OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]
It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.[/quote]

Credit creates bubbles because it creates demand that wasn’t there.

But more demand can create economies of scale and lower prices for everyone. House prices in America are lower (as a proportion of income) to just about anywhere in the world.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.[/quote]

Brian,

There are a few things I would do, but before touching any of the employees’ benefits, I would do everything in my power to prosecute everyone who was responsible for the bubble(s) and its aftermath. I would claw-back all gains made by these crooks, and search all around the world for any off-shore assets, which they would forfeit as restitution to those they damaged.

Unlike you, I do not think we needed to bail out any banks. We DID need to backstop the FDIC, NCUA, SIPC, PBGC, (some others?), and we DID need to enact some sort of WPA-type program to deal with the extreme unemployment, but we could have done a lot of good WRT our infrastructure, healthcare, and energy R&D, IMHO.

The government could have nationalized the banks and provided any credit needed for businesses and other *productive* (not consumption) borrowing needs.

After every penny is wrung from the theives who caused the crisis, I would then negotiate with the unions. Those who caused the damage need to take the first loss. Anything else is not politically or morally acceptable.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.[/quote]

Brian,

There are a few things I would do, but before touching any of the employees’ benefits, I would do everything in my power to prosecute everyone who was responsible for the bubble(s) and its aftermath. I would claw-back all gains made by these crooks, and search all around the world for any off-shore assets, which they would forfeit as restitution to those they damaged.

Unlike you, I do not think we needed to bail out any banks. We DID need to backstop the FDIC, NCUA, SIPC, PBGC, (some others?), and we DID need to enact some sort of WPA-type program to deal with the extreme unemployment, but we could have done a lot of good WRT our infrastructure, healthcare, and energy R&D, IMHO.

The government could have nationalized the banks and provided any credit needed for businesses and other *productive* (not consumption) borrowing needs.

After every penny is wrung from the theives who caused the crisis, I would then negotiate with the unions. Those who caused the damage need to take the first loss. Anything else is not politically or morally acceptable.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.[/quote]

Brian,

There are a few things I would do, but before touching any of the employees’ benefits, I would do everything in my power to prosecute everyone who was responsible for the bubble(s) and its aftermath. I would claw-back all gains made by these crooks, and search all around the world for any off-shore assets, which they would forfeit as restitution to those they damaged.

Unlike you, I do not think we needed to bail out any banks. We DID need to backstop the FDIC, NCUA, SIPC, PBGC, (some others?), and we DID need to enact some sort of WPA-type program to deal with the extreme unemployment, but we could have done a lot of good WRT our infrastructure, healthcare, and energy R&D, IMHO.

The government could have nationalized the banks and provided any credit needed for businesses and other *productive* (not consumption) borrowing needs.

After every penny is wrung from the theives who caused the crisis, I would then negotiate with the unions. Those who caused the damage need to take the first loss. Anything else is not politically or morally acceptable.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.[/quote]

Brian,

There are a few things I would do, but before touching any of the employees’ benefits, I would do everything in my power to prosecute everyone who was responsible for the bubble(s) and its aftermath. I would claw-back all gains made by these crooks, and search all around the world for any off-shore assets, which they would forfeit as restitution to those they damaged.

Unlike you, I do not think we needed to bail out any banks. We DID need to backstop the FDIC, NCUA, SIPC, PBGC, (some others?), and we DID need to enact some sort of WPA-type program to deal with the extreme unemployment, but we could have done a lot of good WRT our infrastructure, healthcare, and energy R&D, IMHO.

The government could have nationalized the banks and provided any credit needed for businesses and other *productive* (not consumption) borrowing needs.

After every penny is wrung from the theives who caused the crisis, I would then negotiate with the unions. Those who caused the damage need to take the first loss. Anything else is not politically or morally acceptable.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic.

Nearly all portfolios were affected by the financial crisis.

As you say, governments spent based on bubble projection, now is the time to spend based on recession projections.

Allan is right. Governments promised too much and can’t pay the benefits.

What do you propose other than raising taxes?

Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut services. Those are really the only solutions.[/quote]

Brian,

There are a few things I would do, but before touching any of the employees’ benefits, I would do everything in my power to prosecute everyone who was responsible for the bubble(s) and its aftermath. I would claw-back all gains made by these crooks, and search all around the world for any off-shore assets, which they would forfeit as restitution to those they damaged.

Unlike you, I do not think we needed to bail out any banks. We DID need to backstop the FDIC, NCUA, SIPC, PBGC, (some others?), and we DID need to enact some sort of WPA-type program to deal with the extreme unemployment, but we could have done a lot of good WRT our infrastructure, healthcare, and energy R&D, IMHO.

The government could have nationalized the banks and provided any credit needed for businesses and other *productive* (not consumption) borrowing needs.

After every penny is wrung from the theives who caused the crisis, I would then negotiate with the unions. Those who caused the damage need to take the first loss. Anything else is not politically or morally acceptable.

[CA renter]

FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.

[CA renter]

FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.

[CA renter]

FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.

[CA renter]

FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.

[CA renter]

FWIW, here’s what I proposed, on another thread [some editing, to make it more clear], to fix our budget problems (note that I did not exclude public employees from some of the sacrifices). What bothers me about the debate regarding public service employees is the vitriol that is being spewed by people who are being misguided (by the elite who control the MSM) about the cause of our financial problems. Again, the unions are NOT the cause of our financial crisis; that cannot be stated emphatically enough.
————-

My suggestions for fixing California’s budget crisis,
Submitted by CA renter on February 4, 2011 – 3:13am.

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump sum payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K, basically something tied to the number of years they’ve already put in under the 3% formula (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by ~10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will probably eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

What would be interesting is to see how “cheap” that illegal labor is after all the costs have been added in — these costs have been subsidized by the taxpayers. Who knows? Maybe employers would suddenly find out that Americans are “willing to do THAT work, after all” when employers are forced to pay the REAL costs of that labor.

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.[/quote]

One way I believe they are going to “cover” some of the losses is by shifting larger portions of the contributions onto the employees. I believe there will come a time when they tell the employees that they will either need to contribute up to 25-35% of their salary, OR they will be able to roll their pension into a defined-contribution type of plan, if they don’t like the higher contribution requirements. Essentially, I’m anticipating a ~25-35% pay cut, both before and after retirement, for many public safety employees.

Again, the taxpayers will not be the ones suffering if this is done, and I haven’t seen any legal reason that would prevent them from shifting the contribution burdens. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.[/quote]

One way I believe they are going to “cover” some of the losses is by shifting larger portions of the contributions onto the employees. I believe there will come a time when they tell the employees that they will either need to contribute up to 25-35% of their salary, OR they will be able to roll their pension into a defined-contribution type of plan, if they don’t like the higher contribution requirements. Essentially, I’m anticipating a ~25-35% pay cut, both before and after retirement, for many public safety employees.

Again, the taxpayers will not be the ones suffering if this is done, and I haven’t seen any legal reason that would prevent them from shifting the contribution burdens. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.[/quote]

One way I believe they are going to “cover” some of the losses is by shifting larger portions of the contributions onto the employees. I believe there will come a time when they tell the employees that they will either need to contribute up to 25-35% of their salary, OR they will be able to roll their pension into a defined-contribution type of plan, if they don’t like the higher contribution requirements. Essentially, I’m anticipating a ~25-35% pay cut, both before and after retirement, for many public safety employees.

Again, the taxpayers will not be the ones suffering if this is done, and I haven’t seen any legal reason that would prevent them from shifting the contribution burdens. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.[/quote]

One way I believe they are going to “cover” some of the losses is by shifting larger portions of the contributions onto the employees. I believe there will come a time when they tell the employees that they will either need to contribute up to 25-35% of their salary, OR they will be able to roll their pension into a defined-contribution type of plan, if they don’t like the higher contribution requirements. Essentially, I’m anticipating a ~25-35% pay cut, both before and after retirement, for many public safety employees.

Again, the taxpayers will not be the ones suffering if this is done, and I haven’t seen any legal reason that would prevent them from shifting the contribution burdens. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[Author]

Posts