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.
Interesting that this discussion has focused primarily on education. Not unreasonably as education, whether it be K12 or University make up much of the budget. But there are two other areas, healthcare and corrections which also make up much of the budget (all the other areas account for less than 10%).
In health care, about 20% of the state's population is eligible for state-funded health care (thanks to Prop. 204). That costs a small fortune. Maybe we should look at more aggressive ways of reducing this number.
In corrections, we keep more people in jail than other states and we have fewer on parole or probation. A parolee is much cheaper than an inmate so maybe we should look at ways in which non-violent offenders can get easier parole.
There is no magic to balancing the budget. You either increase taxes or reduce spending or both.
It was on page 2 line 63 http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/budgetproposal031210.pdf (broken link)
Today John Halikowski sent e-mail advising on the 2.75 and furloughs but no hint of the 5% maybe the furloughs will cancel out the 5% but all 3 are mentioned in the document.
Yep our AA was in Flagstaff but eliminated now being processed out of Tucson.
I would rather have furloughs than the pay reduction but like others have said so far we are still employed
Quote:
Originally Posted by observer53
Not that I want to interrupt the pages of back and forth on the retiree/school tax etc. issue, but I'll get back to this actual budget question.
I can't find the actual document to read it, but if the pay cuts/furloughs go into effect, (and I don't see the 5 percent in the articles on what was proposed, just the 2.75 percent performance pay and the furlough days) for people who are low on the pay scale to start with, it's going to hurt a lot, especially if they have families. I'm relieved not to be in that position, but i know too many who are.
Retirement benefits effect? Employees who could have retired but were continuing to work to qualify for a higher benefit level or some other good reason (like that they LIKE working) will retire BEFORE this kicks in. My agency lost a few long time employees when they first started talking furloughs last spring in the last budget year, because of the impact the furloughs would ultimately have on their retirement benefits if they had planned on retiring in the next three years. I suspect I could lose three of my coworkers who are in that position now, if they decide to go now rather than see their pensions cut. And, there will be no replacing them, for who knows how long. There are clerical staff in my office in a similar position, and I can see one of them (who can already do the work of three with a smile) leaving. We are already down clerical positions, it's a good thing several of us do our own typing. But, that is not what we are paid to do.
All that said, it's ALL better than layoffs, and that's a fact.
I understand cut's are needed but why is it no matter where you are the cuts always seem to hurt the kids? You know our future leaders that we hope are better than the ones we have in place now.
Because most state budgets get spent on health care and education. People say they want the states to stop spending, except on eduation and health care. Problem is, that's 80% of most states' spending!
Ultimately, people are going to have to do more for their kids and expect government to do less.
It would also help if state governments tried to get some kind of handle on health care costs, instead of just throwing more and more money we don't have on increasingly expensive and only marginally effective drugs and surgeries.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 03-15-2010 at 06:31 PM..
George did a great thing for his family. I even repped his post. However, not everyone can afford to do what he did. I think that was what Ponderosa was getting at.
That may be true. But many more could. There's a tendency to look at the people who can't and to ignore those who simply won't change their way of doing things.
I am sick of retirees moving here and opposing everything that would make this state a better place for those of us who still have to live here after they have "passed". Their attitudes, like yours, that they have done enough are ruining this state. I would like to see Arizona be a decent place with quality education and opportunity for its citizens. I don't like these people coming here and denying to our citizens the same privileges they and their children enjoyed in wherever they came from. How many threads do we see where people remark that AZ is near last in education? Retirees coming down here and voting against every education initiative is part of the reason we are near last. Education matters to newcomers, to businesses that look to move here, to educated people considering employment here. It is important to the well-being of our state. Skinflint, me-first, retirees are worse than the illegals in my book. They don't give a damn about Arizona and want it run as their low-tax playground. Sorry, that is the way I feel and I am not changing my opinion about it.
The problem with people like Ponderosa is they equate spending more money with improvement.
Come to California where per capita spending is higher on just about everything. But our roads and schools aren't any better than in low tax states. Don't believe me? Read this Califiornia vs. Texas comparison:
The reserch cited for this op-ed piece was done by people in academia, who tend to think more government spending is the solution to everything....and even THEY are starting to say that California is not spending tax dollars wisely.
It's a principle in economics that the first few dollars you spend on something makes a big difference, be it food, education, health care, etc. Once you go beyond a certain point, spending more brings only small results or none at all. That is what has happened with the USA, especially in regard to health care and eduation. We already spend as much or more than other countries do on these things, but our results are sh*tty. Spending more won't make things better.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 03-15-2010 at 06:33 PM..
Has anyone actually read the document? In there they will be taking 2.75% from our paychecks PLUS another 5% on top of that PLUS furlough days? How many employers can do that and retain employees? We will never get that money back and that will affect retirement benefits. This pay reduction will take upwards of $1.50 per hour reduction in pay. BUT we MAY get to keep our job. How is the moral of the employees going to be after losing that much income?
Well, hey would you trade your position with private industry, where there is no job security, no defined benefit pensions, less paid time off, and where many private sector workers have endured BOTH layoffs and paycuts????? I didn't think so.
I work in the public sector, too. And it really burns me up when my colleagues act as if they should be able to be immune from the harsh economic realities around them. It's just so unreal.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 03-15-2010 at 06:33 PM..
I wish there were more old people like yourself. I am younger but old myself. I was at Woodstock but about 15 years from Sun City. I feel the same way. I was educated in public schools. My dad worked in a factory (Boeing) and my mom stayed home until the youngest of us entered high school. Then she only worked part time. None of us went without food, clothes or other necessities of life. People did not mind paying for schools, cops, firemen, streets, highways and the Cold War because they saw it as a part of the building of a great society.
Today most old people are selfish to a fault. They think it is their God given right not to pay taxes to anything even though they live much better than old people did even 20 years ago. They get their medical- and now even their prescriptions for free courtesy of those still working. They should remember that next time they are asked to pony up an extra penny on the dollar to pay for schools.
KevK....I'm willing to bet that a generation ago the firefighters weren't able to retire at age 50 at 90% of their final salary like they do in my city. And I bet the teachers weren't getting pensions at 55, like they are in most parts of California, where I live. And this, all in an era where people are living longer, makes said pensions more and more expensive.
Things have changed all right. People don't want to pay more and more taxes just to keep paying fat pensions to government workers. I work in the public sector myself, and some people go too far when they say all government workers are lazy and don't do anything. But I can't say I totally blame people. They're working their a$$es off and paying taxes to fund generous pensions for people like me. And I think a lot of folks in the public sector forget that.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 03-15-2010 at 06:34 PM..
I don't think making people with low incomes pay increased tuition rates is the better solution, do you? How much of the tuition did the state pay? How much do they pay now?
You could go to a voucher system, though. But the teachers union blocks that concept every chance they get.
Interesting that this discussion has focused primarily on education. Not unreasonably as education, whether it be K12 or University make up much of the budget. But there are two other areas, healthcare and corrections which also make up much of the budget (all the other areas account for less than 10%).
In health care, about 20% of the state's population is eligible for state-funded health care (thanks to Prop. 204). That costs a small fortune. Maybe we should look at more aggressive ways of reducing this number.
In corrections, we keep more people in jail than other states and we have fewer on parole or probation. A parolee is much cheaper than an inmate so maybe we should look at ways in which non-violent offenders can get easier parole.
There is no magic to balancing the budget. You either increase taxes or reduce spending or both.
I definitely agree with you on the health care issue. States have been throwing more and more money at health care, yet they haven't proven they are doing a good job with the money.
Our whole approach to health care needs to change. Personally, I think it needs to start with FOOD. Take the soda and junk food out of the schools. Have the school lunch programs serve only REAL and healthy foods. Have the food stamps program only subsidize REAL food, not the processed crap that passes for food.
KevK....I'm willing to bet that a generation ago the firefighters weren't able to retire at age 50 at 90% of their final salary like they do in my city. And I bet the teachers weren't getting pensions at 55, like they are in most parts of California, where I live. And this, all in an era where people are living longer, makes said pensions more and more expensive.
Things have changed all right. People don't want to pay more and more taxes just to keep paying fat pensions to government workers. I work in the public sector myself, and some people go too far when they say all government workers are lazy and don't do anything. But I can't say I totally blame people. They're working their a$$es off and paying taxes to fund generous pensions for people like me. And I think a lot of folks in the public sector forget that.
I got the following numbers from the CalPERS website. How does Arizona compare? Does Arizona publish these figures?
Seventy-eight percent of CalPERS retirees receive $36,000 per year or less.
Fifty percent of CalPERS retirees receive $16,000 per year or less.
The average CalPERS pension is about $25,000 per year.
School pensioners in the CalPERS program receive on average $12,948 per year. (This is fat and generous??)
Average age at retirement is 60.
Many CalPERS members do not receive Social Security. (No percentage given)
One percent of the nearly half million CalPERS retirees receive annual pensions of $100,000 or more. Less than 5000 people.
And the $100,000 pensions are the ones that the media latches onto.
Oh, and about the firefighters ... 7 percent of all CA public agency safety members are subject to the 2 percent at age 50 formula. They would need to have 45 years of service at age 50 to get 90 percent, and would have had to start working at age 5 to earn 45 years.
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.