Maricopa County Tax Increase (Phoenix, Scottsdale: school districts, compensation, tax rates)

[The_Cadillac_Lawyer]

So if understand correctly, the CD logic here is that, (1) we should overlook the sheriff's indiscretions and subsequent tax increase to pay for it because: (a) Hey at least it's not Illinois, Arkansas, California, Et al, (b) the workers who put in years of employment have the audacity to expect what they contracted for, read entitlements, (c) county sheriff's get sued all the time, (d) it's the plaintiff's fault for having the nerve to sue for their civil rights being violated. (2) It's the lawyers fault, the bottom feeders that they are, for racking up legal fees in a legal system designed to be unnavigable for laymen.

Do people actually believe these things, or is it just Internet posturing?

[pbenjamin]

Unfortunately, a large segment of the local population will rationalize just about anything to support this embarrassment of a sheriff. I would like to hope that he would lose the next election but I tend to doubt it.

[GeneR]

Originally Posted by The_Cadillac_Lawyer

So if understand correctly, the CD logic here is that, (1) we should overlook the sheriff's indiscretions and subsequent tax increase to pay for it.....

Tax increase to pay for the Sheriff's office? Sorry, I thought the OP indicated the tax increase was to pay for pensions and health care costs. The article referred to by the OP must have been mistaken. My "posturing" was based on the information in that mistaken report (and the financial status of many cities, states and school districts throughout the nation who have millions/billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations).

[The_Cadillac_Lawyer]

Originally Posted by GeneR

Tax increase to pay for the Sheriff's office? Sorry, I thought the OP indicated the tax increase was to pay for pensions and health care costs. The article referred to by the OP must have been mistaken. My "posturing" was based on the information in that mistaken report (and the financial status of many cities, states and school districts throughout the nation who have millions/billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligations).

Originally Posted by The_Cadillac_Lawyer

As I understand it, there are several factors contributing to the proposed increase, but the one that stands out is the $23 million dollar judgment against the county sheriff. That seems pretty unreasonable to me.

Maricopa County Considers Property Tax Hike | KJZZ

Aw yes, the power of selective reading. As you can see (bolded), in my original post I clearly stated there were several factors contributing to the increase, however commented on the one that stood out the most.

As you pointed out, countless other cities, states, and school districts have similar pension related tax increases. However, as previously noted, what sets us apart and is completely dissimilar to other districts, are the costs associated with our sheriff's indiscretions. Again, it seems pretty unreasonable to me

[johnp292]

Originally Posted by YAZ

Smoke & mirrors.

Bottom feeder lawyers would've easily found another axe to grind.

So if there's something else to find, why haven't the "bottom feeding lawyers" found it already? Are we to believe that they are so busy going after poor old Joe that there's no time to make even more money?

[kell490]

That's one of the issues I have with government employee's guaranteed Cadillac pension programs while the private sector has eliminated these programs for 401k with matching employee funding of their own retirement forcing the employee to actually save some money. Government jobs are too costly to the tax payer due to unions which have created environment that cause tax waste at all levels. Elected officials solve the issue by raising taxes. It's nearly impossible to get rid of an employee of a government job for poor job performance. While in the private sector that's not the case if someone isn't performing. I know someone who worked for the city of Phoenix he said the first day he started the HR person told him it was nearly impossible to get let go if he showed up every day. He was told exactly what his raises would be until he retired no matter what his performance was. How is that type of employment effective use of tax dollars?

[Phxrider]

The private sector also costs the taxpayer by their ridiculous tax write offs, purchasing new vehicles. Business expenses like trips to Vegas and business conventions. My one buddy in the private sector said he actually paid for prostitutes on a business trip he used as a tax write off. Also these bonuses made by private sector workers are ridiculous and should be stopped . It cost the consumer thousands of dollars. 401ks are dumb idea because some investor makes the wrong decision or the market collapses, you looses everything.

[GeneR]

Originally Posted by Phxrider

The private sector also costs the taxpayer by their ridiculous tax write offs, purchasing new vehicles. Business expenses like trips to Vegas and business conventions. My one buddy in the private sector said he actually paid for prostitutes on a business trip he used as a tax write off. Also these bonuses made by private sector workers are ridiculous and should be stopped . It cost the consumer thousands of dollars. 401ks are dumb idea because some investor makes the wrong decision or the market collapses, you looses everything.

PHXrider suggests there is a difference between the taxpayer and the private sector thus one effects the other. The private sector IS the taxpayer, they are synonymous. When the private sector uses tax write-offs this taxpayer is keeping money from the government, money that belongs to the taxpayer/private sector because it is EARNED in the private sector. This is mistakenly referred to as a "cost" to government. The government does not add one nickel to the gross national product. It only passes on nickels it takes (or, in the current economy, it borrows) from the private sector.

I have two daughters whom I support. When I refuse to give them more money it is NOT a cost to my daughters. Likewise, when the taxpayer (the private sector) refuses, by use of a tax write-off, to give more money to the government it is not a "cost" to government.

[pbenjamin]

The reason that government jobs have typically come with better retirement options than private sector jobs is the low salaries that they get. You choose to work for less money in exchange for a better retirement package. There are issues that can and should be resolved by increasing employee contribution, getting rid of spiking, etc., but any campaign to get rid of such pensions or renege on previous commitments to these folks is just plain wrong, not to mention counterproductive. Government employees are the perennial punching bag for the right wing. Many haven't gotten raises in years and now you want to take away their pensions. How would you ever get anybody to take these jobs if they paid less than the private sector (which they do) and have no better retirement options than the private sector (which you propose)?

[GeneR]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

The reason that government jobs have typically come with better retirement options than private sector jobs is the low salaries that they get. You choose to work for less money in exchange for a better retirement package. There are issues that can and should be resolved by increasing employee contribution, getting rid of spiking, etc., but any campaign to get rid of such pensions or renege on previous commitments to these folks is just plain wrong, not to mention counterproductive. Government employees are the perennial punching bag for the right wing. Many haven't gotten raises in years and now you want to take away their pensions. How would you ever get anybody to take these jobs if they paid less than the private sector (which they do) and have no better retirement options than the private sector (which you propose)?

A desire to keep pensions is admirable. It does not change the FACT that public sector pensions are bankrupting cities, states and school districts. The private sector is forbidden by law to have unfunded pension obligations. If the public sector were held to the same standard they would have had their doors closed years ago.

I'm not sure what is being referred to in the above post with reference to a "campaign to get rid of such pensions".

Secondarily, the issue of public vs. private sector pay is dependent job to job. MANY public sector jobs pay more than the private sector. There are private sector jobs which pay more than some public sector positions. A newspaper analysis presents one point of view on this issue:

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com