OT: bearishgurl should clean up her act or go

[EconProf]

Bearish Girl, your lengthy response shows that you do not use data to come to reasoned conclusions. I suggested that academic studies for ALL of California properties could discover the revenue loss from heirs taking over their parents’ properties under Props 13, 58 and 193. Such a study would be peer reviewed to check for accuracy.
You countered this with a long string of….anecdotes. Anecdotes, whether from your personal experience or properties sold that you apparently looked up prove exactly nothing.
From this handful of examples, you concluded that “The golden state has undoubtedly lost trillions on (Props 58 and 193) since 1986.” Are you aware the upcoming entire state budget from all tax sources is only $171 billion?
Instead of cherry-picking examples of properties taking advantage of Props 58 and 193, why not use your time to look for real research that has surely been done on the subject since it is undoubtedly a question that has occurred to others. I don’t have the time to look up such studies, but you seem to have both the time and energy.

[Coronita]

Lol. Basically, people are inherently selfish and only think about their best interest in mind.

Of course folks with government pensions don’t want their gravy train to stop. It’s “unfair” to change it. And of course people that don’t have pensions don’t mind seeing them cut.

And of course people with rental properties do not want prop 13 repealed. Of course folks without rental properties want to eliminate prop 13 so people with rental properties can pay for the pension gravy train.

There’s no point in discussing what “should be done”. What “should be done” is what would benefit you the most and screw over anyone else if necessary, and that depends on what position/situation you are in. So there’s no point arguing this. Everyone wants to keep their gravy train intact.

Just like for me, I’ve realized obamacare is a great thing. It means a lot of you healthy people (even those on fixed income) will end up having to pay for much higher premiums for “their fair share” into a healthcare system so that people like me that was born with less than desirable health can eventually qualify to buy health insurance to pay for my $40-50k/year medical expenses that insurance ends up paying for…every year….

Get other people to pay more than you for things. It’s the american way. I finally get it.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Instead of posting pictures of lame cartoons, try responding to why we should take from those who worked (public sector employees) to give to those who don’t (wealthy commercial, industrial, and residential landlords; owners of vast tracts of land, etc.).

If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.

YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]

I don’t think there’s any kind of equivalence between Prop 13 and pensions.

Pensions shortfalls are a result of past budgets shenanigans and/or incompetence. Let it all work out in court when the time comes.

I would never support tax increases to paper over the pensions. Tax increases for services to citizens, fine. But no new taxes to pay for retired people who don’t provide us anything. Sorry.[/quote]

It’s not a “tax increase.” It’s repealing a subsidy that has benefited primarily those who have a higher net worth (because many of these properties are paid off) than those who are subsidizing them (more recent buyers who are more likely to have mortgages).

There is a strong argument in favor of Prop 13 where it applies to a single primary residence; but for those who are getting this subsidy for rental homes and apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, commercial/industrial properties, and vast tracts of raw land (often covered by the Williamson Act, too, which gives them even greater tax relief), it is 100% unethical and unjustifiable.

The “pension crisis” is indeed affected by these subsidies because the beneficiaries of Prop 13 are competing for the same money. The difference? One group earned that money, and the other one didn’t.

Before anyone starts complaining about those who have earned their compensation (which includes deferred compensation), we need to tighten up the largesse to those who never earned the subsidies they are benefiting from year after year.

Phaster is one of the greatest critics of public pensions, but he is also one of the greatest beneficiaries of Prop 13 because he inherited a multi-unit rental property from his parents who’ve owned it for many years. His subsidy is many thousands of dollars each year. He is in no position to criticize those who have worked for their money.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote]If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.
YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]

You do know that people receiving pensions are not working either?

Oh…but they did work in the past, right!

How do you think people buy investments like land? Many of them earn the money by working for it and then invest it, perhaps to finance their own retirements. Many of the Piggs here have done just that. They worked, they earned, they saved, they bought investment properties. For many, their rental properties are their pensions – they don’t get a government agency to take care of them.

Pensions are investments, just like real estate.

The cash flow from a pension is entirely passive. There are taxpayer-funded agencies, e.g. CalPERS, that do all the work. Pensioners just collect the checks.

Your use of the word “subsidized” horrendously twisted.

Real estate is taxed – money flows from the landowner to the state. There are no subsidies, regardless of how often you misuse the term.

Pensions are subsidized. Money flows from the state to the investor. The often unsustainable, guaranteed return of pensions are subsidized with taxpayer money when the investment falls short. There is no dispute that this is happening on a large scale. The recent LA Times article is one of many sources that thoroughly documents how pensions are being subsidized due to mismanagement and unrealistic objectives. The taxpayers – people working to fund their own retirements – are footing the bill.

No real estate investor receives a taxpayer-backed guaranteed return.

Your “solution” is to just tax more.

Your entire argument comes down to this: “MY investment should get a GUARANTEED return. If things don’t work out, we need to tax YOUR investment – the one that you made with YOUR EARNED MONEY – and GIVE IT TO ME. Because I worked for my money and you did not. I GET MINE EVEN IF WE HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM YOUR EARNINGS.”

Your claims of entitlement are staggering.[/quote]

It’s like you keep wanting to advertise your ignorance, Pri. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

Pensions are a form of deferred compensation. Employees and employers contribute to the pension fund, and this money earns a return. The pension funds (not taxpayers, as employers only pay toward the pensions of *existing* employees, not retirees) provide a stream of income upon the employee’s retirement. That money was earned, while the subsidies to Prop 13 beneficiaries are not.

There are issues with unfunded liabilities (still paid as a portion of existing employees’ pay), but these liabilities are created and exacerbated by the Federal Reserve’s boom-bust monetary policies — including ZIRP, which masks the true cost of money. I have long advocated for a return to the more conservative investing habits from decades ago — public pension funds should only be invested in Treasuries, with a small percentage being allocated to very highly-rated corporate and municipal bonds, and these Treasury/bond prices should be market-driven, not Fed-driven for political purposes. Pension formulas should return to pre-2000 levels, as well. These are things that I have always advocated for, and if these practices were in place, a “pension crisis” would be far less likely, and would be much more manageable if they did exist at all.

So, not only do you not understand how public pensions work, or how they are defined, you still haven’t grasped the definition of a tax subsidy, even though I’ve shown you the literal definition before.

It’s clear that you’re simply trolling, but I’m responding to you for anyone who might accidentally stumble on your rants, so that they don’t become ill-informed as a result of your posts.

BTW, everyone who has worked for their money has a defined-benefit pension that will be backed by the government (right-wing hysteria, notwithstanding). It’s called Social Security.

[Anonymous]

CAR, I’m not going to attempt to sort out your desperate nonsensical attempts to relate the pension crisis to the completely separate issue of property tax policy.

[quote=CA renter]The difference? One group earned that money, and the other one didn’t.[/quote]

The telltale characteristic of a bigot is the division of the world into neat little groups. In the bigot’s world, the distinction between these groups is black and white, right and wrong. There are no shades of grey in the bigot’s world. And it goes without saying that the bigot always exists in the “right” group.

It’s ridiculous to to try and divide the modern economic world into distinct groups delineated by those who have “earned” their wealth vs. those who have not. This absurd oversimplification of discredited Marxist philosophy is worthless in any policy discussion.

We are all workers, we are all investors, we are all beneficiaries of gifts from family. Have you ever purchased something for your children, provided them with an education, or (gasp!) included them in your will? Then of course – by the CAR view of the world – these children are in the “group” that didn’t earn their wealth! (Make them do some chores to redeem themselves…)

CAR: You need to get your story straight. Many times here you have claimed that most pension funds payments do not come from the taxpayer, but rather “The majority of the money used for benefit payments comes from investments.” Here is one of many:

http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy
Submitted by CA renter on September 10, 2014 – 6:03pm.
[quote]… The majority of the money used for benefit payments comes from investments.[/quote]

Simple question: Are investment returns “earned” or are they ill-gotten gains?

I know …. you want it both ways, depending on the “group” of course.

EDIT:
[quote]BTW, everyone who has worked for their money has a defined-benefit pension that will be backed by the government (right-wing hysteria, notwithstanding). It’s called Social Security.[/quote]

Social security is not a defined-benefit pension, it’s an insurance program. (That’s why it’s actually called OASDI – guess what the “I” stands for?)

But these important distinctions are over your head, so I’ll try to explain it more simply:

Social security provides a basic safety net, not a comfortable retirement. It doesn’t even pay a middle class income.

And as I have said many times (you probably missed it because of your reading comprehension issues…):

EVERYONE should be part of the Social Security system and NO ONE should be on some exclusive, arcane, absurdly complicated public-sector pension plan. Because there is no reason to divide society into “groups” in a way where one group subsidizes the other.

Fair enough?

[CA renter]

LOL! I’ll just let your post sit there for everyone else to laugh at, Pri.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]LOL! I’ll just let your post sit there for everyone else to laugh at, Pri.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone will laugh.

Although my post thoroughly trounced your argument, it would be mean-spirited to have a laugh at your expense.

I believe the Piggs are better than that.

[CA renter]

You trounced nothing, as usual. Just more ad hominem attacks because you have no clue what you’re talking about.

[FlyerInHi]

It doesn’t matter than pensionsers earned anything. If the municipalities can’t live up to their contacts, the courts are where the disputes should be resolved.

No need to change state laws to benefit pensioners.

Let the municipalities deal with their liabilities within the tax framework that existed when they signed the contracts.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=EconProf]Bearish Girl, your lengthy response shows that you do not use data to come to reasoned conclusions. I suggested that academic studies for ALL of California properties could discover the revenue loss from heirs taking over their parents’ properties under Props 13, 58 and 193. Such a study would be peer reviewed to check for accuracy.
You countered this with a long string of….anecdotes. Anecdotes, whether from your personal experience or properties sold that you apparently looked up prove exactly nothing.
From this handful of examples, you concluded that “The golden state has undoubtedly lost trillions on (Props 58 and 193) since 1986.” Are you aware the upcoming entire state budget from all tax sources is only $171 billion?
Instead of cherry-picking examples of properties taking advantage of Props 58 and 193, why not use your time to look for real research that has surely been done on the subject since it is undoubtedly a question that has occurred to others. I don’t have the time to look up such studies, but you seem to have both the time and energy.[/quote]EconProf, those “anecdotes” are from plat maps I bought 8-10 years ago to conduct a little Prop 58/193 “study” of my own. I have more. The out-of-county examples are properties I am already familiar with …. mostly through case work I have taken on in the past. Yes, you are correct that it would take a lot of time and energy to get an exact figure on how much the Golden State has been missing out on collecting every year due to Props 58/193. I’m sure a lobbying group (to repeal these measures) could hire full-time personnel to take on this daunting task but to make it easiest, they would have to gain access to the Change of Ownership statistics that county assessors keep and focus only on transactions in which no tax stamps were paid (non arms-length transactions).

Ok, I exaggerated. It is billions, not trillions the Golden State has lost in operating revenue from these dubious “statutory schemes.” We’re talking about since 1986 here! That’s 30 years of “heirs” who ran, not walked down to their county assessor’s offices to process their Prop 58/193 applications. And they will continue to do so into perpetuity. Why not?

I’ve posted here many times that I am not against Prop 13. If CA did not have it in place and was permitted to assess its properties biennially through a “mill levy” calculation (which takes into account actual appreciation during the past 24 months), as many other states do, CA homeowners would quickly be priced out of affording the homes they just purchased! Especially those who own properties in coastal counties.

I am against Props 58 and 193 because the argument on TV and in print ads FOR Prop 13 in 1978 was “to keep seniors from being priced out of their homes.” I know as I was there. Over 90% of those who were “senior citizens” when Prop 13 was passed in 1978 are now deceased but most of their homes were never sold after their deaths (especially those who died on or after 1/1/87). Instead, a family member took over ownership ALONG WITH their old (base year circa 9/75 plus 2% per year) assessment. When Prop 58 was put on the ballot in 1986 and Prop 193 in 1996, the voters who DID vote for those measures (1/3 to 1/4 of all registered voters?) were sold a bill of goods. Apparently, the “perpetuity” feature of the measures was never brought up in the ballot arguments AGAINST the measures or not discussed in sufficient detail in the Voting Guides for the public to understand exactly what the far reaching fiscal ramifications for the state would be … not to mention a possible (unknowable at the time) severe housing shortage in the distant future directly caused by the disincentive to succeeding owners (who would take advantage of the Props 58/193) to ever market these homes.

In many areas of SD and SD County, there is very little for sale at any one given time. This has been common throughout CA urban coastal counties for at least 15 years, now. The reason for this is due to Props 58 and 193 and this problem is becoming more pronounced by the year.

EconProf, you stated to me that I shouldn’t use my own area as an anecdote but my own area fits this description and is just ONE of many, many thousands of CA residential areas where these statutes are widely used. There has been very little for sale in my area for over 20 years. There was nothing else for sale in it when I bought my house over 15 years ago. The only reason the sellers of my home were selling was because of a very lucrative job relocation. They hired an architect to redesign my home and remodeled in to their liking because it was intended to be their “forever home.” There has been less than a dozen houses for sale around here since then. Several of them were near-uninhabitable longtime rentals which had to be gutted by flipper teams. None of them qualified for mortgages. There have been another 8-9 deaths by the remaining homeowner in my area since I moved here and only one of their homes was sold in a non arms-length transaction thru a probate sale (non-MLS) “pocket listing.” The rest of the properties went to heirs … not counting all the properties around here who had already been transferred to heirs by the time I purchased my home! Typically, no one was aware of these property transfers except possibly the immediate surrounding neighbors. Two of the heirs moved in (one a Prop 193 heir) and the rest of them swooped in out of nowhere within two weeks of their last parent’s death with large pickups, flatbed trucks, long ladders and tools, etc to clean the place out and repair/lightly remodel it for rental service. Even if these heir(s) just worked weekends, they usually got the property into rental service within 2 months of their last parent’s death. My micro area is NOT an anomaly! It is representative of established areas throughout the state but most pronounced in coastal counties. (Because properties are more valuable in coastal counties, they will fetch higher rents and therefore it is more lucrative to keep them with their low assessment attached to them, rather than sell.)

This phenomenon does not bode well for Gen Y (the millenials) trying to buy their first home. Especially those who must find a home as close to work as possible in counties with mostly dedicated open space and thus haven’t had any land left with which to build subdivisions in >40 years (ex: San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties).

A major reason why these measures aren’t getting the public attention they deserve (getting a bright flashlight shown on them) is because all the affected parcels undergo a transfer of ownership in a dark closet. Often, close neighbors don’t even know a neighbor has died. No one moves out or moves in. The heir(s) just moves in and takes a year or more to sort thru mom and/or dad’s stuff and rehab room by room. Neighbors don’t know how to get property records or look at probate cases and don’t care. More often than not, the decedent had a trust, which is not public record. Most of these CA heirs who inherit the typical $350-$550K home (today’s value) wouldn’t take the property if a stepped-up assessment at the time of death was attached to it. They would sell it, instead. They are only taking the property over because of its $400 – $800 annual tax bill which can only rise 2% per year. This huge disparity in current assessment versus market value is far more pronounced in CA’s most exclusive and coveted areas.

Since property tax proceeds (incl “Teeter Funds”) are the lifeblood of CA and its counties, the existence of Props 58 and 193 are an insidious creep on the Golden State’s ability to function and are becoming moreso with each passing year. The vast majority of senior citizens whom Prop 13 was designed to protect (those at least 65 years old by June 1978) are now deceased. Had Props 58 and 193 not been passed 8 and 18 years later, respectively, their homes (the senior’s homes Prop 13 was passed to protect) would have likely been counted in your “every 7-year turnover statistics,” EconProf. But since the two measures were passed, there has been no incentive whatsoever for ANY heir of their parent’s or grandparent’s CA home to sell it (if the home was purchased prior to 1988 and the earlier, the better). That’s what we’re all going to continue to see in all the most conveniently-located areas from here on out (especially those areas in heavily urban coastal counties). We did it to ourselves!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]It doesn’t matter than pensionsers earned anything. If the municipalities can’t live up to their contacts, the courts are where the disputes should be resolved.

No need to change state laws to benefit pensioners.

Let the municipalities deal with their liabilities within the tax framework that existed when they signed the contracts.[/quote]There isn’t any need to “change state laws to benefit pensioners.” State laws already benefit pensioners and all CA municipalities and counties know this. (Apparently FIH [and phaster?] don’t, but that’s okay … they are “laymen” and not expected to know, lol …..)

Again, bring on the lawsuits. It’s all been done before. And …. GOOD LUCK!

Oh, and …. add pri_dk/harvey to that “layman list” :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]…. Just like for me, I’ve realized obamacare is a great thing. It means a lot of you healthy people (even those on fixed income) will end up having to pay for much higher premiums for “their fair share” into a healthcare system so that people like me that was born with less than desirable health can eventually qualify to buy health insurance to pay for my $40-50k/year medical expenses that insurance ends up paying for…every year….

Get other people to pay more than you for things. It’s the american way. I finally get it.[/quote]Well, if this post was or was not directed at me, I’ll bite anyway. As a “relatively healthy obamacare planholder” whose premium is going up another 22% for 2017 and whose insurance carrier has made a minimum of $10K off her annually since 1/1/14, I honestly don’t mind helping to cover the necessary procedures for “unlucky gene inheritors” such as the likes of fat_lazy_union/flu/bullishgurl/flu redux thru my monthly premiums. I fully sympathize with his plight.

What I DO have a problem with is being charged enough in my premium to also subsidize my (much more common) brethren who: (1) smoked for 30++ years (and may still be smoking) and thus are walking heart attacks and probable present and near future emphysema sufferers; (2) have weighed >300 lbs (>200 lbs for females) for the past 20+ years and thus suffer from diabetes and deep vein thrombosis, among other numerous maladies; (3) were former hard drug addicts and current and former snuff addicts (even if “clean” now) who are now having strokes and being diagnosed with mouth cancer; (4)have been heavy drinkers for most of their lives and now suffer from cirrhosis and other liver diseases, etc; and (5) have repeatedly engaged in dangerous activities where they could easily be gravely injured such as skydiving, mtn and ice climbing, race car driving, motorcycling, scuba diving, etc. I feel the latter group should buy their own medical riders for these activities if they wish to pursue them. I don’t want to subsidize their daredevil lifestyles. Nor do I want to pay for maternity care because I don’t need the benefit. And I shouldn’t have to. It’s not my problem and no one paid for my maternity care but me when I needed it.

The MSM is currently claiming that obamacare’s massive rate hikes for 2017 are being “softened” by the subsidies (APTC) that ~80% of obamacare planholders receive but nothing could be further from the truth. The average subsidy paid out is $270-$380 month (providers in most states charge less than CA providers so premiums in the lower-cost states are lower). These subsidies might be substantial for the under-50 crowd but not for me. My subsidy for 2017 will be somewhere between $422 and $434 month. That will represent less than 1/3 of my monthly premium. Of course, I’m going to have to go down another metal level for 2017 so my subsidy will represent ~1/2 of my monthly premium. Hopefully, 2017 will be my last year on obamacare because it will either be repealed and replaced with the major carriers doing business across state lines or I will be allowed into the Medicare program early and be able to buy a top-quality Part B/D Supplement from a major respected carrier. Obamacare is an effing mess run by incompetents and was/is a sad joke played on the American people. It needs to go away yesterday.

I want my old Aetna Advantage plan back (which was $358 month on 12/31/13, when I lost it). It had a fantastic choice of providers and everything I needed. And its customer service was very competent. I realize that premium may be higher now but because it was an HDHP, it would be substantially lower today than what I am trapped into paying, due to the ACA. I wouldn’t need the subsidy to help pay it and don’t want it anymore if I can have my old plan back.

[FlyerInHi]

We should change state laws to make easier for munipalities to go bankrupt.

BG, i thought you support Trump. He likes to renegotiate contracts when debt holders from a position of strength to force them to take pennies on the dollars. If we can force pensioners to take less, then we have more money for services. What’s not to like about that?

[phaster]

[quote=CA renter]Instead of posting pictures of lame cartoons, try responding to why we should take from those who worked (public sector employees) to give to those who don’t (wealthy commercial, industrial, and residential landlords; owners of vast tracts of land, etc.).

If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.

YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]

there’s nothing illegal or unethical about inheriting property and prop 13 IMHO is a spurious and tangential topic, but what the hell i’ll play along

i’ll be the first to admit i’m lucky to have a legacy which allows me some financial breathing room, and because of that i’m a pretty chill landlord who has never raised a tenant’s rent once they are in (kind of keeping with my parents management tradition), and appreciate prop 13 making costs predictable with respect to property taxes

as for how the market values RE (like an apt rental) I have no control over that, since it’s a global marketplace that is influenced by among other things the feds dual mandate to keep unemployment low and keep inflation in check @ around 2% (as explained in a planet-money podcast)

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/30/496136504/episode-727-you-asked-for-it-again

as I see things, prop 13 is an economic moderator to keep TPTB in check and seems to have come about because TPTB were unable to moderate things in the first place

BTW seems your rants/proposals about “reforming” prop 13 are kinda like the rest of your economic analysis,… WORTHLESS DELUSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! (took me all of two minutes of googling to find a study, with simple statement in the summary section that disproves a belief I’ll bet you’ve held for decades)

[quote=publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu]
…This study was undertaken to review the split roll proposal and to assess the prospective impact on the state economy if a split roll tax regime were adopted…

…Overall, this study finds that a split roll property tax regime would have a significant and detrimental impact on the state’s economy, especially at a time when the California economy is struggling…

https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenport-institute/content/research/archived-reports/split-roll.pdf
[/quote]

on the other hand various news articles about the local public pension fund management seems dubious at best and more akin a con job on the public @ large (according to a text book that examined the topic)

[quote]
Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership (edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie)

Though SDCERS investments were earning well above the 8 percent rate of return estimated by the system actuaries, under normal conditions investments surpluses are required to make up for below-average returns in other years to achieve the average rate of return. Therefore, unless the actuaries’ estimates are grossly incorrect, in the long run true “surplus earnings” are impossible. The use of surplus earnings for the purposes other than maintaining the pension system, such as to expand existing benefits should be viewed as a loan from the system THAT WILL REQUIRE REPAYMENT IN THE FUTURE.

page 286

https://books.google.com/books?id=VLxvUV8xFsgC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=san+diego+pension+13th+check&source=bl&ots=ZKEjv0C-rD&sig=RHojR7aJR0Ehb8mScjQnxLIhW6M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJl76j3vLJAhVO4GMKHR1RAJkQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=san%20diego%20pension%2013th%20check&f=false
[/quote]

looking at the bigger picture which you seem to miss from the beginning, like YEARS AGO, long, long, long before I found this forum to get a feel of what locals thought about the local economy

[quote=phaster]
October 22, 2016 – 8:30am
[quote=CA renter]
October 9, 2016 – 1:07am

BTW, you’re not educating or informing anyone of anything. The pension issue was beaten to death LONG before you ever came into the picture.
[/quote]

really???

http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=5#comment-262974

http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=6#comment-264989
[/quote]

what seems applicable here is something I first heard and learned about as a kid “The Parable of the Talents”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas

as I see things inheriting rental property, is akin to being given an opportunity to build upon my parents “talents” in that by managing things legally and ethically (as I was raised) I’ve been able to share various “talents” w/ those less fortunate

from what I gather from your prior posts, you lack many vital “talents” needed to solve problems, for example NOT understanding middle school math concepts which is necessary to understand various economic problem(s), BTW NOT understanding middle school math concepts is what can cause economic problems in the first place

then there are questions of group ethics and individual morals of taking responsibility, etc., etc. (basically is the system better or worse off now, or in terms of “talents” is a majority benefiting or just a select few and were actions intentional or not)

[quote=sandiegoreader.com]
Did an unwritten city policy result in death?
“Public servants only care about their pensions.”

In April 2011 Farhad Bastani, a resident engineer for the City of San Diego, watched drivers punch their accelerators the moment they arrived at the newly widened section of Camino Del Sur, near the intersection with San Dieguito Road in Black Mountain Ranch.

The high speeds and high road elevations near Lusardi Creek concerned him. He feared drivers wouldn’t see pedestrians who were crossing Camino Del Sur to access the popular Santaluz hiking trails until it was too late.

The following day he met with one of his supervisors, Lisa Adams, to report his findings.

During his four years working as a field engineer for the City of San Diego Bastani had discovered other safety issues. In that time, he had learned the department’s unwritten policy for reporting any safety issues; do so verbally and refrain from mentioning them in any emails. Email, according to a 2013 email from then-supervisor David Zoumaras, could potentially make the city liable in case any lawsuits are filed.

Three months later, on August 30, 2011, Lawrence Farry was driving over 80 miles per hour on Camino Del Sur, near the intersection with Haaland Glen. Meanwhile 56-year-old Joan Milazzo, her husband Paul, and her sister, who had all been hiking the Del Sur Canyon Trail, were midway across Camino Del Sur walking to pick up the other side of the trail.

Farry saw the two women crossing but was unable to stop. His red Nissan Altima struck and killed Joan Milazzo. Her husband watched from a few feet away.

Bastani saw the emergency vehicles at the scene of the accident. In an email on the following day Bastani told his supervisor, Mike Arnold, about the accident. “…I heard a lady was injured there. I should mention that I have noticed some problem[s] in traffic control implementation and [the subcontractor] was aware of that.”

Arnold was not pleased. “Reporting to me this accident is unrelated to your duties as a city inspector,” Arnold wrote. “Please do not report on such events in the future. In addition, any concerns you have regarding traffic control or anything else related to your project should be brought to the attention of the project manager and the appropriate city staff, but not in this context.”

…Bastani says the problem goes much deeper than a fear of legal culpability. He says the problem is with municipal government as a whole. “Many of the managers and supervisors only have a title of public employee, but the only thing on their minds is attending work for eight hours a day, collecting their pensions and retirements. The concept of public service is one of their last priorities”…

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/oct/26/city-lights-public-servants-only-care-pensions/
[/quote]

https://twitter.com/vosdscott/status/439478516447334400/photo/1

essentially before a problem can be solved (or kept from becoming worse), one must admit a problem exists (much like a drug addict or alcoholic isn’t going to pull out of a nosedive dragging family and friends down with them, until the addict admits there is a situation that needs to be corrected), secondly the problem must be fully understood (which in this case means using math that reflects reality, not just numbers pulled out of thin air which make a proposal sound good)

life is a game of chance, sometimes people get lucky being born to parents who provided an environment that stimulated/encouraged intellectual curiosity and left a financial legacy along w/ moral guidelines to hopefully do some good, in other cases people are not so lucky, guess the only thing I know is pretty certain is because neither condition (listed above) exists, things WRT public pensions are going to get a hell of a lot worse

[phaster]

[quote=EconProf]Bearish Girl, your lengthy response shows that you do not use data to come to reasoned conclusions.

…blah blah blah[/quote]

[Author]

Posts