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.
As a Northwesterner myself, I entirely sympathize with Egan's "sunbaked barbarians" quip, but equally with Egan I agree there is "something irrational, indeed unpatriotic, in rooting for California to fail, as so many conservatives are now doing". Higher taxes on the super-rich, far-sighted public infrastructure projects, and a healthy dose of budgetary discipline, constitute the foundations of a sensible agenda for progress in the early 21st Century.
But, while Egan fails to note it, what strikes me most of all about California now, is that it is being led by a figure who by our modern sensibilities ought to be an impossibility: a man of the past, governor an entire generation ago, heir to his father's political tradition, an hereditary leader, the most old-fashioned kind of leader for the least old-fashioned place in America.
Its really no different than people hoping that banks fail.Its just humans and politics. I don't thnik the state will fail as they have a part of their consittution that requires bondholders to be paid first in line. That is why bonhol;ders still see its debt has relaivle thru the last years.
So you advocate fairness even when it impacts the most vulnerable members of society? I'm need to understand your position before I start quoting some of your older posts I have bookmarked. If you're consistent I can respect your differing opinion.
Who established that because they are elderly they are the most vulnerable? If an elderly person owns a multi-bedroom home in an area of California where property taxes would ordinarily be high, then they are sitting on a golden egg that could be sold and lived on for the rest of their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
Net worth of CA? Negative $127 billion, thanks to those pensions.
What do they expect? You get healthcare for life for you AND one dependent, no matter how long you worked for the city. And 90% retirement pay based on your highest year of pay.
The employees that negotiated those contracts should be in jail.
Correction, because of those UNFUNDED pension. California made a deal with employees, you work for us at a rate generally below the private market and we will provide generous benefits, including medical and pension. We, California, will fund that pension.
What California and many other states actually did not was not live up to their deal to fund those pensions -- Mainly because politicians would rather give tax-breaks that get them re-elected , while not being around when the shiite hits the fan years later.
Moreover, one has to work a minimum number of years and reach a certain age to be eligible to collect.
I don't see why you think the employees are at fault. They negotiated in good faith with the state and won concessions. Nobody held a gun to the State's head.
Who established that because they are elderly they are the most vulnerable? If an elderly person owns a multi-bedroom home in an area of California where property taxes would ordinarily be high, then they are sitting on a golden egg that could be sold and lived on for the rest of their lives.
Correction, because of those UNFUNDED pension. California made a deal with employees, you work for us at a rate generally below the private market and we will provide generous benefits, including medical and pension. We, California, will fund that pension.
What California and many other states actually did not was not live up to their deal to fund those pensions -- Mainly because politicians would rather give tax-breaks that get them re-elected , while not being around when the shiite hits the fan years later.
Moreover, one has to work a minimum number of years and reach a certain age to be eligible to collect.
I don't see why you think the employees are at fault. They negotiated in good faith with the state and won concessions. Nobody held a gun to the State's head.
It was not just government employees... I was self employed and took a pay cut to work for a Hospital... the incentive was working regular hours with a great benefit package...
All of that is history... have to be available 24/7 after the cut backs... physically on site 6 days a week and 401k match, bonus plan, stock, plan, paid medical are long gone...
Heck, just had $450 forfeited from my old Hospital Pension Plan that was ended in 1998... another mess to figure out.
Correctly me if I'm wrong... Are or were most Stockton employees eligible for lifetime medical shortly after being hired?
Who established that because they are elderly they are the most vulnerable? If an elderly person owns a multi-bedroom home in an area of California where property taxes would ordinarily be high, then they are sitting on a golden egg that could be sold and lived on for the rest of their lives.
Liberals - at least in California. I can post quotes of liberals referring to them as the most vulnerable - especially when it comes to touching Social Security of Medicare. But you knew that.
They are most vulnerable because they generally live on fixed incomes. Again, you knew that. And because they live on fixed incomes, they can't absorb 10% increases in property taxes when their SS increases at less than 2% a year. Now you suggest that they should sell their homes and move their homes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Correction, because of those UNFUNDED pension. California made a deal with employees, you work for us at a rate generally below the private market and we will provide generous benefits, including medical and pension. We, California, will fund that pension.
What California and many other states actually did not was not live up to their deal to fund those pensions -- Mainly because politicians would rather give tax-breaks that get them re-elected , while not being around when the shiite hits the fan years later.
Moreover, one has to work a minimum number of years and reach a certain age to be eligible to collect.
I don't see why you think the employees are at fault. They negotiated in good faith with the state and won concessions. Nobody held a gun to the State's head.
Except in California public workers received salaries far above the private sector for comparable jobs. Further, the pensions offered to public employees make the payouts of CEO's seem frugal...
Liberals - at least in California. I can post quotes of liberals referring to them as the most vulnerable - especially when it comes to touching Social Security of Medicare. But you knew that.
They are most vulnerable because they generally live on fixed incomes. Again, you knew that. And because they live on fixed incomes, they can't absorb 10% increases in property taxes when their SS increases at less than 2% a year. Now you suggest that they should sell their homes and move their homes?
Except in California public workers received salaries far above the private sector for comparable jobs. Further, the pensions offered to public employees make the payouts of CEO's seem frugal...
Alameda County Administrator to retire with 450K pension and medical... Oakland Police Officer retires with 180 pension plus medical and goes to work for Sheriff and earns another 120k...
Ten years of retirement is pushing 5 million for one administrator and 2 million for one police officer
I guess if you work for government... no need to plan for retirement and if you get bored... get another job and double dip.
Who established that because they are elderly they are the most vulnerable? If an elderly person owns a multi-bedroom home in an area of California where property taxes would ordinarily be high, then they are sitting on a golden egg that could be sold and lived on for the rest of their lives.
Correction, because of those UNFUNDED pension. California made a deal with employees, you work for us at a rate generally below the private market and we will provide generous benefits, including medical and pension. We, California, will fund that pension.
What California and many other states actually did not was not live up to their deal to fund those pensions -- Mainly because politicians would rather give tax-breaks that get them re-elected , while not being around when the shiite hits the fan years later.
Moreover, one has to work a minimum number of years and reach a certain age to be eligible to collect.
I don't see why you think the employees are at fault. They negotiated in good faith with the state and won concessions. Nobody held a gun to the State's head.
Actually - I agree with you. When I said employees, I wasn't talking about the state employees that receive the pensions. I was talking about the state employees (politicians?) that actually gave them the contracts, based on the premise that revenues would never go down.
I certainly think that the employees that are receiving pensions have the contracts held up, BUT if the county is broke, the county is broke. No different than a company going under and the pensions all being lost.
I also blame the voters, who stupidly voted to fund those pensions no matter what.
As for your elderly person selling their home, just because their tax burden is big - why should they? They have to live somewhere and would have to rent or buy at a higher tax burden.
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.
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.
