You Fools

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Absolutely! But I was always one of those taxpayers as well. Tax payments going to public services must necessarily go to public servants to administer the programs. If you don't want to pay the the public servants then you must not want the services either.

It's easy to say "I'm a taxpayer, too" if you are paying $1 in tax and getting $50 in direct benefits from paying the tax. Obviously, then, that's a great return on your investment!

[chickenfriedbananas]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I am one of the strongest supporters of the police...Just like military, they put thier lives on the line for us daily, but there is still a limit.

Typical conservative nonsense.

"I put yellow ribbons on my car and I have an American flag. I support the troops!!!!!"....unless it means I have to reach into my pocket and grab an extra dollar to pay them what they deserve.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

It's easy to say "I'm a taxpayer, too" if you are paying $1 in tax and getting $50 in direct benefits from paying the tax. Obviously, then, that's a great return on your investment!

You may not think paying cops 90% of their former salaries to retire in their early 50s isn't enough, but most San Jose taxpayers do. To top it off, the have the highest rate of disability retirements of any city in California, so that means a lot of them are getting those pensions tax free. And that doesn't even include the sick time payouts. Our former police chief retired a few years ago with almost 300K in sick leave payout. Several fire department chiefs also retired with 200K in sick leave payouts as well.

So...how much more in taxes are YOU willing to pay to keep up this level of benefits? It's already going to take a tax increase just to pay for the existing retirees. So get ready to dig deep.

[CousinMaynard]

i really like that san jose is a law and order town, and sure wouldnt want to live here in city limits if lowlifes could take advantage of the "police brutality" BS that hamstrings SFPD and especially OPD.
whatever it takes to maintain that, we should.

funny thing is we are in unincorporated san jose, our kids got to school in morgan hill and everything, but we still deal with SJPD in law and order matters, not santa clara county sherrifs.

[SockPuppet321]

California voters need to pass a constitutional amendment (for the state constitution) :

- no govt employee (city, county, or state) can take retirement payments before the age that s/he would be able to do so if claiming social security benefits
- no govt employee can take annual benefits larger than 3x what they would get from Social security (or 2x if they ARE eligible for SS) *including health benefits*
- no govt employee can "cash out" unused sick leave at retirement

[SockPuppet321]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

You may not think paying cops 90% of their former salaries to retire in their early 50s isn't enough, but most San Jose taxpayers do.

I may be missing something, but didn't san jose voters in a recent election just limit city pension benefits? At least 50% of the voters must have agreed with the limit, or it wouldn't have passed. So "90%" is way, WAY over optimistic.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by SockPuppet321

I may be missing something, but didn't san jose voters in a recent election just limit city pension benefits? At least 50% of the voters must have agreed with the limit, or it wouldn't have passed. So "90%" is way, WAY over optimistic.

Yes, they did but it's currently being challenged in court, so the old pension rules are still in effect as of now. The 90% refers to the percentage of salary police & firefighters receive as part of their pensions after 30 years of service.

[SockPuppet321]

Sorry, I misread. It's "most San Jose taxpayers" that I should have called you to task for, not "90%". For the issue to have passed, "most" voters must have voted against pork for city employees.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by SockPuppet321

Sorry, I misread. It's "most San Jose taxpayers" that I should have called you to task for, not "90%". For the issue to have passed, "most" voters must have voted against pork for city employees.

I think the vote was 70/30.