OT-Contest to guess the occupant of beautiful new building in RSF

[sdrealtor]

I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA Renter]
BTW, have any of your taxes gone up in order to fund public employees’ retirement plans? I haven’t seen any increases in our household. What HAS happened is that public employers have been shifting more and more of the contribution burden onto the public employees, not taxpayers. This is reality, as opposed to the “all public employees are parasites” world, as seen on Fox News. [/quote]

Frankly, I think most of the State Employee Unions are stupid about this issue.

They should throw the 3 Safety groups: Police, Fire and Prison Guards under the school bus. the Prison Guard contract continues with the State paying the EMPLOYEE share. It’s buried in a different of the contract. In the pension part, it proudly calls out the Employee portion, then buried in another part, it shifts that portion responsibility to the State.

Those three though have the offensive features such as retirement at 50… it’s been rolled back for new employees, but the bulk of the rank and file are still covered by 3% at 50 or 55. Plus other ugly things like “presumptive” disability.

PD, is a wonderful little thing. If you develop a heart condition at many Fire Departments, Police Departments, it is assumed the job cuased it and the City has to prove the job did not in order not to pay the disability.

Did we mention air time? At least they have to buy air time.

Most Government workers pensions, excluding health benefits, are fairly resonable and can readily be converted to defined contribution plans.

BTW, do we know how the biggest lobbyist is in California last year? California Teachers…

As for taxes going up, yes. It’s a chronic battle of “temporary” tax increases. Browns first budget included them and their extension to 5 years went down in massive defeat.

How many props to increase taxes are trying to make the election? 4?

Plus the millionaire surtax. Er, wait, it’s not a surtax, that would be illegal so it has a different name.[/quote]

Have you checked the research dealing with the costs and legality of switching them to defined contribution plans? There is quite a bit of evidence out there that shows this would not save money and is not legal, especially for the vested portions of the retirement benefits.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.[/quote]

I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.[/quote][my emphasis]

The highlighted sentence is completely false and refuted by the links in my post above. Some public employees have seen modest cuts (mostly new and recent hires.) The taxpayer and public services have taken the majority of the “hits.”

From my post above (curious how you missed this):

[quote=pri_dk]Last year, over a billion dollars in general fund-revenues went to CalSTRS to cover shortfalls, and the fund is expected to be completely insolvent in about 30 years.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=7974361
[/quote]

Also see this thread for more examples of public pension shortfalls in San Jose being funded with tax dollars TODAY:

http://piggington.com/ot_california039s_third_largest_city

Interesting how you have nothing to say about these links and the factual data they provide.

Having trouble reconciling your world with reality?

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.[/quote]

I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.[/quote]

You killed your case again with the word fully. You are too prone to hyperbole. Taxpayers are already shoring up pension shortfalls from general funds. Also remind me where the funds to pay the public employees salaries come from?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.[/quote]

I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.[/quote]

This is correct, and as I have posted here before, giving up “subsidized” healthcare and “subsidized” Medicare Part B and D coverage is one way they have doing it since the mid-late 90’s.

Yes, plans are OFFERED to (local) retirees under the age of 65 but they are so cost-prohibitive at COBRA rates, they can easily eat up 75-125% of a non-professional retiree’s monthly pension. So if the retiree is very sick and/or terminal and doesn’t qualify for Medicare, they will have no choice but to sign up for one of them, as they are NOT underwritten. If the retiree is relatively healthy, it doesn’t make sense to pay 75-125% of their mo pension out for a mo healthcare premium when they can obtain an (underwritten) HDHP on the open market for 1/4 the cost. Those who retired before 2002 receive an +/- $300 month healthcare allowance (depending on years of svc) to help pay their retiree healthcare premium but these retirees pension is figured on a formula giving them 1/3 to 1/2 the pension of a more recent retiree (who had MUCH larger payroll deductions). Those who do NOT elect to use the plans offered to them by their respective retirement assns do NOT receive the healthcare allowance.

About 73% of local pensioners retired in “non-professional” classifications (below the mid-management [MM] bargaining unit) . . . that is, the folks who DO THE WORK to keep the svcs running which we all enjoy.

Not familiar with the State formulas (PERS) but there is a LOT of misperception among the general public going on about this tired subject.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I was hoping someone would notice that her argument rested on an assumption that SS was definitely going to be bailed out from a general fund. A complete guess with no basis which invalidated her entire case.[/quote]

I was hoping that someone would notice that Pri’s (and others’) arguments rest on an assumption that taxpayers will be fully responsible for shoring up the public pension shortfalls. So far, it’s the public employees who have been taking the hits to make up for the pension shortfalls.[/quote]

You killed your case again with the word fully. You are too prone to hyperbole. Taxpayers are already shoring up pension shortfalls from general funds. Also remind me where the funds to pay the public employees salaries come from?[/quote]

sdr, which retirement assns are you referring to here? And don’t you have some kind of “advanced degree” that isn’t “basket weaving?” Hopefully, if you still remember what you learned in school, you, too, can apply and possibly become one of these slothful opportunists and better secure your future! But I must warn you that if you take one of these “cushy positions” on the “taxpayer dole,” you will no longer be able to stumble downstairs to work in the morning at whatever hour you choose to and post on online blogs all day. You will instead say “hello” and “good morning/afternoon” to your new “supervisor” (whom you may or may not regard as “intelligent” as yourself).

GO for it!!!

[Anonymous]

[quote=bearishgurl]sdr, which retirement assns are you referring to here?[/quote]

Is blindness one of the qualifications for public employees?

There are multiple links on this very page that answer the question (and prove both you and CAR wrong.)

[quote]you, too, can apply and possibly become one of these slothful opportunists and better secure your future![/quote]

Can you please quit with that theme?

sdr has never described public employees as “slothful opportunists” or anything like that.

Do you have anything constructive to add? Or is this thread going to spiral into one of your bitter rationalizations for everything?

Your perpetual “we are better than everyone else” claim is childish, arrogant, and completely irrelevant to the issue.

Grow up.

[sdrealtor]

These public sector defenders really are so off base its laughable. Like pri said, no one is claiming they are slothful opportunistics. However in most of our opinions they are overcompensated, not subject to free market constraints and most importantly its not sustainable.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=sdrealtor]These public sector defenders really are so off base its laughable. Like pri said, no one is claiming they are slothful opportunistics. However in most of our opinions they are overcompensated, not subject to free market constraints and most importantly its not sustainable.[/quote]

You missed the it’s not legal technicality they keep throwing up.

Much like its not legal for a city to go to bankruptcy without arbitration first do to another union sponsored recent law.

And never mind their own admission that the pensions are sustainable

BG wisecracked about them of being able to collect them anyway earlier in the thread.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk] . . .Do you have anything constructive to add? Or is this thread going to spiral into one of your bitter rationalizations for everything?

Your perpetual “we are better than everyone else” claim is childish, arrogant, and completely irrelevant to the issue.

Grow up.[/quote]

pri_dk, you and sdr are the ones that need to let go of your bitterness and “grow up.”

Why don’t you lobby your congressman or legislator to abolish the entire portion of the CA Government Code (and while you’re at it, the CA Education Code, too) that deals with “collective bargaining.” Maybe you two are collectively “smart enough” to line it out and write in new code, lol!

Look at the initial sentence of this thread here. What does it say?? “Okay time for some fun.” (sans punctuation)

pri_dk, did you ever consider that the entire premise of this thread was to give sdr a platform for attacking public-worker benefits and pensions??

Duh …..

sdr claims he went up there to view the “Miraval tract.” Have we been discussing that here???

NO! The discussion on this thread (entirely led and directed by the OP) devolved from the materials used to build a public building (that the workers using it had no part of choosing) back to . . . where else but public salaries and pensions?

Given this particular OP and main participant(s), should we be surprised??

Since you’re both so presumably “successful” and thus have a lot of time on your hands to “whine” about sh!t none of us has any control over, why don’t you begin writing your representatives right now about your plans to repeal (wholesale) the CA Government and Education Codes?

Break out your pens and word processors . . . drumbeat . . .

I can easily qualify for a “legislative analyst” position and will be happy to proofread your work :=]

[Anonymous]

[quote=bearishgurl]Why don’t you lobby your congressman or legislator[…][/quote]

I do write to my representatives, donate to political causes, and vote.

I also post factual information to internet message boards in order to educate the public (facts you have yet to acknowledge here, btw.)

I am an American citizen and I participate in the political process.

Do you have an issue with that?

[quote]pri_dk, did you ever consider that the entire premise of this thread was to give sdr a platform for attacking public-worker benefits and pensions??[/quote]

I fully understand the purpose was to provide anecdotal evidence of public-sector abuse. I even said so (on page 2):

[quote=pri_dk][quote=UCGal]How this devolved into yet another fight over public sector jobs and compensation is beyond me.[/quote]

It did not “devolve” into that topic. That was the original intent of the thread.[/quote]

Everyone else here is discussing an issue. You are making personal attacks on sdr (as usual.)

[quote]Since you’re both so presumably “successful” […][/quote]

Once again, why must you always make reference to other poster’s personal situations? You do this more than any other poster here.

Note that I have never made any reference your job, your financial status, your age, or anything personal. I really don’t care to know any details about anyone here. I want to discuss the issues.

I only care about, and comment on, the content of one’s arguments (which in your case are often incomprehensible, so I’ll pass on the proofreading offer.)

[sdrealtor]

pri
May I suggest the ignore user button for this particular bitter old bat. Outside of perhaps CAR no one ever agrees with a single thing she says. I could care less what she says about me and no one else seems to care either.

Posts claiming knowledge about areas she visited over a decade ago to buy a used car (implicit in that is she was going to a run down area of town even then) show everyone the force is very weak in that one.

Dont give her a platform for her nonsense.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk] . . . I want to discuss the issues.

I only care about, and comment on, the content of one’s arguments (which in your case are often incomprehensible, so I’ll pass on the proofreading offer.)[/quote]

Have at it, pri_dk. You can even start your own thread on how unconscionable public sector employer/employee contracts are. And while you’re at it, please take notice that the 25%+ of Piggs who are/were “public sector” are not bothering to contribute to these tirades because they are a fruitless waste of time (and most still actually “work” for a living and can’t sit blogging all day, like YOU can).

Or better yet, get to work setting up meetings with your representative(s) or writing them letters!

I’m a “professional” proofreader and my offer still stands :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]pri
May I suggest the ignore user button for this particular bitter old bat….[/quote]

… yet ANOTHER insult??? Lol . . . sdr, since you are still tripping on yourself, why don’t you follow your own advice?

[Author]

Posts