flee for better tax climates and opportunities elsewhere, a researcher for a fiscal advocacy group said.
