Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IM, I take your point that pension benefits have been promised and are part of a legal contract. And I know that contracts are rarely negotiated without bankruptcy, but on the other hand, you can't get blood from a stone. We're on the hook for people who retired after 20 years vested with 5-6% a year COLAS. Arguably a better deal than the feds or the military. From what I've read these agreements are a big part of what is bankrupting the city pension system. They need to find a way to re-negotiate.
Fra better than adding another layer of taxes, such as a city tax, which would only add another layer of admin. and make moving to the city less desirable.
That there were decades of pension abuse benefiting some classes of city employees is not in question. The question is: if there isn't a significant infusion of money into the way underfunded system soon, at what point do the pensioners accept a haircut. Probably a significant haircut the longer it goes. I would suggest, that point will only come with bankruptcy.
Hollytree's vision for a future Providence is a somewhat scary prospect - a quaint little bankrupt city living on its past but still owning and controlling its water system while at the same time chasing away private development investment. That is not exactly a good recipe for a healthy vibrant city.
I respect Hollytree's passion for the city but do not share the same vision.
Hollytree's vision for a future Providence is a somewhat scary prospect - a quaint little bankrupt city living on its past but still owning and controlling its water system while at the same time chasing away private development investment. That is not exactly a good recipe for a healthy vibrant city.
I respect Hollytree's passion for the city but do not share the same vision.
Agree. Well meaning, but small & not forward thinking. Ignoring significant problems instead of embracing
bold solutions.
Hollytree's vision for a future Providence is a somewhat scary prospect - a quaint little bankrupt city living on its past but still owning and controlling its water system while at the same time chasing away private development investment. That is not exactly a good recipe for a healthy vibrant city.
I respect Hollytree's passion for the city but do not share the same vision.
I have not advocated chasing away private development. I have advocated private development conforming to established guidelines and zoning. There is an enormous difference. The city has already welcomed much development and I am pleased about it.
And controlling a city's water system as a not for profit agency is hardly quaint.
I would say it's quite small minded not to want to do something about continued corruption and its fallout. Give us a bold solution we can embrace. Not a narrow visioned "there is only one solution and I'm telling you what is is..."
It wasn't "fair and reasonable" to state employees who saw decades of pension contributions taken away from them.
To be fair....for decades these public employees have been part of the state NOT CONTRIBUTING to the future of the pensions (agreeing to fund them and no one funding them...what's that about and were the citizens of this state so stupid or just willing to mortgage the future residence with their unfunded agreements?)
I for one don't believe that only the younger generation and us new comers should NOT be the ones to bail these folks out. It will take all of us to pull through this economic calamity. If not then I'm totally for declaring bankruptcy and starting over (but I hope we can find a resolution that solves our problem).
To be fair....for decades these public employees have been part of the state NOT CONTRIBUTING to the future of the pensions (agreeing to fund them and no one funding them...what's that about and were the citizens of this state so stupid or just willing to mortgage the future residence with their unfunded agreements?)
I for one don't believe that only the younger generation and us new comers should NOT be the ones to bail these folks out. It will take all of us to pull through this economic calamity. If not then I'm totally for declaring bankruptcy and starting over (but I hope we can find a resolution that solves our problem).
With the exception of the teachers, city employees are NOT part of the state system and DO contribute to their pensions.
I don't think anyone wants to give city workers no pension. However, city workers were promised very generous pensions relative to the ability of the taxpayers to pay.
Maybe it's the legislators and former elected officials who should be sued for bad decisions???? Maybe they're the ones who should be bankrupted? Why should I, as a Providence resident, pay for the misdeeds of elected officials including making promises and signing contracts that could not be fulfilled?
Surely the employee contributions, at minimum, plus some interest would form the basis for a sustainable pension.
Shall I assume then, that none of you will object to receiving your "contributions at minimum, plus some interest" as a "sustainabl pension" in lieu of your promised social security benefits? It would certainly help the country balance it's budget.
Shall I assume then, that none of you will object to receiving your "contributions at minimum, plus some interest" as a "sustainabl pension" in lieu of your promised social security benefits? It would certainly help the country balance it's budget.
Good analogy. Hearing this type of callous, unempathetic response is exactly what will make city pensioners go to bankruptcy before accepting a haircut.
I was mocked for suggesting a 3% city tax, yet it seems to clearly be the best option.
People aren't going to leave the city to save 3%. People aren't going to stop coming in to the city because of 3%. And there is no way Providence residents will stop making online purchases (Amazon et al.) because of 3%.
Screwing people out of their pensions shouldn't even be an option.
Selling the water supply is a terrible idea (and may not even be possible).
So, what else is there? Raising property taxes?
Paying a city tax is a choice. There is no choice with increased water bills and/or increased property taxes.
I don't think anybody meant to mock you and I'm sure that the objections seem terribly counterintuitive. Think of it in the abstract though. Every tax dollar lifted from your wallet is one more for the government to spend as THEY see fit, and one less for you to spend as YOU see fit. You're a smart guy and I'll let you decide which is better for the economy. No government at any level has ever taxed their way to prosperity. Yes, taxes are part of the price tag for civilization, but it's a delicate balance. And I can assure you that neither Providence nor Rhode Island has ever erred on the side of too little taxation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
