Prop 30 poll (Sacramento: health insurance, compensation, tax)

[steelstress]

Originally Posted by Youthanasia

No one was complaining about public sector pay or benefits a few years ago, the trade off you make with a public sector job is you swap a higher salary for better retirement/job security. When private sector employees had their 401k's climbing I didn't hear any public sector employees cry foul. I'll say 9 times out of 10 in a good economy if you offer someone Job A that pays $50k a year, but has a better retirement and Job B which pays $65k a year but a crappier retirement they will take the money and run, period. Now it's time to cry foul Haters hate.

Well, they weren't paying for it, were they? The private sector pays for the public. What the hell? How does the above make any sense?

[Youthanasia]

Originally Posted by steelstress

Well, they weren't paying for it, were they? The private sector pays for the public. What the hell? How does the above make any sense?

Employers match 401k contributions to a certain %, I'd gladly take a match on mine and go invest it elsewhere, I'd actually be able to cash out my contributions not die before I break even.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I totally agree - these are some things that need to be done. However, I think the reality is, is that there needs still to be an IMMEDIATE relief to these cuts. It is REALLY hurting the quality of life - due to the cuts.

I say do both. I'm voting yes on prop 30, but I would totally support the four points you listed.

Of course, this is coming from someone who wants to get back into community college education. It is my true calling. And they aren't hiring AT ALL this year.

The problem is that when you vote yes on prop 30, you're really voting yes on Sacramento growing bigger and just spending more and more - business as usual, in other words. And it will be PERMANENT - because then in the future, a vote not to extend it will be served to us as "a drastic cut that we can't afford!" This is how they have managed to overspend for DECADES now and put us in the ****ty position we're in. And they're just holding kids hostage for it. They made the budget; they could change it tomorrow easily get the money from some place other than eduction - like that stupid train. But they know this scares the sheeple best.

If they had shown themselves to be trustworthy stewards of that money, I would open my wallet and give them more. But now I want to send them a message that the bull**** is over - start using my money wisely and living within your means.

[Youthanasia]

ambient - Excellent point and that is what is so often overlooked! once the money is there, they count on it every year and to make matters worse they start counting on money (like prop 30 money that they already added into the budget way before it was even proposed) that they don't even have yet, that they hope they will get. Enough is enough, you can't just run out and apply for new credit cards when you max out the last one, someday the bills come and you get cut off... unless there's a dummy (the voters) willing to give you another one.

[davidt1]

Prop 30 will hurt CA. Businesses that have left the state for lower taxes and less regulations elsewhere have said same thing over and over, "high taxes and too much regulation force them to move to other states."

Young people can not find jobs in CA after they graduate from college. Why? Because there are few businesses left in CA to hire them. Thus, many college grads have to move out of CA in order to find jobs somewhere else. In doing so they take their CA education with them and further reducing the talent pool in CA.

Even if it's true that some of the tax money prop 30 asks for actually goes to help students, how does it help CA in the long term when CA educated students have to move to other states to find jobs and take all that future tax base with them?

Keeping businesses in CA is the key to keeping college educated workers in CA. You do that by reducing taxes. Prop 30 does just the opposite.

[steelstress]

Originally Posted by Youthanasia

Employers match 401k contributions to a certain %, I'd gladly take a match on mine and go invest it elsewhere, I'd actually be able to cash out my contributions not die before I break even.

So what? Employers have the option to NOT contribute. Taxpayers don't have that option.

[Youthanasia]

Originally Posted by steelstress

So what? Employers have the option to NOT contribute. Taxpayers don't have that option.

Sure they do, stop voting for tax increases... as in your scenario the employee will go to another employer that does as will government employees, you get what you pay for.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Youthanasia

No one was complaining about public sector pay or benefits a few years ago, the trade off you make with a public sector job is you swap a higher salary for better retirement/job security. When private sector employees had their 401k's climbing I didn't hear any public sector employees cry foul. I'll say 9 times out of 10 in a good economy if you offer someone Job A that pays $50k a year, but has a better retirement and Job B which pays $65k a year but a crappier retirement they will take the money and run, period. Now it's time to cry foul Haters hate.

While this is certainly case for the lawyers and doctors (and other professionals) this is not the case for the random office drones in the state and county bureaucracies.

No one in their right mind will take a 15k increase in salary (which is less than that after taxes) versus free healthcare and a guaranteed government pension. Not to mention the crazy job security that government jobs tend to have.

[Youthanasia]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

While this is certainly case for the lawyers and doctors (and other professionals) this is not the case for the random office drones in the state and county bureaucracies.

No one in their right mind will take a 15k increase in salary (which is less than that after taxes) versus free healthcare and a guaranteed government pension. Not to mention the crazy job security that government jobs tend to have.

I don't know anyone with free healthcare, except welfare recipients. If you believe the majority would turn down a $15k instant raise at the cost of a better retirement 20 or 30 years later I have a bridge to sell you. We live in a society of instant gratification, who plans for their future? no one cares about 20 years from now they care about the iphone 6 and who wins American Idol.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Youthanasia

I don't know anyone with free healthcare, except welfare recipients. If you believe the majority would turn down a $15k instant raise at the cost of a better retirement 20 or 30 years later I have a bridge to sell you. We live in a society of instant gratification, who plans for their future? no one cares about 20 years from now they care about the iphone 6 and who wins American Idol.

On top of the salary there are guaranteed health benefits that are already paid for. These insurance plans are also significantly better than those that are available in the public sector. Additionally these benefits continue after the employee has retired, which definitely doesn't happen in the private sector.

When you factor in the retirement package, and health care benefits public employees get paid more than private ones. You seem to be arguing that people just look at a salary when deciding whether to take a job, but I don't think that is the only consideration.