Do you live in SF and wonder where all your taxes go? (buying, inspection)

[Lost Leaf]

Originally Posted by MrWillys

You've fallen for the deception in the thread that was called total compensation! This means wages and benefits. Add retirement, healthcare, dental, paid time off, and their wages are not $100,000 a year, and probably closer to the $60,000 to $70,000 range.

Wrong! It's base pay, plus overtime, and some using ungodly amounts of unused SICK TIME that they've accumulated over the years to puff up their pensions.



San Francisco Altenberg, Gary Lieutenant Base OT Other Misc Total
Fire Department
$128,809 $220,909 $13,126 $5,841 $368,685

San Francisco Goldberg, John R Captain 3
Police
$104,404 $0 $245,999 $300 $350,703


I noticed on the most recent database when searching under SF, the total comp is blank? Wonder why, they don't want you to realize how much they're making and it won't show up on top of the bay area list because it's not adding the numbers. Look at other counties, theirs shows total comp, must be SF union goons pressuring the press to remove that info.

Bay Area Public Employee Salaries 2012 - San Jose Mercury News

[Lost Leaf]

Originally Posted by pch1013

I doubt it. Most SF firefighters and police officers live outside the city.

Your right most don't live in the city. Which is another reason they don't need to make that much especially when they have 3-5 days off per week.


Statistics from the city's Department of Human Resources show only 25 percent of police officers live in the city. Thirty percent live in San Mateo County, 17.5 percent live in Contra Costa County and the rest live scattered around the Bay Area or even outside it.

"A third of firefighters live in the city, while 16 percent live in San Mateo County, 11 percent in Sonoma County and 8 percent in Alameda County. Seven percent of them don't live in the Bay Area at all. Tom O'Connor, their union head, said many paramedics hired during a shortage about a decade ago still live in Modesto, Stockton and even the Lake Tahoe area."

[B]Of course, this could matter tremendously after an earthquake, if emergency responders aren't able to make it into the city - especially since many of them would need to drive over a bridge to get here.

[/b]
Most S.F. firefighters, cops don't live in city - SFGate

[eastmemphisguy]

Originally Posted by Lost Leaf

Oh, please tell me where it was you were going to work in the private sector and retire at 55 and get annual pension of $200k+ plus free health care for the rest of your life? Please tell, inquiring minds would like to know.

For high ranking people? Which is where you're finding the "high" public salaries. You can't be serious. High ranking people in private industry routinely make millions. Maybe you're unhappy that "regular" public workers like teachers, fireman, and police officers make middle class wages, whereas the private sector has pushed most Americans off a cliff. That's not a position I'd hope to see the government emulate, but we're all entitled to our opinions. However, you continue to suggest that government pay at the top is higher, and that position is beyond asinine

[Lost Leaf]

Originally Posted by eastmemphisguy

For high ranking people? Which is where you're finding the "high" public salaries. You can't be serious. High ranking people in private industry routinely make millions. Maybe you're unhappy that "regular" public workers like teachers, fireman, and police officers make middle class wages, whereas the private sector has pushed most Americans off a cliff. That's not a position I'd hope to see the government emulate, but we're all entitled to our opinions. However, you continue to suggest that government pay at the top is higher, and that position is beyond asinine

First of all, very few people in the private sector make millions, and even if they do SO WHAT!! Again, it's the private sector, what the hell do you care how much they make? Did you pay them???

And are you really calling $300+k plus a benefits package that will amount to 2-6 million of the course of retirement middle class wages, lol!!

And if your argument that your average police sgt. or fire capt. could become a CEO in and make more in the private sector, sorry, I'm not buying it.

[eastmemphisguy]

Yes, I do pay people in the private sector. Every day. Every time I buy anything, that money goes to pay salaries. Without my money and yours those jobs wouldn't exist.
But my bigger point is that you point to these large government packages as if that were the standard for most workers. They're not. They're for a very few top officials who manage a professional staff of thousands. How much would you a expect an executive who oversees an army of people to make? I do want my chief of police to be well compensated. He does a lot more for me than just about anybody in the private sector.
As for the "average police sgt or fire capt" they are middle level managers, with very specialized skills. I don't think they would transition well into CEO life anymore than the CEO could work the beat in my neighborhood. It's a completely different line of work. But given the hazards of life and the utility of having professionals to help us manage them, I do think it's reasonable to reward them with a middle class life. And that's exactly what they have. Nobody's getting rich teaching third grade.

[Lost Leaf]

Originally Posted by eastmemphisguy

Yes, I do pay people in the private sector. Every day. Every time I buy anything, that money goes to pay salaries. Without my money and yours those jobs wouldn't exist.
But my bigger point is that you point to these large government packages as if that were the standard for most workers. They're not. They're for a very few top officials who manage a professional staff of thousands. How much would you a expect an executive who oversees an army of people to make? I do want my chief of police to be well compensated. He does a lot more for me than just about anybody in the private sector.
As for the "average police sgt or fire capt" they are middle level managers, with very specialized skills. I don't think they would transition well into CEO life anymore than the CEO could work the beat in my neighborhood. It's a completely different line of work. But given the hazards of life and the utility of having professionals to help us manage them, I do think it's reasonable to reward them with a middle class life. And that's exactly what they have. Nobody's getting rich teaching third grade.

Your not forced to buy products, if you don't like one company you can shop at another and yes not all cops and fire fighters are making 300k but plenty are making $100-200k, with an average pension of $100k. Lets do the math shall we,

Retire at 55 with 100k pension, live to 80, that's 2.5 million but really probably closer to 3 million when after they make the COLA adjustments, throw in free health care and that could be well over 3 million. That's per person, that's not sustainable period.

"The average pension for a retiree from the fire department is $108,552. From the police department? $95,016. And everybody else? $41,136."


Guess what’s the average San Francisco city pension? - City Insider

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by eastmemphisguy

But given the hazards of life and the utility of having professionals to help us manage them, I do think it's reasonable to reward them with a middle class life.

If you are of the wrong skin color and live in the wrong neighborhood then cops are your biggest hazards in life. Cops are constantly killing people by their so called 'accidental' killing excuse and only in America this is considered acceptable. When is the last time you actually heard a cop risking his own life to save someone else's?

SFPD just keeps sucking overtime and spend half of their time sitting in coffee shops/restaurants and get paid hundreds of $s/hr for sitting in a coffee shop.

[cre8lite]

every public sector job has a different contract. it's not guaranteed that these positions (which are not entirely cops & fire) will receive free full health care or that they will receive 100% of their salary for the rest of their lives. it all depends on what was in the contract when they were hired on.

while i will agree the top schmucks make an absurd amount of $, they were the ones that APPLIED for the job & got it. there's no reason that everyone can't apply for a public sector job, possibly get hired & have all the same opportunities that these individuals had. alternatively, you (generic you) could be a freaking genius & can open your own business & make millions. no ones stopping you from achieving either.

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

If you are of the wrong skin color and live in the wrong neighborhood then cops are your biggest hazards in life. Cops are constantly killing people by their so called 'accidental' killing excuse and only in America this is considered acceptable. When is the last time you actually heard a cop risking his own life to save someone else's?

Oakland had 45 officer involved shootings between 2004 and 2008. That is 5 years, so less than 10 per year. Of those 45 shootings, only 1/3 were fatal (15), and most were probably justified.

In the mean time, between 2004 and 2008 there were 556 homicides. So, cops killed 15 people in 5 years (and once again, most if not all were justified), and Oakland had 556 homicides.

Yeah, you're totally right, cops are the biggest hazard for a black man.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

So no $100K is not "simply middle class." And keep in mind that a pay hike for a public sector worker represents a pay cut (higher taxes) for the rest of us. Hence you can stop wondering "who these people are that demand that everyone have less and less." They are people who are tired of seeing pay cut after pay cut, i.e. tax after tax, and are tired of the caste system we have evolved.

Look, $100K in SF is middle class. We can debate about whether its "middle" middle or "middle to upper middle" middle, but to imply that it is above that is naive in the City's economic climate.

Further, your comment on the "pay hike" for a public sector worker representing a "pay cut for the rest of us" is at best a distortion. Even assuming that local taxes were the only source of funding for the city's public sector employees, there are an awful lot fewer public sector employees than there are residents, commuters, and tourists who pay taxes that fund our government's operations. It is fine to believe (sometimes rightly) that government spending is inefficient and should be better controlled, but you seem to suggest that public sector labor costs are hurting your finances because of the taxes you pay. Combined, Salaries & Wages and Fringe Benefits are costing the city ~$3.5 billion annually (http://sfmayor.org/Modules/ShowDocum...documentID=177). As you can see, all local taxes combined account for ~35% of the funds for the City's budget. And that figure includes tax burdens that are shared by non-residents (absentee landlords paying property tax, tourists and commuters paying various taxes and fees, etc) and businesses. A 5% across-the-board increase in SF's public sector employees likely has no impact on your taxes. Think of your local government like insurance--a small financial burden is shared by all of us so that we can all receive a benefit that none of us could individually afford.