[quote=GH][quote=jpinpb] Their money is “invested” in their pension.[/quote]
Last time I checked they had invested their money collectively and poorly. Why should I be held accountable for their poor investment strategies. Attempts to keep a higher rate of return through risky investments are NOT my problem. Public workers whose retirements were poorly invested should seek damages from those responsible for managing their portfolio, not the general public who is facing unprecedented problems as it stands.
Current retirement budgets are predicated on an 8% annual return on investment. A return which is NOT feasible given current economic conditions. Give me ONE good reason these morons should not take their medicine like the rest of us had to, except they can simply beat the money out of us and use force if necessary to force us to pay?[/quote]
Perhaps I wasn’t clear when I said their money is invested in their pension. During all the bubbles we’ve had, dot-com and real estate as the most recent, people involved in those professions made a lot of money. What do you suppose stopped cops or firemen from jumping ship to greener pastures?
The City held over their head their pension. It was the City’s way of saying, “Sure you can make more money elsewhere, but stick w/us and we’ll take care of you. Don’t quit working for us to make more money. As a “reward” if you will, you can retire w/a pension. Don’t worry about your retirement. You contribute money to your pension and we’ll contribute money to your pension and you’ll be fine.”
Not only did the City not contribute money to the pension, but it squandered the money the workers put in. The workers do not have a say as to where the City invests money. The workers foolishly trust and believe the City will honor the contract agreements.
So during the bubble years, the workers do not make as much money as they would working in the bubble profession and during the crap years, they have to do cuts. The City workers get the shaft twice. Actually, three times b/c City workers pay taxes also. The taxes that bail out banks, etc, etc.
So yes, whoever it was at the City handling the finances, IMO, is responsible and the buck should stop w/that person. What recourse do city workers have? Sue the City. That finance person works for the City. What would happen? Taxpayers get stuck w/the bill.
In the end of this screwed up system, private or public, the taxpayers always seem to have to pay one way or another. That part sucks. But frankly, I think it sucks more to be a City worker and maybe that’s another reason I’m not one. I can piss away my pension as well as whoever is in charge of finances down at City Hall.
There are some ways the City can generate taxes w/out it being too great of a burden on citizens. For example, trash pick up. Every City I ever lived in charged for that. For some reason, the citizens of San Diego want everything free. Why not pay for trash pick up? Why should that service be free? That charter was back in the early 1900 when SD was first incorporated and I think the City has grown since then.
Another tax generator would have been to raise the hotel tax. The tourists will still come. Why that wasn’t passed is beyond me.
Also, the City needs to collect some of its past due bills from corporations woefully behind (Sempra energy for one). Again, I don’t know WTH the people down in finance at the City are doing, but incompetent doesn’t come close.
Lastly, if they legalize marijuana, hopefully the State will send some money down the chain to cities.
