OT: bearishgurl should clean up her act or go

[Coronita]

Just give people their money and subsidies. Big deal. So governments and municipalities run a deficit. Fine. Deal with it after it blows up. Rest assured, when/if it blows up, no one will be happy. Pensions, property owners, businesses, consumers, everyone. So take comfort that your favorite “you should pay your fair share/you should take your pay cut” will equally be part of the solution to fix the blowup.

America and americans are really good at deficit spending, so it’s no different from most of america.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, you,re conflating everything and it’s not helpful in solving problems.

Some municipalities mismanaged their finances and deserve to go bankrupt. There is a process for that.

The state is a sovereign and cannot to bankrupt. But the state can change the laws and redo contracts.

If in the process bond holders lose money, then they’ll be more careful lending in the future. i don’t support raising taxes to pay for past budgets.[/quote]

Brian, I’m not conflating anything. Multiple people have suggested making it easier to allow cities and states to go BK. As a sidenote, BG already pointed out that a city’s going BK does not guarantee that pensions would be renegotiated. It’s even more likely that bondholders would take the primary hit, so borrowing costs would become extremely burdensome if BK were made easier. And it’s possible to allow states to go BK, but that would require Congress to amend the federal BK code. Of course, the issues with access to capital and borrowing costs would apply to the states, as well.

I guess the question is more about whether or not someone is actually concerned about the financial health of government entities, or if they are more concerned about “getting revenge” on those who organized and fought for their rights as workers, while the private sector employees bought the propaganda about unions being a negative thing and global competition/free trade a good thing, and lost a tremendous amount of economic and political power as a result.[/quote]

Since when do you care about bond holders.
Detroit went bankrupt and the bond market is fine.

Plus I thought you wanted higher interest rates?

It’s not revenge. Municipalities just need to budget better, plus their employees need to be more efficient and adopt modern technologies.

[CA renter]

Brian, I’ve always cared about the health of public entities, and that means that they need access to capital at a reasonable price.

Yes, I want higher interest rates, but not because there is a financial crisis. I want higher (actually market) rates because I want to prevent asset price bubbles so we can ameliorate the deep recessions and depressions caused by the Fed’s boom-bust policies.

They do need to budget better, but pensions are only one part of the puzzle. I have personally seen far more egregious spending on other items. They are already quite efficient, and do use modern technology. But changing to new technologies often costs more money than what they initially believed they would save with the new system/technology. All spending should be conservative and thoroughly thought through before making any spending commitments.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]The reason Prop 13 passed (because, unlike you, I was actually living here at the time, and remember all the ads and the discussions regarding this proposition) […][/quote]

LOL, how old were you in 1978?

The hilarious part of your rants on property taxes is that I agree with you: Property tax laws in CA unfairly favor inheritance. After all – as you constantly like to remind the Piggs – not all of us were born here. But that shouldn’t make us second class citizens, right?

You also seem to be missing the point that nobody on this thread has claimed they are entitled to to any favorable tax treatment, nor has anybody even defended the existing tax policies. That’s a concept that you injected into the conversation through a combination of projection and reading comprehension failure. Nobody is even arguing with you about tax policy, and yet you continue to rant.

The property tax issue has nothing to do with the pension crisis – other than the fact that you see raising someone else’s taxes as as a band aid solution. And you have not presented any data (i.e. numbers) that supports the idea that your “robbing Peter to pay Paul” proposal would even come close to providing adequate funds.

As an aside, I do suggest you come up with a consistent position on your claims about the importance of “research.” On another other thread you are claiming expertise about Turkey and the complexities of thousands of years of Middle Eastern culture – just because you did some googling. Have you ever been to Turkey?

But on this thread you claim there’s no way someone could understand one well-documented law in California unless they actually lived here when it was passed.

It’s cute, in a pathetic way, how you regularly flip-flop the standards in order to declare yourself smarter than everyone else.[/quote]

1.) Old enough to remember the advertisements and the lively discussions about Prop 13.

2.) You stated: “…nobody on this thread has claimed they are entitled to to any favorable tax treatment, nor has anybody even defended the existing tax policies…”

Really?

[quote=phaster]
PROP 13 ??? = NOISE

[/quote]

[quote=harvey]

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

[/quote]

And, even though I’ve pointed this out to you before, your reading comprehension issues apparently cause you to forget information that you’ve read, so I’ll repeat it, yet again.

“What is a ‘Subsidy’

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.”

[Emphasis in bold is mine. -CAR]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

[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]

And I just picked these out from the page before this one. I don’t feel like dredging through all of the other pages, and all of the other threads, where people try to defend their property tax subsidies.

Oh, and there was this one from phaster’s rant about his “talents.”

[quote=phaster]

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]

Again, there’s your reading comprehension problem (and I taught reading comprehension, so know what I’m talking about with respect to that, too).

3.) Your claim that Prop 13 isn’t related to the pension problems also highlights your ignorance.

The #1 revenue source for most municipalities is property tax. If property taxes are not paid at the market rate, it absolutely affects their financial health and their ability to fund the pensions.

It’s pretty apparent that you are totally unfamiliar with how government entities operate.

Even phasters “talents” post includes a link to a study where they discuss a “split-roll” property tax scheme acknowledges that it would bring in an additional $6 billion per year, and that study only includes industrial and commercial buildings — the study does not include residential properties — no rental homes or apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, etc., nor does it include vast tracts of land that are taxed well below market rate. Again, if you did even a bit of “Googling,” as phaster did, you would know that.

4.) As for Turkey…no, I’ve not been there. But I have talked with a number of people who are familiar with the situation there, and I read a lot of books, magazines, research articles, opinion pieces, etc. about politics and economics, and have done so for many years (almost all of my books focus on political and economic issues). My mother had a degree in anthropology from UCLA, and we traveled extensively and lived in other countries when I was younger (my mother did visit Turkey, and also traveled throughout the Middle East, the USSR, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia etc.). Nearly all of our family friends were immigrants from around the world, and I worked with, and for, immigrants in every job I’ve ever had (and worked for Syrians and Israelis for a number of years, with whom I talked at great length about these topics). My birth family was very politically active, and I have continued the tradition of being very politically active and engaged, and make a point of reading as much as I can, in addition to talking with as many people as possible, from all walks of life, and who hold a variety of political and economic opinions and political positions.

What differentiates me from you is that I do read and study the issues about which I’m willing to debate (I rarely debate topics about which I’m unfamiliar…I listen/read, and ask for clarification, instead). Your reference to “Googling” is strictly from you, and has nothing at all to do with me. That being said, although I wouldn’t expect you to do the kind of reading and research that I do, you could **at least** do a little bit of Googling so that you could gain even a tiny bit of knowledge about a topic before you attempt to debate, rather than pull a load of horse manure and ad hominem attacks out of your behind and throw it at the wall, hoping that nobody will call you on it (for the record…I will always call you on it).

What is research?

” noun re·search ri-ˈsərch, ˈrē-ˌ
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of research

: careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something

: the activity of getting information about a subject

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary
Examples: research in a sentence

Full Definition of research

1
: careful or diligent search

2
: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws

3
: the collecting of information about a particular subject”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research

You might want to try it sometime.

[FlyerInHi]

Moral hazards. Minicipalties won’t go bankrupt all at once. There is a process.
The bond markets will be fine.

[phaster]

[quote=CA renter]

[quote=phaster]
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]

Again, there’s your reading comprehension problem (and I taught comprehension, so know what I’m talking about with respect to that, too).

3.) Your claim that Prop 13 isn’t related to the pension problems also highlights your ignorance.

The #1 revenue source for most municipalities is property tax. If property taxes are not paid at the market rate, it absolutely affects their financial health and their ability to fund the pensions.

It’s pretty apparent that you are totally unfamiliar with how government entities operate.

Even phasters “talents” post includes a link to a study where they discuss a “split-roll” property tax scheme acknowledges that it would bring in an additional $6 billion per year, and that study only includes industrial and commercial buildings — the study does not include residential properties — no rental homes or apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, etc., nor does it include vast tracts of land that are taxed well below market rate. Again, if you did even a bit of “Googling,” as phaster did, you would know that.
[/quote]

god help us, because your admitted “talent” of teaching reading comprehension is yet more one sided idiotic bravado

its true “the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion” BUT YOU’RE DELIBERATELY IGNORING ADVERSE EFFECTS (note to all the report states as a result),… “Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lostover the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year.”

[quote=publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu]
The Economic and Employment Effects of the Split Roll

The economic and employment effects of the split roll are significant and, because of the removal of the Proposition 13 cap on growth in assessments, the impacts would likely continue to grow over time. The baseline scenario presented in this section represents the mid‐range estimate of these economic and employment effects. It assumes that the split roll is instituted in 2013 and that the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion. Note that this is a significant increase in a tax stream that only totaled approximately $50 billion in 2009‐10.

The following table summarizes the five‐year estimated impacts of splitting the property tax roll on employment in California. Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lost over the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year. Five years later, in 2021‐22, the annual estimated impact would total almost 112,000 additional jobs lost annually.

page 13

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

let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself

FWIW you do have a talent that’s consistent and actually harmful, sadly some share your BS delusion

your posts YET AGAIN demonstrate an inability to integrate middle school math and basic reading comprehension skills

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

this only reinforces my prognostication that the lack of “talents” by custodians and beneficiaries of the various portfolios will cause of the inevitable economic public pension debt bomb crisis few in government want to ponder (perhaps because of past “sins” like the three decade practice of a 13th pension payment, which the SDCERS board approved yet again, despite a recent $380 million “debt” spike)

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-13th-check-2015dec18-htmlstory.html

[quote]
SDCERS Board Approves 13th Check and Corbett Benefits for 2016
November 4, 2016

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) Board of Administration approved the payment of the “13th Check” supplemental benefit and the Corbett settlement benefit for eligible retirees. Eligible retirees will receive the payment as part of their November 2016 monthly retirement benefit.

The “13th Check” and Corbett settlement benefits are paid in years when the realized investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to pay them.

https://www.sdcers.org/News/Latest-News/By-Category/13th-Check-and-Corbett-,-Board,-News-Articles-,.aspx

https://www.sdcers.org/Forms-Publications/Annual-Reports.aspx
[/quote]

[quote]
San Diego facing new pension debt
September 8, 2016

A recent $380 million spike in San Diego’s pension debt is forcing city officials to debate whether to begin paying that bill now or take the controversial step of pushing the financial pain several years down the road.

…The spike, which is the result of a new actuarial study showing that city employees and retirees are living significantly longer, would increase the city’s annual pension payment — $261 million this year — by $35 million, or more than 13 percent.

That increase would help the city continue to cover annual pension benefits for retired employees and continue steadily paying down its unfunded, long-term pension liability, which the new study increased from $2 billion to nearly $2.4 billion.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the City Council created the city’s first pension stabilization fund last spring with a $16 million initial contribution, but they didn’t expect the money to get wiped out in one year.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-pension-san-diego-longevity-mortality-arrollado-2016sep08-story.html
[/quote]

[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://www.crcpress.com/Handbook-of-Frauds-Scams-and-Swindles-Failures-of-Ethics-in-Leadership/Matulich-Currie/p/book/9781420072853
[/quote]

I’m apprehensive what the next four years will bring in the economic and political realm, but agree with a statement president elect Trump made,… “We will never fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place.”

[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.

http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=3#comment-247382
[/quote]

[mixxalot]

I think y’all being way too hard on poor lil’ BG! I do think she needs to post her photo though.

PLUS we still need that live showdown between Zika and BG! That would be entertaining to watch.

[CA renter]

[quote=phaster][quote=CA renter]

[quote=phaster]
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]

Again, there’s your reading comprehension problem (and I taught comprehension, so know what I’m talking about with respect to that, too).

3.) Your claim that Prop 13 isn’t related to the pension problems also highlights your ignorance.

The #1 revenue source for most municipalities is property tax. If property taxes are not paid at the market rate, it absolutely affects their financial health and their ability to fund the pensions.

It’s pretty apparent that you are totally unfamiliar with how government entities operate.

Even phasters “talents” post includes a link to a study where they discuss a “split-roll” property tax scheme acknowledges that it would bring in an additional $6 billion per year, and that study only includes industrial and commercial buildings — the study does not include residential properties — no rental homes or apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, etc., nor does it include vast tracts of land that are taxed well below market rate. Again, if you did even a bit of “Googling,” as phaster did, you would know that.
[/quote]

god help us, because your admitted “talent” of teaching reading comprehension is yet more one sided idiotic bravado

its true “the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion” BUT YOU’RE DELIBERATELY IGNORING ADVERSE EFFECTS (note to all the report states as a result),… “Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lostover the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year.”

[quote=publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu]
The Economic and Employment Effects of the Split Roll

The economic and employment effects of the split roll are significant and, because of the removal of the Proposition 13 cap on growth in assessments, the impacts would likely continue to grow over time. The baseline scenario presented in this section represents the mid‐range estimate of these economic and employment effects. It assumes that the split roll is instituted in 2013 and that the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion. Note that this is a significant increase in a tax stream that only totaled approximately $50 billion in 2009‐10.

The following table summarizes the five‐year estimated impacts of splitting the property tax roll on employment in California. Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lost over the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year. Five years later, in 2021‐22, the annual estimated impact would total almost 112,000 additional jobs lost annually.

page 13

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

let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself

FWIW you do have a talent that’s consistent and actually harmful, sadly some share your BS delusion

your posts YET AGAIN demonstrate an inability to integrate middle school math and basic reading comprehension skills

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

this only reinforces my prognostication that the lack of “talents” by custodians and beneficiaries of the various portfolios will cause of the inevitable economic public pension debt bomb crisis few in government want to ponder (perhaps because of past “sins” like the three decade practice of a 13th pension payment, which the SDCERS board approved yet again, despite a recent $380 million “debt” spike)

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-13th-check-2015dec18-htmlstory.html

[quote]
SDCERS Board Approves 13th Check and Corbett Benefits for 2016
November 4, 2016

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) Board of Administration approved the payment of the “13th Check” supplemental benefit and the Corbett settlement benefit for eligible retirees. Eligible retirees will receive the payment as part of their November 2016 monthly retirement benefit.

The “13th Check” and Corbett settlement benefits are paid in years when the realized investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to pay them.

https://www.sdcers.org/News/Latest-News/By-Category/13th-Check-and-Corbett-,-Board,-News-Articles-,.aspx

https://www.sdcers.org/Forms-Publications/Annual-Reports.aspx
[/quote]

[quote]
San Diego facing new pension debt
September 8, 2016

A recent $380 million spike in San Diego’s pension debt is forcing city officials to debate whether to begin paying that bill now or take the controversial step of pushing the financial pain several years down the road.

…The spike, which is the result of a new actuarial study showing that city employees and retirees are living significantly longer, would increase the city’s annual pension payment — $261 million this year — by $35 million, or more than 13 percent.

That increase would help the city continue to cover annual pension benefits for retired employees and continue steadily paying down its unfunded, long-term pension liability, which the new study increased from $2 billion to nearly $2.4 billion.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the City Council created the city’s first pension stabilization fund last spring with a $16 million initial contribution, but they didn’t expect the money to get wiped out in one year.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-pension-san-diego-longevity-mortality-arrollado-2016sep08-story.html
[/quote]

[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://www.crcpress.com/Handbook-of-Frauds-Scams-and-Swindles-Failures-of-Ethics-in-Leadership/Matulich-Currie/p/book/9781420072853
[/quote]

I’m apprehensive what the next four years will bring in the economic and political realm, but agree with a statement president elect Trump made,… “We will never fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place.”

[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.

http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=3#comment-247382
[/quote][/quote]

The “study” that you’ve mentioned got two things wrong. They modeled it based on their being no cap at all on commercial/industrial buildings, when a modified cap is just as likely to be an option. The fact is that commercial/industrial properties don’t appreciate like housing because the value is always based on revenue potential, as opposed to housing which is priced according to more subjective, emotional criteria. If new commercial/industrial owners can break even or clear a profit while paying market rate taxes, so can the legacy owners. Businesses might change, but prices and rents would reach an equilibrium rather quickly.

This “study” also left out all residential buildings, including rental homes, apartment buildings, etc. And they’ve also excluded raw land (think Pardee, for instance). They’ve left out people like yourself — people who’ve inherited valuable property, but pay only a fraction of the market-rate property taxes on it.

So this study both understates the revenue, and overstates the costs. It’s also important to note that they’ve based this study on economic models/theories (and we’ve seen how well that’s worked out in the past), not actual numbers, for obvious reasons.

As for your quote here: “let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself[.]”

You could have done a little more Googling to find that this “study” was issued by the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. Before it was merged with Pepperdine, it was called “Common Sense California,” and it was founded by Peter G. Peterson. Who is Peter Peterson?

…………

Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite numerous organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over “unsustainable” federal budget deficits. In 2007, he made a fortune from the public offering of the private equity firm he co-founded, Blackstone Group, and pledged to spend $1 billion of this money to “fix America’s key fiscal-sustainability problems.” He endowed this money to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which he launched in 2008 (see below for more).[1] His son, Michael A. Peterson, is the President and Chief Operating Officer of the foundation.

Move over, George Soros and the Koch brothers. The Los Angeles Times has dubbed Peterson “the most influential billionaire business figure in national politics. . . . He isn’t content merely to express concern about the federal deficit. His particular targets are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which he calls ‘entitlement’ programs and which he wants to cut back in a manner that would strike deeply at the middle class.”[2]

From 1963 to 1971, Peterson was the Chairman and CEO of Bell and Howell Corporation. He also worked briefly in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon as Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs (1971) and as Secretary of Commerce (1972). He also served as a chairman of Nixon’s National Commission on Productivity and as the U.S. chairman of the “U.S.-Soviet Commercial Commission.”[3]

Peterson was later the Chairman and CEO of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers (1973-1977) and its successor firm, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb (1977-1984). He is also the former Chairman and co-founder of the private equity firm, Blackstone Group, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He was also Chairman for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the founding Chairman of the Institute for International Economics (IIE), and the co-founder of the Concord Coalition.[4]”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Peterson

…………….

And the study was sponsored by the Small Business Action Committee. Here’s what they do:

The Small Business Action Committee (SBAC) is a California organization which, according to its website, is focused on fighting for small business interests. The SBAC focuses on issues of workers compensation reform, taxes, regulatory harassment, tort reform and health care; which they believe burden small businesses making it difficult to stay in business.[1] They say, “SBAC plans to attack problems of regulations on small business growth; and the organization is committed to an advocacy campaign to convince policymakers the importance of a healthy business environment.”[2]

https://ballotpedia.org/Small_Business_Action_Committee

………….

One of the authors of this “study” has been opposing any reforms to Prop 13 for decades, as well.

Nope, no conflicts of interest there, phaster! Reading comprehension (and research) problems, indeed!

And I can assure you that you’re far less clever than you think you are, phaster. Who pays you to troll? You keep posting these same rambling, delusional posts with goofy pictures and nonsensical rants about your supposed greatness and wisdom. You never respond to any of the pointed comments and questions asked of you.

Answer the question, phaster.

[quote=CA renter]

Wow. You win the award for delusional, rambling posts; and your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. You were lucky enough to have parents who were in the right place at the right time, and it sounds like they made some good decisions. That’s great, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor with you inheriting what your parents worked for. The problem is with taxpayers subsidizing your profits to the tune of thousands of dollars each and every year. You did NOTHING to earn this subsidy, and the only reason you’re getting it is because other equally-situated people with generally more economic and political power than the average citizen changed the law so that you could obtain this subsidy by inheriting property from your parents. Just based on your posts, I’d guess this subsidy is in the $7,000-$15,000 range, every single year.

Of course, I’m not even counting the subsidy you received when you didn’t have to pay cap gains taxes on the assets you’ve inherited since you got to step-up the costs basis at the time of inheritance.

Again, how in the world do you think you should be more entitled to this Prop 13 subsidy (not to mention the cap gains subsidy) — that you didn’t do a single thing to earn — than the people who have worked for many decades for their pensions (and whose pension income is taxed at the standard “earned income” rate, even if their money comes from long-term gains and qualified dividends)?

Just answer that — and leave the ridiculous cartoons, memes, and other junk out of your response.[/quote]

[phaster]

[quote=CA renter]

[quote=phaster]
let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself
[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.

http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=3#comment-247382
[/quote][/quote]

[/quote]

correct my logic if I’m wrong but looking @ the data, seems as presently structured and operated the local portfolio mathematically sure seems no different than an unsustainable Ponzi scheme

starting w/ the three decade practice of a 13th pension payment, which the SDCERS board approved yet again for 2016 despite a recently reported $380 million “debt” spike

[quote]
SDCERS Board Approves 13th Check and Corbett Benefits for 2016
Nov 04, 2016

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) Board of Administration approved the payment of the “13th Check” supplemental benefit and the Corbett settlement benefit for eligible retirees. Eligible retirees will receive the payment as part of their November 2016 monthly retirement benefit.

The “13th Check” and Corbett settlement benefits are paid in years when the realized investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to pay them.

https://www.sdcers.org/News/Latest-News/By-Category/13th-Check-and-Corbett-,-Board,-News-Articles-,.aspx
[/quote]

[quote]
San Diego facing new pension debt
Sept 08, 2016

A recent $380 million spike in San Diego’s pension debt is forcing city officials to debate whether to begin paying that bill now or take the controversial step of pushing the financial pain several years down the road.

…The spike, which is the result of a new actuarial study showing that city employees and retirees are living significantly longer, would increase the city’s annual pension payment — $261 million this year — by $35 million, or more than 13 percent.

That increase would help the city continue to cover annual pension benefits for retired employees and continue steadily paying down its unfunded, long-term pension liability, which the new study increased from $2 billion to nearly $2.4 billion.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the City Council created the city’s first pension stabilization fund last spring with a $16 million initial contribution, but they didn’t expect the money to get wiped out in one year.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-pension-san-diego-longevity-mortality-arrollado-2016sep08-story.html
[/quote]

To put figures into context, for the finances to work out there is an assumption that the portfolio custodian(s) will look at certain performance benchmarks (i.e. that the over all value of the portfolio grows @ 7.25% each year)

[quote]
SDCERS Board of Administration Adjusts Discount Rate to 7.25%
Nov 08, 2013

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) Board of Administration today voted to reduce the System’s discount rate to 7.25%, affirming a recommendation by the system’s actuary Cheiron.

https://www.sdcers.org/News/Latest-News/By-Category/SDCERS-Board-of-Administration-Adjusts-Discount-Ra.aspx
[/quote]

Yet the latest reported FY return of just a hair above 1% is far below the target of 7.25% so elementary school math tells me in effect the “debt” grows ever larger and the BAU three decade old practice of a 13th pension payment only exacerbates the overall debt.

[quote]
SDCERS Reports Preliminary Return of 1.1% for Fiscal Year 2016
Aug 26, 2016

San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) reported a preliminary return of 1.1% (net of fees) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. Despite the low absolute return, the performance was in the top third of the All Public Funds Universe obtained from BNY Mellon and Investment Metrics. Assets under management were $6.8 billion as of June 30, 2016.

https://www.sdcers.org/News/Latest-News/By-Category/Investments,-News-Articles-,-Press-Release.aspx
[/quote]

FYI

[quote]
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp
[/quote]

where

translate.google.com “older investors” = “public employee unions” AND “politicians”
translate.google.com “new investors” = more burden placed on “tax payers”

PS you all might find this interesting, a recent NY Times article:

mentioned “Calpers Cuts Investment Targets, Increasing Strain on Municipalities” and yet in San Diego County our “Supervisors, without debate, give initial approval to increasing their pay”

http://www.delmartimes.net/encinitas-advocate/news/sd-cm-enc-supervisors-raise-20161219-story.html

meanwhile the local school district is forced to make cuts (because of a mis-managed public pension portfolio)

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/soaring-pension-costs-choking-sd-schools/

[sarcasm ON]

yeah I don’t see any economic problems ahead…

[sarcasm OFF]

[svelte]

CA Renter:

Phaster is the one and only person on my ignore list.

I put him there because I no longer want to see his drivel.

If you continue to quote his posts in their entirety, I’m going to have to add you too.

[CA renter]

Sorry, svelte. Nobody hates his drivel more than I do, and his posting style is clearly designed for maximum obnoxiousness. He’s obviously a troll, and I’ve been trying more recently to just ignore him, but want to make sure that misinformation isn’t spread.

The reason I post whole quotes (from any poster) almost 100% of the time is because I’ve had a poster (Pri/harvey) regularly cherry pick certain sentences or phrases from my posts, then include his own text as though they were my posts in order to make it look like I’ve said something that I never actually said or even implied. I’ve seen this done on other message boards, too; not just to my posts, but with other people’s posts. As you know, context is everything, so including the quote that one is responding to is important to me. For this reason, I prefer to include entire posts so that anyone whose reading will know exactly the context of what was originally written.

Realize that my last post on this thread was from November 29th. I ignored his most recent post because I’m trying desperately not to feed the trolls.

That being said, I fully understand if you want to “ignore” me, if that’s what you feel is necessary to maintain some mental peace. I won’t take it personally.

Hope you and your family have a happy, healthy 2017! 🙂

[Anonymous]

Phaster’s post above has three links to credible news sources with informative articles about California’s pension crisis.

And he has a sense of humor, which is sorely lacking on this site.

Of course some will choose to hide his posts thinking they are “countering disinformation.”

This is the theme for 2016: Fake news and echo chambers.

Toss out the NYT and Voice of San Diego.

Now let’s tune into the Tyler Durden show and boast about how informed we are.

[phaster]

[quote]
Spiking Pension Costs Squeeze San Diego Budget
January 10, 2017

The city of San Diego’s projected budget shortfall for the next fiscal year has ballooned by nearly $10 million because of new data from the municipal employees’ pension system, financial management staff reported Tuesday.

The looming deficit could force spending cuts or delays in implementing new projects and initiatives.

In a report issued two months ago, city officials estimated that they would have to close a $37 million gap between revenues and expenses when budgeting for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Because the pension system’s investments didn’t perform up to expectations, and changes to actuarial assumptions by the SDCERS board, that figure was expected to rise by around $36 million for the next fiscal year, to nearly $228 million.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jan/10/city-of-san-diego-projects-10m-budget-shortfall/
[/quote]

yet not too long ago…

[quote]
Financial Outlook Shows San Diego’s Revenue Will Grow
NOVEMBER 18, 2015

The anticipated surpluses begin at $200,000 for the next fiscal year, and grow in subsequent years to $7.9 million, $25.1 million, $46.4 million, and $73.7 million.

The surplus predictions include a baseline — reflecting projected revenues along with the cost of maintaining current service levels — plus what the authors call “priority initiatives,” which include infrastructure projects and public safety.

The projections don’t include factors that occasionally pop up, like increases in contributions to the employee pension system.

Financial Outlook Shows San Diego’s Revenue Will Grow

[/quote]

perhaps its not yet time for a financial post-mortem, but why did TPTB deliberately exclude a three decade SOP in the financial projections?

[quote]
‘13th check’ bonus for retired city employees hits record
December 2, 2016

The holiday season bonus for retired city workers is back — beating out last year’s total and setting a new record for the “13th check” program.

The payments, which go beyond San Diego retirees’ usual 12 monthly payments, were distributed earlier this week and cost the pension fund more than $6.4 million.

That’s a 4 percent increase from 2015, making it the largest payout in the history of the three-decade-old practice.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/data-watch/sd-me-sdcers-13thcheck-20161202-story.html
[/quote]

You can fool all the people some of the time,
and some of the people all the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

in other “local” news… credible news sources report

[quote]
Apple sues Qualcomm for $1 billion
January 20, 2017

Apple Inc. is suing Qualcomm Inc., alleging the smartphone-chip supplier demanded onerous terms for its technology and that it sought to punish Apple for cooperating in a Korean regulatory probe into Qualcomm’s licensing practices.

The suit, which Apple said it filed Friday in federal district court in the Southern District of California, claims that Qualcomm leveraged its position as a manufacturer of a critical chip used in cellphones to seek “onerous, unreasonable and costly” terms for patents and blocked Apple’s ability to choose another supplier for chipsets.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-sues-qualcomm-for-1-billion-2017-01-20
[/quote]

we live in “interesting times”

[ltsddd]

[quote=phaster]
[quote]
Apple sues Qualcomm for $1 billion
January 20, 2017

Apple Inc. is suing Qualcomm Inc., alleging the smartphone-chip supplier demanded onerous terms for its technology and that it sought to punish Apple for cooperating in a Korean regulatory probe into Qualcomm’s licensing practices.

The suit, which Apple said it filed Friday in federal district court in the Southern District of California, claims that Qualcomm leveraged its position as a manufacturer of a critical chip used in cellphones to seek “onerous, unreasonable and costly” terms for patents and blocked Apple’s ability to choose another supplier for chipsets.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-sues-qualcomm-for-1-billion-2017-01-20
[/quote]

we live in “interesting times”[/quote]

There was this the other day – Qualcomm allegedly paid Apple billions of dollars in rebates to use its chips.

The bigger the companies the bigger the lies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ftc-says-qualcomm-entered-into-anticompetitive-deal-with-apple-2017-1

[mixxalot]

Wish I had bought more shares of AAPL when it was 89/share. I would be rich! Oh well at least made some cash.

[Author]

Posts