[quote=phaster][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]For the record, California’s high income tax rate, high fees, etc. are the result of Prop 13. The state lost billions in revenues when Prop 13 passed, so they had to make it up elsewhere.
And since you’re so concerned about taxpayers and the health of state/county/city finances, have you paid back your unearned tax subsidies, yet?[/quote]
You just obviated any argument to repeal prop 13. If the lost billions have been made up, a repeal of prop 13 would amount to a huge tax increase. No way Jose.[/quote]
sigh,… let’s all take another walk down memory lane
[quote=CA renter]
September 4, 2014 – 6:04pm
I don’t get distracted by non-economic issues where politics are concerned. That’s not to say that these issues are unimportant, but that they pale in comparison to economics.
[/quote]
[quote=CA renter]
October 1, 2014 – 9:23pm
Yes, I’ve been following the pension issue for many, many years (far, far, far longer than you have), and I have also worked with negotiating committees and have done research for public employee unions.
for the record, have to say the inability to recognize basic middle school math concepts and their importance as it relates to managing money, sadly isn’t an isolated case,… seems there is a pandemic of being morally and intellectually bankrupt (i.e. dishonest and dumb) WRT basic finance,… perhaps the root cause is some kind of political self interest???
having said my piece, now let’s go back and review (yet again) the basic math concepts which are key to understanding the local pension portfolio “mismanagement”
for three decades plus, the local public pension portfolio custodians (i.e. politicians) have allowed giving away a 13th pension payment (off balance sheet),… basically this is akin to a 13th mortgage payment on a property (which shortens the pay off period and decreases the over-all interest paid), BUT in this case things work in reverse,… in other words the pension debt obligation will increase over time
compounding this basic middle school math “error” is public employ leadership (i.e. public pension recipients) who see no problem w/ not requiring fully funding the portfolio,… this action basically is akin to only paying a “minimum credit card payment” but its important to note that things here are happening on a SUPER SIZED scale!!!
AND let’s not forget we are where we are because those responsible for causing this money management mess are basically morally and intellectually challenged (i.e. dishonest and dumb)
bottom line,… given the “California rule” which implies the tax payers are the designated financial backstop for this whole mess,… means eventually there are some serious consequences for local residents AND if the problem(s) is widespread perhaps it might have serious consequences for civilization as a whole,…
PS one last general observation,… the background knowledge needed to model something as complex/chaotic as climate change or the economy, requires deep knowledge of various fields of study along w/ a basic understanding of how things interact,… what I find ironic is more often than not is politicians and various activists who claim leadership roles,… have in fact the least background knowledge that is required to understand the big picture
You didn’t address any of the issues listed in my post, including the fact that the government (federal, state, and local) backs many different interest groups, not just their employees. Why aren’t you concerned about these groups? What about that juicy taxpayer subsidy, worth thousands of dollars, that you personally receive every year? Why no mention of that?
FWIW, I also disagree with the “13th check,” but this is not what’s causing the problems with the pension systems. San Diego has its own pension fund, so you shouldn’t extend this argument to other systems that do not have this additional payment option. For the record, I strongly oppose pension spiking, and have always done so.
As for making sure that the pension funds are always 100% funded, that would cause unnecessary hardships for public agencies during downturns, and make it look like the funds are over-funded when bubbles form (which is how we got into a lot of our more recent problems…they thought that trees could grow to the sky), which results in reduced funding for the inevitable rainy days that will occur. One of the benefits of DB pension plans is that they focus more on long-term planning, so they do have more flexibility where funding levels are concerned, but they need to be mindful of long-term trends. If not for the Fed’s interest rate manipulations and their resulting bubbles and busts, we would be in a much better place right now.
BTW, you keep pointing out the fact that I have helped out with research, etc. regarding unions. It has never been a secret that I have long been a supporter of unions, including public employee unions. I was a former union member, the daughter of union members (one of whom regularly fought with his union), and the wife of a former union member, along with having various friends, extended family members, etc., who’ve belonged to unions.
I’m an FDR/labor Democrat, and have never shied away from that fact. But I’m also a taxpayer advocate, and have argued against what I see as unethical actions taken by various unions. Unlike you, I have an understanding of how public employers, unions, private contractors, and various special interest groups work, and can tell that you are painfully uneducated about the various stakeholders who want to control public money and resources. You can take a look at the budget that I linked to in my above post. Public pensions are just one part of the budget, and they’re a very small part of the state budget (they’re a bigger part of local budgets because they pay for more services, as opposed to infrastructure).
If you’re opposed to taxpayer guarantees (a perfectly rational perspective, and a conversation worth having), you need to do more research into the topic. You’re missing a much bigger slice of the pie when you just focus on pensions.
