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

[KC6ZLV]

Which isn't high when compared to many other cities, but that is still a lot of money.

See page 12.

https://www.statedatalab.org/library...let-FINAL-.pdf

And you really have to question how cities with high incomes, such as San Jose, San Francisco, and New York have substantially higher debts.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Which isn't high when compared to many other cities, but that is still a lot of money.

See page 12.

https://www.statedatalab.org/library...let-FINAL-.pdf

And you really have to question how cities with high incomes, such as San Jose, San Francisco, and New York have substantially higher debts.

Ugh, that's a huge document I'm not going to download.

But, major cities with huge populations have more costs. San Jose has a population of around a million people. And a very small percentage of that population is wealthy.

A city of a million people requires a lot of services from police to fire fighters to water to electricity to schools, just on and on.

If you want to talk specifics, please cut and paste what you want to discuss from that monstrosity of a document - and be specific on what you think is wrong and what could be done differently.

[KC6ZLV]

The document isn't that large.

Of course larger cities have larger expenses. They also have more taxpayers and businesses. Depending on the local economy, higher sales tax revenues, and revenues from fees. In a perfect world the costs and revenues should scale proportionately to the size of the city. Factors such geographical differences change expenditures. However, a properly managed city should be able take these factors into account.

[sacite]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

The document isn't that large.

Of course larger cities have larger expenses. They also have more taxpayers and businesses. Depending on the local economy, higher sales tax revenues, and revenues from fees. In a perfect world the costs and revenues should scale proportionately to the size of the city. Factors such geographical differences change expenditures. However, a properly managed city should be able take these factors into account.

I think the point he was making is that most big cities have more costs per capita than smaller cities do. For example, look at the drug, crime and homeless issue here in Sac. It’s continuing to increase at a much greater rate per 1,000 people than most suberbs as the criminals are released straight out of prison into this City. And many of them stay here due to the resources, opportunities to committ other crimes (scavenging, petty theft, drugs, etc). Those are issues that a city such as say, Roseville does not experience on nearly the same scale. So I would disagree and say no, the increase in addittional taxpayers in a larger metro does not cause the costs per person “scale” equally to a smaller city. There are just more issues to deal with (public transportation/infrastructure is another) in a larger metro which can can drive up costs per person quickly.

[Elliott_CA]

The statement "deficit of $4,300 per taxpayer" is meaningless. Is it all due tomorrow? next year? or is it spread over 30 years? Consider Average Joe with a $300,000 mortgage. Spread over 30 years, it's manageable. If it's a balloon note and all of it is due tomorrow, it's catastrophic.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by sacite

I think the point he was making is that most big cities have more costs per capita than smaller cities do. For example, look at the drug, crime and homeless issue here in Sac. It’s continuing to increase at a much greater rate per 1,000 people than most suberbs as the criminals are released straight out of prison into this City. And many of them stay here due to the resources, opportunities to committ other crimes (scavenging, petty theft, drugs, etc). Those are issues that a city such as say, Roseville does not experience on nearly the same scale. So I would disagree and say no, the increase in addittional taxpayers in a larger metro does not cause the costs per person “scale” equally to a smaller city. There are just more issues to deal with (public transportation/infrastructure is another) in a larger metro which can can drive up costs per person quickly.

But, if you take a look at the list of cities and their sizes, deficits and surpluses are all over the place and size doesn't appear to have a strong correlation. Regional politics doesn't appear to have much of a correlation. Dallas has a high deficit while Fresno has a surplus. Both are relatively 'fiscally conservative.' And noone is going to convince me that the homeless population is a financial burden anywhere. This country generally treats them like they have leprosy. Few politicians at any level have made much of attempt to do anything constructive to work on the problem. And I have my doubts that they come anywhere close to running up law enforcement expenses due to petty crimes. Maybe a few calls here and there, but nothing any different from an apartment complex drama queen calling 911 everytime she thinks someone else in the apartment complex looked at her wrong. Also, social services are paid for by the counties in most parts of the country.

In regards to public transportation, you would have to figure out what cities independently fund their own public transportation, or if it is shared among other cities and the local counties.

[wburg]

I think you have used the word "deficit" when you mean "debt." They are not the same thing. A deficit refers to the difference between revenues and expenses in a given period--if you made less than you spent in year X, you have a deficit for year X, and that value is added to your total debt. If you made more in year X+1 than you spent, then that value is subtracted from your total debt.

So, while Sacramento has a total debt of $643.9 million, it doesn't sound that scary when you consider that last year's city budget was $978.4 million, with no deficit, including allowance for an economic uncertainty reserve.

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.

[MyNewsLogin]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think you have used the word "deficit" when you mean "debt." They are not the same thing. A deficit refers to the difference between revenues and expenses in a given period--if you made less than you spent in year X, you have a deficit for year X, and that value is added to your total debt. If you made more in year X+1 than you spent, then that value is subtracted from your total debt.

So, while Sacramento has a total debt of $643.9 million, it doesn't sound that scary when you consider that last year's city budget was $978.4 million, with no deficit, including allowance for an economic uncertainty reserve.

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.

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

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think you have used the word "deficit" when you mean "debt." They are not the same thing. A deficit refers to the difference between revenues and expenses in a given period--if you made less than you spent in year X, you have a deficit for year X, and that value is added to your total debt. If you made more in year X+1 than you spent, then that value is subtracted from your total debt.

So, while Sacramento has a total debt of $643.9 million, it doesn't sound that scary when you consider that last year's city budget was $978.4 million, with no deficit, including allowance for an economic uncertainty reserve.

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.

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.

[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