Sacramento has a deficit of $4,300 per taxpayer. (San Francisco, Fresno: apartment complex, crime)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by wburg

I'm assuming this website is some bunch that wants to do away with public pensions so they can go gamble with those funds instead.

Yes, that appears to be their goal, they have ties to ALEC and Koch, they are part of SPN

https://www.alecexposed.org/w/images...port_FINAL.pdf

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

How about we use our words? So, OP, what is your point?

What do you personally think is wrong? What should be fixed? Why? How should it be fixed?

Posting posts that just have cut and pasted links are worthless. Unless you don't really want a discussion.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

I found that page via an article on one of the news websites. They used the term, "deficit per taxpayer," and debt interchangeably in the context of breaking it down per taxpayer.

Sacramento's debt isn't bad considering what other cities owe. I was just surprised at what it was.

This is the organization behind the report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Accounting

Their goal appears to simply inform people of various fiscal obligation (health and pension benefits included) so people are aware of them. This doesn't strike me as a bias toward eliminating public pensions.

I recommend reading the website more critically, because nonsense like calling a city's total debt a "deficit" and the alarmist language about public employee debt seemed blindingly obvious anti-union/ALEC/Koch Bros type propaganda to me. A lot of our debt load is things like the arena loan. We kind of have a lot of debt, but compared to our city revenue it's not that bad. And yes, we're looking at a challenge once Measure U expires, which is why city leaders are looking to renew Measure U. But even if there are revenue shortfalls, it's not a deficit--the city makes cuts to expenditures to match the available funds. That's how our city government works; they don't deficit-spend (borrow money to cover expenditures beyond income), they have to cut back on expenses instead, often by cutting programs or laying off staff.

[49erfan916]

Originally Posted by MyNewsLogin

Sacramento is projecting a $40 million deficit next year and a larger one in the following year unless we agree to additional taxes.

They don't need additional taxes. With all the tax revenue they get from property tax from new housing, they (or the county) don't need new taxes. They need to cut down on their expenditures. They waste too much money on stuff that they don't need. And good luck trying to tax from the poor...that's not going to happen. The middle class is getting squeezed out of California and the rich will find ways to evade paying high taxes.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by wburg

I recommend reading the website more critically, because nonsense like calling a city's total debt a "deficit" and the alarmist language about public employee debt seemed blindingly obvious anti-union/ALEC/Koch Bros type propaganda to me. A lot of our debt load is things like the arena loan. We kind of have a lot of debt, but compared to our city revenue it's not that bad. And yes, we're looking at a challenge once Measure U expires, which is why city leaders are looking to renew Measure U. But even if there are revenue shortfalls, it's not a deficit--the city makes cuts to expenditures to match the available funds. That's how our city government works; they don't deficit-spend (borrow money to cover expenditures beyond income), they have to cut back on expenses instead, often by cutting programs or laying off staff.

No, I really don't think the website that cited this article was trying to be alarmist about anything. They simply posted a list of cities around the country and where they rank. There was no other information posted about why these cities have a debt, as the reasons vary from city to city. This list mentions debt due to public employee obligations. I don't think that means they are anti-pension. There's a difference between outright telling people employee pensions should be abolished and giving information to the public about what might be careless governing. And really, quite a few local governments have been reckless in the way they handle finances, be it pensions or building arenas when the research shows the overwhelming majority of them end up being money pits. Note, I'm not against public employee pensions. However, we do have cases where local governments have failed to pay into them.

By definition, if expenses exceed revenues, that's a deficit. The original article used the wrong term. Semantics aside, the cities owe money to something.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

According to sourcewatch - TIA is part of the right wing organization "State Policy Network" with ties to ALEC,
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph..._in_Accounting

Here's some info on the "State Policy Network" https://www.alecexposed.org/w/images...port_FINAL.pdf

That site didn't show up in Googles search results. I checked the Wikipedia entry on it before I posted and didn't see any information regarding links to right-wing organizations.

Actually, sourcewatch isn't showing up in search results for me when I Google numerous right wing organizations. The only time it shows up is if I directly search for sourcewatch. At any rate, Sourcewatch (The Center for Media Democracy) is an ideological organization too. If they see something that doesn't expressively support the left they have something to say about it. What really matters to me is if the information is correct.

[MyNewsLogin]

Originally Posted by 49erfan916

They don't need additional taxes. With all the tax revenue they get from property tax from new housing, they (or the county) don't need new taxes. They need to cut down on their expenditures. They waste too much money on stuff that they don't need. And good luck trying to tax from the poor...that's not going to happen. The middle class is getting squeezed out of California and the rich will find ways to evade paying high taxes.

I agree. But the city is looking to:


1. Extend the Measure U half cent (an increase when compared to what it would be without an extension)
2. Add half cent to the sales tax to build a playground in Old Sac
3. Add one cent to sales tax for transportation
4. Add a parcel tax to fund low income housing


Vote NO --- PLEASE!

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

That site didn't show up in Googles search results. I checked the Wikipedia entry on it before I posted and didn't see any information regarding links to right-wing organizations.

Actually, sourcewatch isn't showing up in search results for me when I Google numerous right wing organizations. The only time it shows up is if I directly search for sourcewatch. At any rate, Sourcewatch (The Center for Media Democracy) is an ideological organization too. If they see something that doesn't expressively support the left they have something to say about it. What really matters to me is if the information is correct.

What site didn't show up? You can find sourcewatch by typing in sourcewatch, why would you use any other search term? If you need more info on State Policy Network you can start here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ion-health-tax

And here is more on TIA: https://thevpo.org/2016/09/27/anothe...ory/#more-4315

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by MyNewsLogin

I agree. But the city is looking to:
1. Extend the Measure U half cent (an increase when compared to what it would be without an extension)
2. Add half cent to the sales tax to build a playground in Old Sac
3. Add one cent to sales tax for transportation
4. Add a parcel tax to fund low income housing
Vote NO --- PLEASE!

Where is the link to the 40 million dollar deficit and to these proposed taxes? I'm not doubting you, but I haven't heard any of this and I can't find anything about it online.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

No, I really don't think the website that cited this article was trying to be alarmist about anything. They simply posted a list of cities around the country and where they rank. There was no other information posted about why these cities have a debt, as the reasons vary from city to city. This list mentions debt due to public employee obligations. I don't think that means they are anti-pension. There's a difference between outright telling people employee pensions should be abolished and giving information to the public about what might be careless governing. And really, quite a few local governments have been reckless in the way they handle finances, be it pensions or building arenas when the research shows the overwhelming majority of them end up being money pits. Note, I'm not against public employee pensions. However, we do have cases where local governments have failed to pay into them.

By definition, if expenses exceed revenues, that's a deficit. The original article used the wrong term. Semantics aside, the cities owe money to something.

TIA apparently doesn't even hire an accountant to make sure their stuff looks halfway believable they use the terms "debt" and "deficit" interchangeably as though they are the same thing