OT: Want a high salary…work for san diego government….

[Anonymous]

CA Renter you hit the nail on the head. The gov’t employees I know are the Parks people who cut the grass and empty the trash cans, the public works guys who sweep streets and unplug your sewers. Cops and Firefighters are guilty of separating themselves from the typical workers of gov’t and wanted more money. Now that times are hard they are still fighting for more while the normal guy who makes 30-40,000 a year (after 25 years of service) for cleaning sludge out of sewers is getting the wrath. The media is controlling your minds. ALL unions are not bad. All public workers are not evil. Look at the real problems and stop blanket blame game.
On another note: why is upper management in public jobs in the workers’ pension plan anyway? Put a cap on the management (they seem to be the ones ripping off the system). Put management employees or anyone who starts making X amount of dollars into a 401 type retirement. Let the pension plans work for those who are workers.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Here is reality as how I see it.

There are many organized groups in the USA who are using the system to fleece the taxpayer. The main ones are : Finance sector, govt. contractors, Unions, welfare folks and illegal immigrants.

Every time you complain about one of them, they will point their fingers at the other groups, claiming that the problems are because of the other groups and they themselves are second incarnation of Christ. This is how the game is played by distracting people!!!

But in reality everyone is just trying to protect their own interests and what they have. That’s fine and understandable! However, a taxpayer like me, who does not belong to any of the above groups, has to protect my interests too!! I don’t have any sympathy for any of the above groups because when was the last time they put my interests before their own?

So telling me that finance/illegal/welfare/business guys are from Mars and unions are from Venus does not really fly with me. It is just a age old game to distract attention.

[quote=CA renter]We’ll have to agree to disagree about unions causing this mess. I stand firmly by my assertion that we would not be in this mess if the financial sector were better regulated, and if Gray Davis’ pension boost never passed.

I’ll also add that we would have a much smaller budget problem (perhaps no budget problem) in California if someone would finally have the cojones to fix the illegal immigration problem. We could probably have gotten along with only 60-70% of the number of current public employees if we didn’t have illegal immigration.[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

Here is reality as how I see it.

There are many organized groups in the USA who are using the system to fleece the taxpayer. The main ones are : Finance sector, govt. contractors, Unions, welfare folks and illegal immigrants.

Every time you complain about one of them, they will point their fingers at the other groups, claiming that the problems are because of the other groups and they themselves are second incarnation of Christ. This is how the game is played by distracting people!!!

But in reality everyone is just trying to protect their own interests and what they have. That’s fine and understandable! However, a taxpayer like me, who does not belong to any of the above groups, has to protect my interests too!! I don’t have any sympathy for any of the above groups because when was the last time they put my interests before their own?

So telling me that finance/illegal/welfare/business guys are from Mars and unions are from Venus does not really fly with me. It is just a age old game to distract attention.

[quote=CA renter]We’ll have to agree to disagree about unions causing this mess. I stand firmly by my assertion that we would not be in this mess if the financial sector were better regulated, and if Gray Davis’ pension boost never passed.

I’ll also add that we would have a much smaller budget problem (perhaps no budget problem) in California if someone would finally have the cojones to fix the illegal immigration problem. We could probably have gotten along with only 60-70% of the number of current public employees if we didn’t have illegal immigration.[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

Here is reality as how I see it.

There are many organized groups in the USA who are using the system to fleece the taxpayer. The main ones are : Finance sector, govt. contractors, Unions, welfare folks and illegal immigrants.

Every time you complain about one of them, they will point their fingers at the other groups, claiming that the problems are because of the other groups and they themselves are second incarnation of Christ. This is how the game is played by distracting people!!!

But in reality everyone is just trying to protect their own interests and what they have. That’s fine and understandable! However, a taxpayer like me, who does not belong to any of the above groups, has to protect my interests too!! I don’t have any sympathy for any of the above groups because when was the last time they put my interests before their own?

So telling me that finance/illegal/welfare/business guys are from Mars and unions are from Venus does not really fly with me. It is just a age old game to distract attention.

[quote=CA renter]We’ll have to agree to disagree about unions causing this mess. I stand firmly by my assertion that we would not be in this mess if the financial sector were better regulated, and if Gray Davis’ pension boost never passed.

I’ll also add that we would have a much smaller budget problem (perhaps no budget problem) in California if someone would finally have the cojones to fix the illegal immigration problem. We could probably have gotten along with only 60-70% of the number of current public employees if we didn’t have illegal immigration.[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

Here is reality as how I see it.

There are many organized groups in the USA who are using the system to fleece the taxpayer. The main ones are : Finance sector, govt. contractors, Unions, welfare folks and illegal immigrants.

Every time you complain about one of them, they will point their fingers at the other groups, claiming that the problems are because of the other groups and they themselves are second incarnation of Christ. This is how the game is played by distracting people!!!

But in reality everyone is just trying to protect their own interests and what they have. That’s fine and understandable! However, a taxpayer like me, who does not belong to any of the above groups, has to protect my interests too!! I don’t have any sympathy for any of the above groups because when was the last time they put my interests before their own?

So telling me that finance/illegal/welfare/business guys are from Mars and unions are from Venus does not really fly with me. It is just a age old game to distract attention.

[quote=CA renter]We’ll have to agree to disagree about unions causing this mess. I stand firmly by my assertion that we would not be in this mess if the financial sector were better regulated, and if Gray Davis’ pension boost never passed.

I’ll also add that we would have a much smaller budget problem (perhaps no budget problem) in California if someone would finally have the cojones to fix the illegal immigration problem. We could probably have gotten along with only 60-70% of the number of current public employees if we didn’t have illegal immigration.[/quote]

[enron_by_the_sea]

Here is reality as how I see it.

There are many organized groups in the USA who are using the system to fleece the taxpayer. The main ones are : Finance sector, govt. contractors, Unions, welfare folks and illegal immigrants.

Every time you complain about one of them, they will point their fingers at the other groups, claiming that the problems are because of the other groups and they themselves are second incarnation of Christ. This is how the game is played by distracting people!!!

But in reality everyone is just trying to protect their own interests and what they have. That’s fine and understandable! However, a taxpayer like me, who does not belong to any of the above groups, has to protect my interests too!! I don’t have any sympathy for any of the above groups because when was the last time they put my interests before their own?

So telling me that finance/illegal/welfare/business guys are from Mars and unions are from Venus does not really fly with me. It is just a age old game to distract attention.

[quote=CA renter]We’ll have to agree to disagree about unions causing this mess. I stand firmly by my assertion that we would not be in this mess if the financial sector were better regulated, and if Gray Davis’ pension boost never passed.

I’ll also add that we would have a much smaller budget problem (perhaps no budget problem) in California if someone would finally have the cojones to fix the illegal immigration problem. We could probably have gotten along with only 60-70% of the number of current public employees if we didn’t have illegal immigration.[/quote]

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[CA renter]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.

[CA renter]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.

[CA renter]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.

[CA renter]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.

[Author]

Posts