California's new problem: Too much money (Stockton, Vallejo: how much, unemployment rate, bankrupt)

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Its called priorities. He'll spend billions on a choo choo to nowhere while letting criminals out to rape and kill. Thanks, Uncle Jerry!

As violent crime is currently at a record low it doesn't sound like there is much raping and killing going on compared to what used to happen but why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh? I imagine your constant fact free ranting must be very emotionally liberating.

[Welfare Queen]

At the state level, California's outstanding obligations are north of 500 billion.

This likely one-time "surplus" is somewhere between 0.01-0.5% of overall state debt. IOW, it is on par with a rounding error.

For anyone who thinks this is a significant step towards financial health, could you do us all a favor and just stop voting?

Or at least figure out the difference between a deficit and debt first.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Welfare Queen

At the state level, California's outstanding obligations are north of 500 billion.

This likely one-time "surplus" is somewhere between 0.01-0.5% of overall state debt. IOW, it is on par with a rounding error.

For anyone who thinks this is a significant step towards financial health, could you do us all a favor and just stop voting?

Or at least figure out the difference between a deficit and debt first.

Oh cheese whiz ... speaking of not knowing things ... it is you who apparently doesn't know the meaning of deficit or debt with regard to financing government. California's debt, like all other states' and government debts, finances operations and development based on both needs and growth potential.

And when you compare the worth of this surplus to the total outstanding obligations, you are doing the same as if you compared one of your bi-weekly paychecks to the total you owe, plus the loan's interest, on the $475,000 home you bought five years ago, and your two car loans, and your school loans, and those nifty living room and bedroom sets you bought at the No Money Down Furniture Mart when you moved in ... as opposed to your earnings potential for the remainder of your working years, plus the leverage potential of your growing equity in future years.

Speaking of stopping voting, please. Thank you.

BTW: Your screen name is funny ... you are of course aware that the term Welfare Queen was a total fictional fabrication of Ronald Reagan made for the purpose of deceiving voters for election? Right? Key words: "fictional", "fabrication", "deceiving". Welcome to City Data California Forum 1st time poster.

Maybe if you write very nicely right away to the moderators, they'll let you start over.

[JGC97]

I hope Californians don't think their money woes are over. The new taxes imposed on residents are going to pay for pensions. The next two years are going to be critical for a number of cities in the state. Increased pension payouts are going to drain city funds, resulting in more bankruptcy filings. No way the state as the funds to help stave these off. We may think the economy is improving but, behind the scenes, cities are feeling the effects of mounting debt from retiree pensions.

Beware of more cuts to services and another plea from the governor for another tax increase.

California

Last year, Gov Brown signed a reform plan for pensions but he was talking about people who are still working. How are the pensions going to continue to be paid to current retirees?

much more needs to be done to fix a system with massive liabilities for current retirees and public workers.

Brown Announces Pension Reform Plan, But Is It Enough? « CBS Sacramento

[Curmudgeon]

[quote=HereOnMars;29785825]Last year, Gov Brown signed a reform plan for pensions but he was talking about people who are still working. How are the pensions going to continue to be paid to current retirees?

Elementary. If Brown can't pay them the tax payers will have to.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Elementary. If Brown can't pay them the tax payers will have to.

The tax recently passed is allegedly a temporary tax, lasting five years (if memory serves). There is no way that tax will be repealed. I know it won't and that's fine but when the state is even more money strapped, will another tax be brought before the voters? Probably so. I wonder how those who thought it was a good idea this time will feel about it next time. Something will have to be done about the current retirees. We can't expect them to all kick the bucket in the next five years, can we?

[mistercommuter]

It's already happening: Democrats "fight back"

The Big Spending Machine may have stalled, but it will never stop running. Not in CA where there are so many crusades and so many crusaders.

[tijlover]

When Reagan became Governor, he promised no increase in taxes, but the situation was so dire at the time he was elected, he was forced to raise taxes, but promised voters if a surplus were to accumulate, he'd give the voters a refund. And he did that twice, and he had to fight the Democratic legislators, tooth and nail, to achieve that!

Refunds coming?

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

People always fear the end is nigh ... Problems looming can't be solved ... And then they are.

I don't think the end (whatever that means) is near. However, I do think this state is going to see a lot of cities filing bankruptcy because they aren't going to be able to keep up with the pension payouts. Whether Brown cares because it's not the state but rather poorly run counties, is something we'll have to wait for.

I'm not a gloom and doom sort of person but I'm also not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend all will be fine if we all just sleep on it. There are some serious problems with the pensions and we're not going to be able to keep up with them.

Just like now, Roseville Police are in a huge fight with the city over their future retirement. Expecting taxpayers to pay for it. This is the sort of thing going on across the state. When a retired employee is expected to receive over a 100K a year in their retirement, I have a huge problem with that. They should be contributing more to their own retirement and stop thinking the taxpayers are going to pay for their "golden years." Pay for their own golden years. Charity begins at home and I'm working hard enough to keep my own damned head above water.

Something has to change in the state pension system or this state won't see a surplus in money for quite a while, if ever. And if they claim they do have a surplus, they are lying.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

The tax recently passed is allegedly a temporary tax, lasting five years (if memory serves). There is no way that tax will be repealed. I know it won't and that's fine but when the state is even more money strapped, will another tax be brought before the voters? Probably so. I wonder how those who thought it was a good idea this time will feel about it next time. Something will have to be done about the current retirees. We can't expect them to all kick the bucket in the next five years, can we?

I sincerely hope not, being as my wife and I are two of them! But then again, ya never know.