California's budget surpluses

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Woody01

Nice explanation BD, actually....

You obviously have a good understanding of the basics of this. And you are certainly correct in many of your presumptions.

But if you take a real conservative look at the pension debacle, some have it at $700 billion upside down. And then there's the rest of the (estimated as high as) $3 trillion dollar debt. See article below. And no one ever mentions the even bigger elephant in the room - the miserable condition of the states infrastructure. You really should have a Guy # 4 with an even bleaker scenario. I think this would reflect California's situation more accurately. In closing, read this and see if you agree...? (I'm guessing you're stuck in your particular mindset, but this may clue you in to how some of us are thinking.......only the future will tell us who is right)

"Sitting on the blistering thin skin of a debt bubble, a housing bubble, and a stock market bubble, amid rising global economic uncertainty, just one bursting jiggle will cause pension fund assets to plummet as unfunded liabilities soar.

And when that happens, cities and counties have to pay these new unfunded balances down on honest, 20 year straight-line terms. They’ll be selling the parks and libraries, starving the seniors, releasing the criminals, firing cops and firefighters, and enacting emergency, confiscatory new taxes.

Whatever it takes to feed additional billions into the maw of the pension systems.

Budget surplus? Dream on."




https://californiapolicycenter.org/u...n-liabilities/

First off, I acknowledged the pension situation is a real problem. However, you seem to think that just throwing out big numbers is supposed to do some sort of shock and awe thing. California is fairly middle of the pack when it comes to funding, but the numbers are really big because California has more people and higher paying jobs than a dumpster state like Kentucky.

The author of your article is also enormously biased and just like you he is trying to mix and match balance sheet items with income statement items to make his point. When you have inaccurate facts it just makes you look uninformed.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by bad debt

First off, I acknowledged the pension situation is a real problem. However, you seem to think that just throwing out big numbers is supposed to do some sort of shock and awe thing. California is fairly middle of the pack when it comes to funding, but the numbers are really big because California has more people and higher paying jobs than a dumpster state like Kentucky.

The author of your article is also enormously biased and just like you he is trying to mix and match balance sheet items with income statement items to make his point. When you have inaccurate facts it just makes you look uninformed.

I pretty much agree with your posting. In regard to KY, have you seen this documentary on the situation there?


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/f...ension-gamble/

[Robertfchew]

Originally Posted by bad debt

I agree it's always just different ways to slice the pie. However, in this case it's not about whether the chiefs are going to throw some scraps to the peasants. For the the pensions it's going to be a redistribution of wealth away from school and road budgets (or other parts of the general fund) to pay six figure amounts to law enforcement and other municipal employees when they retire at age 45. The question of course is will the public stand for it and if so will the electorate be willing to either 1) cough up more money or 2) take other budget shortfalls to cover the retirement spending.

The public will stand for it for a long long time because far too many don't pay a dime in taxes and get thousands back for filing a piece of paper and there are enough people rich enough that taxes don't matter but want to feel special so they vote for and publicly advocate for more taxes. If only net tax payers were allowed to vote, with protections for the non voting adults built in, we would be better off. Those that wanted a say would get off their behinds and make something of themselves the one that didnt would basically be children who got whatever is given to them.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by Robertfchew

The public will stand for it for a long long time because far too many don't pay a dime in taxes and get thousands back for filing a piece of paper and there are enough people rich enough that taxes don't matter but want to feel special so they vote for and publicly advocate for more taxes. If only net tax payers were allowed to vote, with protections for the non voting adults built in, we would be better off. Those that wanted a say would get off their behinds and make something of themselves the one that didnt would basically be children who got whatever is given to them.

I mean why not just make it property owning white males?