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

[CA renter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=no_such_reality]CAR, mismanagement in an administrative sense, not a they don’t get it done sense.

By more right, I meant, if you’re right and I’m wrong on the hours, than that outliers is 4652 hours verus lower (i.e $25/hr versus $30something/hr, IOW, more hours to make that money. If the rate is as you point out ~$25/hr.

If you’re right, a Fire Fighter II at max makes $21/hr. (that concerns me, far too low). If you’re right, then 30% of Fire Figher IIs are working nearly or more than 4000 hours a year. That’s more than $90K with the $63K being for 2904 hours plus 1.5X one everything else. The outliers are working 4900 and 5200 hours. 5200 hours is two and half full time jobs (obviously some other multiplier is kicking and it’s not 5200 hours)

That is a management problem. A manager and organization cannot run 1/3rd of the team for 4000 hours a year, let alone year after year.

I see lower income people struggling with two or three part time jobs or two full time jobs or a job and a half. They’re stressed, they’re fatigued.

It’s a leadership problem.[/quote]

nsr,

I’m quite sure it’s for the 2904 hours, but will try to confirm it. Yes, that’s why I said that my numbers were the most *conservative* WRT hours worked. If we use a lower pay rate on that scale, then they are actually working more hours.

See, this is why some of us have been trying to explain — over and over again, to people who refuse to listen to anything that disproves their dogmatic beliefs — that the number of hours worked to make this money is tremendous. You have no idea what kind of a toll this takes on the employees and their families. It’s still cheaper for the cities to use O/T employees rather than hiring additional workers because of the recruitment, training, administration, equipment costs, benefits and pension costs, etc. Because I already know where a lot of people will go next…no, they cannot use new (lower-paid/without benefits) trainees or cadets because many of these positions are senior postions which require engineers and captains.

Yes, that’s what they make per hour; and yes, that’s why some of us get so pissed off when people claim that they are “overpaid.” Yes the benefits are worth a lot, which is why I said (and others here have said) that without these benefits, the turnover would be much higher, the quality of the personnel would be much lower, and the willingness/ability to do an exceptionally good job (which most of them do) would be greatly diminished.[/quote]

Found a letter from the SD Firefighters’ Union to the mayor and city council. It addresses many of the points made above WRT misleading information about firefighters and their pay.

http://www.sdfire.org/items/090212_Letter%20To%20Council_DeMaio.pdf

Also found a salary table that gives their hourly rates. Not sure what the “Step 112” is, but am guessing that it has something to do with the additional hours worked (not O/T, but the “7K” hours)???? FWIW, I would agree that getting a hard number is more difficult than it should be in this case. This is not the case with all departments, but is more likely with larger departments and ones that have “step” increases, and more varied positions (see page 44).

http://www.sandiego.gov/empopp/pdf/saltable.pdf

For reference, re-linking your original link from the State Controller’s Office:

http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx?entity=City&id=11983777600&year=2010&GetCsu=False&filter=Department:Fire

Based on this, it DOES look like the State Controller’s numbers only account for 2,080 hours/year (multiplying the hourly rates by 2,080 gives the same min/max numbers on the SC’s site). I’m sure they must have a reason for doing this, but I have no idea what it would be. If you look at the City of SD’s salary table (the best source for finding this information), the hourly rate looks to be about right, though; nobody is trying to hide or obscure anything. When you multiply the hourly rate by 2,080 (hours per year), you get the numbers shown on the State Controller’s site. FWIW, the firefighters I know — from various departments and in various positions — are paid quite a bit less per hour than what’s shown on the SDFD table, though that might be offset somewhat by better benefits (maybe, but I don’t know).

In this case, it would appear that the FF’s base salary would be the hourly rate X 2912 (base hours, per their letter). This would be their base salary, from what I can tell.

FWIW, I’m not familiar enough with SDFD to know about the various pay rates and positions, or why it’s laid out the way it is…

Just going through the hourly rates for all these different positions, and it looks to me like firefighters’ pay is very much in line with everyone else’s. One has to wonder why they are so often singled-out for being “overcompensated” after looking at those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Car,

This “quote the entire post” rant of yours is ridiculous. There are dozens of conversations on this forum where many of the most credible members cut and paste selected quotes for the purpose of brevity and emphasis. In any case, the entire content is always available by scrolling up. There is simply no basis for your moral outrage here.

For example:

[quote=CA renter]The SS fund is worse shape than most public pension plans. Public sector workers will end up having to pay to “prop up” SS as well, even though they do not receive SS benefits.[/quote]

The above is a portion of one of your posts. There is additional text in the complete post, but the omitted text does not qualify or change the meaning of your claim quoted here. Anybody can scroll up a few posts to see the entire text.

As for the claim itself, you provide no supporting evidence, therefore it can assumed to be incorrect (and it is very incorrect.)

As far as me having to prove that your statement is not true, that position is based upon a logical fallacy: the negative-proof-fallacy or “proving the negative.” You made the “SS is is worse” claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Since you frequently boast about your logic skills, you might want to avoid embarrassment by avoiding such amateur mistakes in the future:

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/negative-proof-fallacy/

(Note the above is a link, one of probably hundreds I’ve posted on this site. The fact that there is a link is relevant to my next point.)

Now here’s another:

[quote=CA Renter]Why don’t you actually PROVE what you have to say by “cutting and pasting” and posting links.[/quote]
[Cut from longer post. Full quote available above on this page. Happy now?]

Once again you claim that I never provide links or facts. That’s curious, because you often respond to my links and facts (you often ignore them as well for some reason…)

For example, In your “Fantastic article” thread I posted a link from the reputable, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. This link listed top donations from political organizations. I cited the top portion from the list in my post.

In your response to my post, you commented on my link and the cited list.

And yet, once again, you claim that I don’t “back it up” and that I don’t “post links.”

So here’s a summary of a typical interaction with you: I post a link and cite facts, you comment on the citation (offering irrefutable proof that you read the link), and then shortly thereafter you claim that I don’t post links and facts.

There’s only two possible explanations for this behavior: mental illness or blatant dishonesty.

I believe it’s dishonesty, but I’ll concede it could be the other reason.

[CA renter]

Pri,

The post and citation that you’re referring to (and one of only a handful, if that) were addressed in that thread. The links you post are often totally unrelated to the topic being discussed. More often than not, they are silly posts about “useful idiots” (what’s funny is that you miss the irony in that one), or unrelated posts about logic, etc. On more than a few occasions, I see a link in one of your posts and get all excited, thinking that you’ve finally come around and are willing and able to engage in an honest debate by citing studies, etc. related to the topic under discussion…only to see that you’re still resorting to your childish tactics of name-calling, bullying, and distraction. You always have to bring it down to the level of a third-grader (if that), and it ruins so much of what makes this site such a great place to learn and share ideas with other intelligent people who often disagree with one another, but are able to do so in an informed, respectful way.

It’s one thing to post a portion of someone’s post for the sake of brevity, but that’s not what you do. You leave out entire portions of my posts that are very much related to few words/phrases you quote in an attempt to intentionally mislead readers about the context of my posts.

I have absolutely no doubt that my skills WRT logic and debate are far superior to yours. There are plenty of threads here that prove it. The fact that I disagree with some of your beliefs does not make me “wrong” in any way.

I told you to substantiate YOUR claim that SS is in better shape than most pension funds. YOU need to prove what you are saying. As a matter of fact, you specifically referenced my “googling and cuting and pasting” and said that I should not bother doing so (apparently, you don’t want to be proven wrong…again). If YOU make a claim, then YOU need to back it up. You have a tendency to think that your proclamations must be accepted as fact, even when others post studies, articles, and statistics which clearly refute what you’re saying.

Who’s the one with the mental illness?

——————-

Again…you’ve called me a liar. That’s a mighty bold thing to say about me, and something that anyone who knows me would know to be entirely untrue. It’s yet another one of your idiotic and false “proclamations” that you think people should accept as true/factual. Now, post the ENTIRE post that would back up your claim. Show me a single post that would make you right, Pri. Prove, once and for all, that I am a liar. You started it, now finish it. I’m giving you a chance right now to save face.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]The SS fund is worse shape than most public pension plans. Public sector workers will end up having to pay to “prop up” SS as well, even though they do not receive SS benefits.[/quote]

Completely unsubstantiated.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]The SS fund is worse shape than most public pension plans. Public sector workers will end up having to pay to “prop up” SS as well, even though they do not receive SS benefits.[/quote]

Completely unsubstantiated.[/quote]

“According to the US Census Bureau, there were approximately 117.2 million households in the United States in 2009 (US Census Bureau, Table AVG1). The NPV of Social Security’s unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $5.3 trillion, or approximately $45,000 per household (2009 Social Security Trustees Report, p. 61). The NPV of the unfunded liability over the infinite time horizon is $15.1 trillion, or approximately $129,000 per household (id. at 62).

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0197.htm
………………..

“The unfunded liability for the major
pension plans sponsored by the fifty U.S. state governments is approximately
$3 trillion using Treasury discount rates, contrary to government accounting,
which would point to unfunded liabilities of only $1 trillion.”

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rauh/research/nmrlocal20101011.pdf

………………

If taxpayers are to bail out either system (both are government-backed retirement benefits), the burden on a per-capita basis is clearly higher for Social Security than for public pension plans, even if you use the higher amount (Treasury discount rates) for the unfunded liabilities of public pension plans.
…………….

Dean Baker did some research into the pension “crisis” (tables with unfunded liabilities included). It’s important to note why these “unfunded liabilities” exist in the first place. I would add to his list: “pension holidays,” when public employers paid NOTHING toward their employees’ pensions.

“The shortfalls facing most state and local pension funds have been seriously misrepresented in
public debates. The major cause of these shortfalls has not been inadequate contributions by state
governments, but rather the plunge in the stock market following the collapse of the housing
bubble. Given the low PE ratios in the stock market, pension fund assumptions on the future rate of
return on their assets are consistent with most projections of economic growth and past experience.
Furthermore, when expressed relative to the size of their economies, most states are facing shortfalls
that appear easily manageable.”

…………

“While state and local government pensions should be funded at levels that allow them to weather
the impact of cyclical downturns, it is important to recognize that the current downturn is by far the
longest and deepest of the post-war period. The managers of these funds obviously failed to
recognize the housing bubble and the dangers it posed to the economy, but this was true of the vast
majority of economic and business analysts at the time. Certainly state and local pension funds were
not well served by the professional managers who advised them. It might be reasonable to ask why
financial experts, who were often highly compensated for their services, failed to see such an
obvious threat to the economy and the stock market as the collapse of a housing bubble.2 However,
this is an issue of the failings of the financial industry, not the failings of state and local
governments, except insofar as they exercised poor judgment in buying the industry’s services.”

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/pensions-2011-02.pdf

[briansd1]

CA renter, even if your arguments were correct, I think that your point of view is shaped by your personal “ownership” of the issue, and by your anger at bankers.

We have a budget problem at the state and local levels. And we need to solve them based on the resources available, and by remaining faithful to the principal role of government to provide services to citizens.

Your argument of “let’s confiscate the money stolen by bankers”, “let’s cut social security too” is like a petty thief saying “arrest the big criminals first”.

I used to complain to my parents “why are you punishing me for this” when my big brother “got away with that.” They would answer that my situation is different from his and that there’s no moral equivalence.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]CA renter, even if your arguments were correct, I think that your point of view is shaped by your personal “ownership” of the issue, and by your anger at bankers.

We have a budget problem at the state and local levels. And we need to solve them based on the resources available, and by remaining faithful to the principal role of government to provide services to citizens.

Your argument of “let’s confiscate the money stolen by bankers”, “let’s cut social security too” is like a petty thief saying “arrest the big criminals first”.

I used to complain to my parents “why are you punishing me for this” when my big brother “got away with that.” They would answer that my situation is different from his and that there’s no moral equivalence.[/quote]

No, it honestly doesn’t have anything to do with my “ownership” of anything, and I resent the fact that people are trying to imply this. I’m looking at the facts, and what happened is that taxpayers and public employees are being forced to take the hits so that the people who caused our financial crisis don’t have to. That is WRONG, plain and simple.

Public employees, as a whole, did NOT do anything wrong, unethical, or illegal. Stop trying to suggest that they did.

And where did I say that we should cut Social Security? Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]The NPV of Social Security’s unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $5.3 trillion[/quote]

[quote]The unfunded liability for the major pension plans sponsored by the fifty U.S. state governments is approximately [we’ll give you the benefit of using the lower number of “only”] $1 trillion.

[note this data only mentions “state governments” and seems to leave out municipal pensions][/quote]

Thanks for the data, now let’s apply some simple arithmetic and common sense.

Most importantly, you ignore the fact that only about 10% of the population works in the public sector. There is a ten to one difference in the size of the groups associated with these shortfalls.

Social Security:
3.5 trillion dollars divided by 157 million people paying into social security is about $22K shortfall per participant.

Public Pensions:
1 trillion dollars divided by 25 million public employees in the US is about $40K shortfall per participant.

(This 25 million figure also counts Federal employees. If we only counted state and municipal employees, where the problems are bigger, the distinction would be even more pronounced.)

So once again: Which one is WORSE?

[quote]If taxpayers are to bail out either system (both are government-backed retirement benefits), the burden on a per-capita basis is clearly higher for Social Security than for public pension plans, even if you use the higher amount (Treasury discount rates) for the unfunded liabilities of public pension plans.[/quote]

(Once again, your use of “per capita” counts the numbers of only who might pay, not who will receive.)

Thanks for highlighting another important distinction: General tax revenues are only going to bail out ONE system.

Some FACTS that I already posted up-thread:

There have never been any substantial proposal by a policymaker on either side of the political spectrum suggesting the use of general taxpayer funds to bail out Social Security. Social Security will be “fixed” by Social Security participants using only Social Security taxes.

EVERY proposal put on the table for fixing SS has called for increasing contributions, increasing eligibility age, or decreasing payments. All of these solutions will be applied consistently to all participants, public AND private sector.. Social Security participants – the people who PAY IN – will bear 100% of the burden of the SS shortfall.

Nobody has a plan for pensions:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_10_1294170707 (look for headline “State Costs for Retirement Programs Have Increased Substantially”)

Like Social Security, Public pension participants should also bear the entire cost of their own shortfall. Public employees and their unions are doing everything they can to make sure the other 90% of the population pay instead.

The difference is glaring, but I’m sure you still won’t see it:

Social Security’s problems do not impact non-participants (public employees) at all, while public-pensions – which have proportionally far bigger problems – impact everyone.

If the unions get their way, everyone is going to pitch in and bail out the pensions that belong to only 10% of the workforce. All will pay, few will benefit.

There is a demographic issue with Social Security (young supporting the old) but there is NO distinction between the public and private sectors with regard to who comes out ahead.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
And where did I say that we should cut Social Security? Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.[/quote]

You implied that there’s a moral equivalence between Social Security’s liabilities and state and local government pension liabilities.

Different level of government, different resources, not the same.

If there’s any equivalence, I believe that a municipality’s pension liabilities can be more closely compared to a big corporation’s pension liabilities, perhaps an auto maker or an airline.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]The NPV of Social Security’s unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $5.3 trillion[/quote]

75 years? That’s going pretty far out.

I don’t really follow the issue closely, but I believe that Social Security has a surplus now, but the local pensions are currently in deficit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/21/state/n113919S52.DTL

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]The NPV of Social Security’s unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $5.3 trillion[/quote]

75 years? That’s going pretty far out.[/quote]

Yup, she’s counting people who haven’t even been born yet in her Social Security numbers.

The pension shortfalls are on the balance sheet today.

There are multiple problems with CAR’s data. And even though all these problems bias toward her position, her own data can easily be used to prove her “SS is worse that pensions” claim to be completely unfounded.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]The NPV of Social Security’s unfunded liability over the next 75 years is $5.3 trillion[/quote]

[quote]The unfunded liability for the major pension plans sponsored by the fifty U.S. state governments is approximately [we’ll give you the benefit of using the lower number of “only”] $1 trillion.

[note this data only mentions “state governments” and seems to leave out municipal pensions][/quote]

Thanks for the data, now let’s apply some simple arithmetic and common sense.

Most importantly, you ignore the fact that only about 10% of the population works in the public sector. There is a ten to one difference in the size of the groups associated with these shortfalls.

Social Security:
3.5 trillion dollars divided by 157 million people paying into social security is about $22K shortfall per participant.

Public Pensions:
1 trillion dollars divided by 25 million public employees in the US is about $40K shortfall per participant.

(This 25 million figure also counts Federal employees. If we only counted state and municipal employees, where the problems are bigger, the distinction would be even more pronounced.)

So once again: Which one is WORSE?

[quote]If taxpayers are to bail out either system (both are government-backed retirement benefits), the burden on a per-capita basis is clearly higher for Social Security than for public pension plans, even if you use the higher amount (Treasury discount rates) for the unfunded liabilities of public pension plans.[/quote]

(Once again, your use of “per capita” counts the numbers of only who might pay, not who will receive.)

Thanks for highlighting another important distinction: General tax revenues are only going to bail out ONE system.

Some FACTS that I already posted up-thread:

There have never been any substantial proposal by a policymaker on either side of the political spectrum suggesting the use of general taxpayer funds to bail out Social Security. Social Security will be “fixed” by Social Security participants using only Social Security taxes.

EVERY proposal put on the table for fixing SS has called for increasing contributions, increasing eligibility age, or decreasing payments. All of these solutions will be applied consistently to all participants, public AND private sector.. Social Security participants – the people who PAY IN – will bear 100% of the burden of the SS shortfall.

Nobody has a plan for pensions:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_10_1294170707 (look for headline “State Costs for Retirement Programs Have Increased Substantially”)

Like Social Security, Public pension participants should also bear the entire cost of their own shortfall. Public employees and their unions are doing everything they can to make sure the other 90% of the population pay instead.

The difference is glaring, but I’m sure you still won’t see it:

Social Security’s problems do not impact non-participants (public employees) at all, while public-pensions – which have proportionally far bigger problems – impact everyone.

If the unions get their way, everyone is going to pitch in and bail out the pensions that belong to only 10% of the workforce. All will pay, few will benefit.

There is a demographic issue with Social Security (young supporting the old) but there is NO distinction between the public and private sectors with regard to who comes out ahead.[/quote]

No, my claims are not at all unfounded; and no, the beneficiaries/cost per beneficiary is NOT what counts here. We keep hearing about how “taxpayers” (as if public employees aren’t paying the very same taxes as everyone else) don’t want to pay for the retirement shortfalls of “the other group.” What counts is how much, per capita, taxpayers will have to pay to bail out the retirement system of the “other” group.

Remember, public employees who have DB pension plans DO NOT pay into, nor receive benefits from, the Social Security program, but they DO pay the same, local, state, and federal taxes as everyone else. If general funds are used to shore up Social Security (and I have no doubt that they will when push comes to shove), public employees will have to pay for the unfunded liabilities of the SS program.

More (from 2001):

“But as the Social Security Trustees projected in their most recent Annual Report, these current cash surpluses will turn to deficits in 2016. While small at first, these deficits “will eventually grow very large: $194 billion in 2025, $271 billion in 2030, and $318 billion in 2035 (in 2001 dollars).” In today’s dollars, the system’s cumulative deficits total more than $22 trillion through 2075. In present value terms, the system’s unfunded liability stands at $12 trillion.

Technically, admits the Commission report, “the program could redeem government bonds in its Trust Fund to pay full benefits until 2038.” But the existence of these bonds does not solve the problem. Indeed, says the report, once Social Security begins redeeming those bonds in order to cover its liabilities, “the nation will face the same difficult choices as if there had been no Trust Fund at all.” In other words, the only way to meet these shortfalls is to raise taxes (either payroll or income), borrow from the public, or cut other government spending. [Will this affect ONLY SS beneficiaries? -CAR]

To be sure, most Americans – and, unfortunately, most members of Congress – believe that the Social Security trust fund contains real assets that can be drawn upon to pay future benefits. But the Social Security “trust fund” is like the federal highway trust fund and some 110 other federal funds, merely an accounting device and not an actual financial entity. The Clinton administration’s FY 2000 budget put the issue very clearly:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. … They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Do you think this is only limited to SS beneficiaries? -CAR] The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337).

The ramifications of failing to address the system’s liabilities soon are significant says the Commission. For example, to close the funding gap by 2040 would either mean a payroll tax hike of 37 percent, a benefit cut of at least 26 percent, or $7 trillion in new public debt. [Which I’m assuming ALL taxpayers will be responsible for paying if we “go into debt” to shore up SS, not just SS beneficiaries. -CAR]”

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/174.html
————————

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.

Additionally, which public pension plans have a current shortfall — in other words, cannot afford to pay today’s benefits with today’s contributions and/or funds available in their pension funds? From everything I’ve heard, the pension funds are capable of funding retiree benefits for many years to come, just like Social Security.

BTW, what did you mean when you wrote this:

“Thanks for highlighting another important distinction: General tax revenues are only going to bail out ONE system.”

[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.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, have any of your taxes gone up in order to fund public employees’ retirement plans? [/quote]

Services, particularly to schools and the poor are being massively cut. (You know this, I don’t have to provide links.)

State parks are being closed.

One of the largest cities in CA is effectively bankrupt:

Mayor Chuck Reed suggested last month to deal with rising pension costs […]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=8211572

Jerry Brown is pushing hard for higher taxes:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/local/la-me-brown-taxes-20111206

And once again you ignored my link that spells it out clearly:

From the CA State Government:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfa… (look for headline State Costs for Retirement Programs Have Increased Substantially)

Note that none of the sources above are Fox news.

There is no basis for your claims that pensions are not hurting the California economy.

And quit trying to equate pensions to Social Security. Social Security benefits 95% of the population. Public pensions only benefit a small minority – a minority represented by the most powerful political lobbies in the country.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Remember, public employees who have DB pension plans DO NOT pay into, nor receive benefits from, the Social Security program, but they DO pay the same, local, state, and federal taxes as everyone else. If general funds are used to shore up Social Security (and I have no doubt that they will when push comes to shove), public employees will have to pay for the unfunded liabilities of the SS program.[/quote]

Right, public employees do not pay into SS. And they will not pay a dime to fix it.

General funds are NOT going to used to shore up SS.

No one has ever proposed using general funds to fix SS. It is politically (and mathematically) impossible.

There are already feasible plans to fix Social Security and they do not involve taking a dime from public-sector employees.

The most established deficit reduction plans, Bowels-Simpson and Obama’s bipartisan debt commission, call for what I wrote in the previous post: increasing contributions, increasing eligibility age, or decreasing payments.

Social Security participants – the people who pay in (NOT public-sector employees) – will bear 100% of the burden of the SS shortfall.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fiscal_commission_final_report/index.htm

Social Security solvency

The report aims to make Social Security solvent over 75 years.

[Reduced benefits, increased retirement age, increased payroll taxes (does NOT apply to public-employees)]

Once again:

Every proposal to fix Social Security does not take a dime from public-sector employees who are not participating in Social Security.

In contrast, general tax funds are being used to cover public-pension shortfalls TODAY.

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

Your comparisons between Social Security and public pensions are 100% wrong. Quit making stuff up.

[Author]

Posts