California Special Election May 19 (Sacramento, Santa Barbara: closing, property tax, living)

[dcashley]

Many people talk about how cushy the government pensions are. So, I decided to look into it. This is what I found:
1. Government workers do not pay into Social Security and will not get it when they retire.
2. The average pension paid to California state workers is $1,600 per month--with no social security.
3. Government workers who become disabled, not as a result of thier employment, are able to retire right then at the rate they would receive if they were at retirment age. So, if a worker gets sick after 10 years on the job at age 40, he will be able to retire for the same amount of money as he would if he worked on the job for 10 years and retired at age 65. This turns out on average to be about $100 more than social security disability pays---but it is not fully indexed to inflation.
4. Some government workers may get retirement healthcare, but not all. In fact, in San Bernardino County--a county worker has an average retirment pay of $1,700 per month. Health insurance for that worker runs $850 per month--deducted from the retirment pay.

So...IMHO the problem with govenment lagress is not worker pay and benefits. It is: 1) too many workers, 2) too many entitlement (welfare) programs, 3) too much out-and-out waste.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I still think the top pay for a kindergarden teacher, for nine months work is WAY too high. The top pay is $89,000 per year. WOW!!!!

VOTE NO NO NO NO NO NO

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Many people talk about how cushy the government pensions are. So, I decided to look into it. This is what I found:
1. Government workers do not pay into Social Security and will not get it when they retire.

HUH? Other than when I was a peace officer I paid into Social Security. I receive both a state pension, with benefits, and SS.

So shoot me for planning well for my future!

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

HUH? Other than when I was a peace officer I paid into Social Security. I receive both a state pension, with benefits, and SS.

So shoot me for planning well for my future!

BANG! You're shot!!!!

According to my limited research most (if not all) California public agencies do not pay intp social security--for the only reason to reduce expenses. Maybe I'm wrong on that--but in all honesty, my research is limited.

[Lovehound]

Might depend on which jurisdiction you are a peace officer in. AFAIK all Los Angeles city employees (e.g. LAPD) do not pay into Social Security, and do have a government pension plan.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Many people talk about how cushy the government pensions are. So, I decided to look into it. This is what I found:
1. Government workers do not pay into Social Security and will not get it when they retire.
2. The average pension paid to California state workers is $1,600 per month--with no social security.
3. Government workers who become disabled, not as a result of thier employment, are able to retire right then at the rate they would receive if they were at retirment age. So, if a worker gets sick after 10 years on the job at age 40, he will be able to retire for the same amount of money as he would if he worked on the job for 10 years and retired at age 65. This turns out on average to be about $100 more than social security disability pays---but it is not fully indexed to inflation.
4. Some government workers may get retirement healthcare, but not all. In fact, in San Bernardino County--a county worker has an average retirment pay of $1,700 per month. Health insurance for that worker runs $850 per month--deducted from the retirment pay.

So...IMHO the problem with govenment lagress is not worker pay and benefits. It is: 1) too many workers, 2) too many entitlement (welfare) programs, 3) too much out-and-out waste.

Now, please don't get me wrong. I still think the top pay for a kindergarden teacher, for nine months work is WAY too high. The top pay is $89,000 per year. WOW!!!!

VOTE NO NO NO NO NO NO

If I had the social security the spouse and I pay both being self employed (15%) for say 30 years to invest as we please and add that too the amount you say 1600 per month I say that would be a good income. So if they invested the amount that they would have to pay to ss like the rest of us have to pay they would have a hefty monthly income. All I'm saying is their not hurting in the pension area

[happ]

If I were betting on the outcome of the governor's propositions then I would vote against them. I will be totally surprised if any of them pass [just like the last time Schwarzenegger tried to pass initiatives several years ago]. But I can safely predict that we will be dealing with fiscal problems for some time & have no doubt that the state legislature will raise taxes anyway. Frankly, I don't understand why Arnold just didn't pass taxes in the capitol since it going to happen anyway.

[Lovehound]

Does anybody remember Proposition 58 in 2004, the California Balanced Budget Act? It passed with 71% of the voters in favor. It required the state legislature to pass a balanced budget every year, which means that budgeted recurrent expenditure, including repayment of past debt, does not exceed estimated revenue. The Act also created a reserve fund called the Budget Stabilization Account (i.e. "Rainy Day" fund) in case of future financial trouble. While Prop 58 was to provide balanced California budgets, the deficits continued in subsequent years, growing larger over time. (material from Wikipedia)

So now we have Proposition 1A of 2009, a "Rainy Day" Budget Stabilization Fund. I'm sure considering Proposition 58 it's not surprising that I scoff at the new proposition. The governor and legislature can put any kind of propositions they like on the ballot, and irrespective of whether the people vote into law the legislature still does whatever it likes, spends whatever it wants, ignores limits even when enacted into law by the voters.

Go ahead and vote for 1A if you feel like it, but it won't change anything whether it passes or not. Same for Propositions 1B-1F. The legislature likes the voters to believe citizens are in control by encouraging us to vote for these measures, but the legislature ignores them whenever it suits their purposes.

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

o ahead and vote for 1A if you feel like it, but it won't change anything whether it passes or not. Same for Propositions 1B-1F. The legislature likes the voters to believe citizens are in control by encouraging us to vote for these measures, but the legislature ignores them whenever it suits their purpose.

Vote NO NO NO NO NO NO ....Do not give them even a smattering of an idea that you will enable their tax-aholoic ways any further.

[Lovehound]

That's why I voted against 1F. I want our legislators to understand that voters are sick of attempts to trick us into voting for propositions because we saw the TV commercials or read the 3 sentence summary in our Official Sample Ballot.

I want them to come back with some reasonable proposal that gives us reasonable taxes and isn't "powered by government employee unions." Or... All you government employees, you stay here and run the state and we taxpayers will leave. Then you can tax yourselves to death and you can discover what happens when a snake tries to eat its own tail.

[4beanie]

Here's an example of how hard the state is trying to budget. This was in the Sacramento Bee and reprinted by our local paper on the editorial page. "The current Chancellor at UC Davis, Larry Vanderhoef, earns a base salary of $315,000 a year. The just-named new chancellor, Linda Katehi, will earn a great deal more, $400,000. She also will get a $100,000 relocation allowance, moving costs, a car allowance of almost $9,000 a year and free housing."
Is it just me or is this excessive? And I guess they are wanting to raise student fees 10% All this in a bad economy. All the more reason to vote NO