- This topic has 77 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
enron_by_the_sea.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 16, 2012 at 12:21 AM #743877May 16, 2012 at 12:34 AM #743878
CA renter
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Could not agree more Paramount. The ONLY way to get leverage and renegotiate with ALL CREDITORS including organized labor (public and private) is through bankruptcy.
This is what the city of San Diego should have done and it is definitely what California should do.
This problem is not going to go away.
Guess what, if the state raises 16B in revenue then it will spend 32B shortly after.[/quote]
When you say “all creditors,” you’re referring to bondholders, too, right? After all, if labor is supposed to take a haircut, then capital should take a haircut as well.
May 16, 2012 at 12:45 AM #743879Participant[quote=sdsurfer][quote=profhoff]I’m a registered Democrat, but I’m disgusted. These increases aren’t going to solve the problem. Maybe it’s time to start cutting wasteful spending and chop some of the social services benefits, welfare, prison spending, union payoffs, etc. Oh, wait, I’m preaching to the choir.
I know the polls suggest majority support for this tax initiative, but I really wonder if people will actually vote for it when the time comes.
Blog sentiment is telling. Most posts say “Enough already. Just cut!”[/quote]
I just read through this topic and I’m disgusted too. I not a big political guy, but it seems that the whole idea of saving in order to have money to spend when you need it is gone. People just want to spend spend spend…then figure out where to get more money to spend.
I learned everything about money from my grandfather that said to spend at least one dollar less than you make in a given month. Try to save more whenever possible, but make sure you never spend more than you earned that month.
It’s just about living within your means, but it seems most people/govnts do not understand that.
I feel like the polls are never right because they word those things in a way that they answer the questions for you. Then they come out and say “Yes, 99% of voters agree that children deserve the opportunity to learn”, but then they leave out the part that those same people do not want to increase their taxes to foot the bill for whatever the someone that put the poll together deems “necessary” in order for a child to learn.
Is’nt there any sort of business minded person that can somehow create some revenue in this great state without taxing the people to the point they want to leave?
I mean seriously…raise taxes? is that the best you can do to solve the spending problem? How long did it take to come up with that one. Is that why we hired you for this job Jerry? To find the most obvious way in the world to raise money. Sorry bud…you fail. Go back to business school and learn something new before you present any more grand ideas.[/quote]
The reason govt entities aren’t able to save during the good times is because there is ALWAYS somebody who wants to take whatever savings might exist. From private contractors to unions to developers and other special interests…to those who think the govt is “over-taxing” if there are any surpluses…if there is any money “left over,” it won’t exist for very long.
That is the conundrum politicians/govt leaders face on a daily basis. Many of them desperately want to save for a rainy day, but they are totally unable to do so because of all the special interests lined up at the trough. Oftentimes, their jobs are at stake if they don’t do what the special interest groups want them to do.
This also explains why it will not save money if governments outsource or “privatize” services. They’ve been moving more and more toward privatization over the past few decades, but have your taxes gone down as a result? As a matter of fact, the majority of fraud and taxpayer abuse occurs when there are “public-private” partnerships or contracts.
May 16, 2012 at 1:16 AM #743880ParticipantReposting what I’ve already suggested on another thread regarding possible solutions to our budget crisis:
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.
May 16, 2012 at 5:52 AM #743881
CoronitaParticipant[quote=Ricechex][quote=meadandale][quote=flu][quote=Hobie]Note to self, pre retirement, buy out of state RE attractive to California tastes. Honey, pass the brochure on Reno land. ;)[/quote]
Oregon isn’t bad you know. If you don’t mind the rain.[/quote]
Oregon isn’t bad…except for the Oregonians. I know too many people from Portland who are exactly like this:
http://youtu.be/l2LBICPEK6w%5B/quote%5D
That video was hilarious. Thanks for posting. Never been to Oregon, but planning to go to Portland over Labor Day Weekend.[/quote]
Portland is a fabulous area…I have a friend that lives in the burbs when RE was cheap. It’s come a long way…
May 16, 2012 at 6:55 AM #743884Anonymous
Guest[quote=CA renter][…] 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[/quote]
Yes, it’s only fair. We wouldn’t want the 55-year old paramedic to have to cancel the luxury cruise he scheduled or sell his vacation home…just because thousands are unemployed.
May 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM #743890SD Realtor
Participant“When you say “all creditors,” you’re referring to bondholders, too, right? After all, if labor is supposed to take a haircut, then capital should take a haircut as well.”
Of course!
As you know, there is generally a priority to any and all parties. So when there is a default and a liquidation occurs the established priority of ALL creditors shall be followed and the obligations shall be dealt with in that priority.
Unless of course, you want to change the laws to accommodate your argument. Sorry this is not Venezuela.
May 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM #743891CoronitaParticipant[quote=SD Realtor]”When you say “all creditors,” you’re referring to bondholders, too, right? After all, if labor is supposed to take a haircut, then capital should take a haircut as well.”
Of course!
As you know, there is generally a priority to any and all parties. So when there is a default and a liquidation occurs the established priority of ALL creditors shall be followed and the obligations shall be dealt with in that priority.
Unless of course, you want to change the laws to accommodate your argument. Sorry this is not Venezuela.[/quote]
you sure?
May 16, 2012 at 8:43 AM #743894Participant+1 flu.
May 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM #743900GuestI think we should ignore the laws and just stick it to the bondholders.
We’re already shafting the schools, why not also shaft the little old ladies who live off their “safe,” government-backed, fixed-income investments?
May 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM #743902CoronitaParticipant[quote=harvey]I think we should ignore the laws and just stick it to the bondholders.
We’re already shafting the schools, why not also shaft the little old ladies who live off their “safe,” government-backed, fixed-income investments?[/quote]
Why not? Government shafts everyone else. Government might as well be an equal opportunity/affirmative action shafter.
May 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM #743915bearishgurl
Participant[quote=flu][quote=SD Realtor]Could not agree more Paramount. The ONLY way to get leverage and renegotiate with ALL CREDITORS including organized labor (public and private) is through bankruptcy.
This is what the city of San Diego should have done and it is definitely what California should do.
This problem is not going to go away.
Guess what, if the state raises 16B in revenue then it will spend 32B shortly after.[/quote]
But as long as they can continue to raise more taxes, BK isnt on the table.[/quote]
SDR and flu, are you CERTAIN that (Federal) BK judges will have the jurisdiction to discharge debts originating from contracts with unions and long ago-enacted retirement formulas in a Chapter 9 proceeding?
Since both of these types of “debts” are supported and bound by a HUGE framework of state law put in place by our Legislature decades ago, I just don’t see this constellation.
I think you may be barking up the wrong tree, here.
May 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM #743916ParticipantNo I am not barking up any wrong tree.
Bankruptcy laws should apply here. The minute you start exonerating certain parties then the entire system is tainted.
It doesn’t matter how big the framework is. If the framework is f-d up, then it needs to be fixed. It should not matter if that framework is private or public.
May 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM #743919GuestStates cannot file for federal bankruptcy protection.
But states can change their constitution. In California this can be done through a popular vote.
The legal question would be whether a state can change its constitution in a way that can void existing contracts.
Pension reform will likely play out like this:
– Ballot initiative passes that modifies the state constitution; voids or modifies labor contracts
– Unions challenge legality of the state constitution in federal courts
– Federal courts decide whether they have the authority to overrule (probably Supreme Court), and then whether they will overrule even if they have the authority
The outcome depends upon whether the enforcement of contracts between a state and its citizens are under the authority of the federal government. This is probably an obscure area of law that hasn’t been tested often. I have no idea how it will play out.
Precedents will likely occur in other states (e.g. Michigan) before California reaches this point.
I’ve been corresponding with my state representative for a while about this. People are working on it. It’s going to be a tough fight, bit it is a necessary one.
May 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM #743920Participant[quote=SD Realtor]No I am not barking up any wrong tree.
Bankruptcy laws should apply here. The minute you start exonerating certain parties then the entire system is tainted.
It doesn’t matter how big the framework is. If the framework is f-d up, then it needs to be fixed. It should not matter if that framework is private or public.[/quote]
Glad to hear you’re on board, here, SDR. If you live in SR (SD), here is your representative:
http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembernathanfletcher
If you’re registered to vote, your representative is currently running for SD Mayor under a “city pension-reform platform”:
If not, why not? The deadline to register for the June Primary is May 21 and you can now register (or reregister for another party affiliation) online:
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/register-to-vote/
I’ll tell you the same thing I told pri-“harvey” on a recent thread:
pri, have you sharpened your pencil to begin gutting and pasting that pesky voluminous old legislation into a *new* redraft to eventually find its way in front of the “public” as I suggested to you and others here on a least two occasions??
You’ve repeated your vitriolic posts about this issue for much longer than the time if would have taken you to work closely with your legislator to drum up some votes among his/her brethren to get these issues on the ballot this year!!
I’ll get you started:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03167410629+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03183811816+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03189212211+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=03434829811+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=034388113+9+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
etc.
If you want CHANGE, you need to be part of the solution! Instead, it seems “easier” to just post away into the blogosphere lamenting about how “unfair” it all is, lol …..
This isn’t something that be fixed by turning down one’s “amplifier.”
Time’s a wastin’ ……. So GET BUSY!! :=]
http://piggington.com/more_public_pension_loony_tunes_now_providence_ri_is_in_trouble
Call Fletcher’s local office ASAP at (858) 629-6290 and ask to speak to his “legislative analyst.” Tell him/her you are free to set up meetings and come in to cull the law to begin “gutting and pasting” beginning with the above sections for Fletcher to reintroduce to his brethren up north to drum up interest for votes on a partial or wholesale repeal. If he becomes Mayor of SD, his successor can pick up the slack!
Who knows, you might even end up getting a couple of free RT’s to Sac and a couple nights stay at a nice HoJo up there!
Glad I could be of assistance! Hey . . . AND . . . GOOD LUCK!! (I sincerely mean that!)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.