[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]You know. Two comments..

if things proceed as planned, I think what will happen in CA is similar to what is happening at the national level, but even more intense…..

The middle class will erode away in CA and CA will consist of either people within the top 1% who can afford to live here without blinking, and the other extreme folks who can enjoy all the entitlement benefits without having to pay…

The middle class that doesn’t really do that well and yet need to pay for all these entitlement benefits will get the shaft and figure to go elsewhere.

But then again, IF we have a housing recovery, I think a lot of issues go away…One thing is once people start paying their property taxes again, at least at the local level, more dollars come in…

It will be interesting to see in the next couple of months what will happen.[/quote]

flu, you forgot all the “older workers”, new retirees and seniors who are NOT in the 1% but have paid-for homes and a (public or private) pension coming in or soon to come in. Many of these residents have property taxes which are protected by Prop 13. These millions of longtime residents can stay in CA indefinitely, IMHO.

There really is something to be said for living frugally over decades and “paying your dues.” I really feel like more of the “middle class” young families COULD remain in CA if they adopted the values of more “stable” generations. Too many have succumbed to “easy credit” for “instant gratification” which, in any case, was not even available to previous generations. In short, most of their “expectations” are far too high when taking into account their actual work experience and current “station” in life. Most younger “Gen X” and “Gen Y” just seem to just want to skip over their first, second and third (all used) vehicles paid for with cash and a first home in a “starter” neighborhood in favor of 60-72 month car payments and heavily-taxed new construction. They “have to have” at the age of +/- 30 what people in my generation didn’t get until 10-20 years later, that is, if they EVER really aspired to these things.

In addition, if you will carefully study young immigrant families or families headed by young native Californians who live near more-established relatives for moral support and childcare purposes, you may notice that their values are more in line with reality as they try to emulate the ways of their more stable elders. For instance, when older relatives find them a good used vehicle to buy or a nearby house to rent or buy (and sometimes pool their funds to help with the downpayment), these young families don’t whine about the house not being “perfect,” they just take it, fix it up with help from family and move forward, happy to have found a suitable house near family. Most of these young families could be considered lower middle-class to middle class and they will NOT be moving anywhere! And CA’s cites, suburbs and rural areas are FULL of them.

I think some here may be imparting their own unrealistic values on how life SHOULD BE in CA for their families in contrast to what they can realistically afford, given their work experience and current “station” in life. Perhaps most of this group are actually transplants from other states/countries with no long-established family here (whom they didn’t move here themselves).

And you may be ROTFLYAO when I mention “station” in life, here. The fact is, if you have fixed expenses every month for any or all of these things: diapers, formula, childcare, preschool, lessons, sports, braces, school trips, private school, tutoring, college, etc, THAT is your current (chosen) “station” in life. It is what it is and if it costs you $800, $1000, $1500 or $2000 month or beyond, THAT is what it costs. Whatever the cost of a homebuyer’s current “station” in life, lenders (and often the buyers themselves) don’t really take all this into account when they decide how much they can borrow for a house, often loaning them way too much money. The young buyer borrows this amount because they (or their spouse) can’t stomach buying a property they can actually, realistically afford, given their current “station” in life.

It has ALWAYS cost more for housing in coastal CA counties than most other locales in the US. This has always been an accepted fact by all adult residents who were born here or came here before the age of five and never left and will never change. Why it this a surprise and why should it be different now?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=harvey][quote=ctr70]End of story…everyone in the public sector should get a standard 401k just like the rest of us private sector schmucks (especially elected officials!). Any taxpayer backstopped pensions going forward should be gone forever, PERIOD.[/quote]

Absolutely.

There are few issues in our world today with such a simple, straightforward solution.

Now if only the public could hear the message.

But it’s hard to hear anything when the Anvil Sisters have their amplifiers cranked to the max, as they play their not-so-catchy tune entitled “Obfuscation.”[/quote]

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!! :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Hobie]Note to self, pre retirement, buy out of state RE attractive to California tastes. Honey, pass the brochure on Reno land. ;)[/quote]

Stateline, NV is breathtaking, Hobie … with the CA you know and love right next door (literally across the street,) LOL! It consists of nearly all condo-timeshares but the further away one gets from the actual “state line,” more SFR’s prevail. A couple of miles makes all the difference!

I’m seriously considering buying a nice, older 3 bdrm “retirement” house situated on or near the free bus line in South Lake Tahoe, CA for $175K to $250K and turn into a “part-time ski bum.” Of course, my own annual state tax obligation is fairly minimal 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Your posts are always crystal clear to me, scaredy (in a “muddled” sorta way, lol). I don’t think the Styx’s influence has entirely left you ;=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]anvil sisters…perfect…

You all will probably yawn at this, but I need to rant about my tax situation. I claim zero deductions for my wife and I, in fact we get a couple hundred taken out each month. We were saddled with huge graduate degree debt from my wife in excess of 6 figures, so we live pretty modest. Should be gone by years end…Rent is 1000k per month and we rarely go out to eat…I drive a 12 year old 205k mile car and my wife’s is 10 years old. So we are putting money towards loans. I got hit with a 9k tax bill last year, and 7k last year. Not sure what I need to do besides pop out some babies, buy a house, and put my wife back to part time/no time.[/quote]

jstoesz, I recommend you and your spouse stay the course. You have cheap rent right now. Your spouse’s very large student loan will likely follow her to her grave if she (and as a byproduct, you) take a deferment for any reason. You will also be able to qualify for a much larger mortgage (if the rest of your credit is good) IF her student loan is retired. If you put some of your paychecks in IRA’s or 401K Plans now, this will shelter it from income taxes but her student loan is likely at a higher rate than you could make from safe retirement investments. This is another reason I feel that ALL your discretionary income should be deployed towards her student loan in order to retire it ASAP.

As you get older, life happens which always costs money. The last thing she (and you) need is a voluminous student loan hanging over your heads, IMHO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=markmax33®]I will not be taking advantage of legalized gay marriage, but I have no objections.

I also have no plans to practice polygamy or incest, but I would not object to either. If consenting adults want to consider themselves married I say let them, regardless of their number, sexual orientation or their common ancestors.

[EDIT]
Dr. P approves.[/quote]
+1. Why just gay marriage? Why not open up marriage to all? Including polygamy, incest, and bi-sexual relationships. As long as they’re all consenting adults, they all should be legal.

I’d like to know how many people who support gay marriage also support polygamy? I’ll go first… I do.[/quote]

Are you volunteering to pay for the special education and all the medical bills of children born of incest??

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CDMA ENG]…And for the latest (sic) time… Everyone is fed up with “try it for yourself” argument … I know I can do 99 percent of government jobs… I don’t need to tryi (sic) it. I’m a smart guy… Maybe not a traffic (sic) writer or speller because I am too lazy to put this in word (sic) first… But I could do police work, fire, administrator, planner, or whatever but I can say this… Most of those people couldn’t do my job.[/quote] (emphasis added)

LOL …..

[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=CA renter]Wrong. The reason all these rules are put into place is because of the liability. Public agencies are viewed as “deep pockets” and are major targets of scammers who are looking for a lawsuit. These rules are put into place to protect taxpayers from these HUGE liabilities that, unlike in the private sector, cannot easily be discharged.
This is also why they cannot hire $10/hr rent-a-cops or other flunkies. They need to hire the most competent employees because of the liabilty.
BTW, have you ever tried out for police or fire? Before you make claims, why don’t you go through the process and see if you get any job offers. There are many exceptionally smart people in public service, too. You’re not any more “special” than they are.[/quote]
Liability… Most of the rules above apply to productivity not to liability… Again the rules were created because people were taking advantage of the system. The management without the ability to fire someone for performance issue (sic) had to created (sic) rules in which to base performance so that they could get rid of the deadbeats… I dont have these rules because they can fire me if it suits there (sic) needs. They dont have to build a huge case file against me to let me go… But a public union memember (sic) …

And lastly…

Your (sic) fucking kidding me right… About the Police and Fire? I passed engineering school I think I can pass an AA program at the local CC… I am not a nerd… I am a 200 plus pound ex jock. I can pass the physical as well… and I I’ll say it… I am more special than most of them… Why? Because I pursued more than the avergage (sic) person…[/quote] (emphasis added; sans punctuation and sentence structure)

CE, are you familiar with the “POST Academy” and the different skill sets required to pass it as the first prerequisite to getting on the list for hire in CA police/fire agencies?

…Students are required to have the all of the equipment listed below on the first day of attending the academy. All recruits will report by 0645 hours to a class, in the A-200 building (classroom number will be posted), wearing their Academy class ‘B’ uniform…

****************************************

Additional purchases:
Recruits should be prepared to purchase, on the first day of the Academy, approximately $5.00 worth of Scantron Test Forms (30 F-166).
Prior to the first day of the academy, each recruit is required to have in their possession POST Student Workbooks for the following testable Learning Domains: 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 43. P.O.S.T. Student Workbooks can be purchased from the Miramar College Book Store or through POST at https://docstore.kinkos.com/post_ca.
The “Basic Spanish for Law Enforcement” and “Defensive Tactics” workbooks are also required. The workbooks MUST be purchased at the College Bookstore, at a cost of approximately $200.00. Student Workbooks for all other Learning Domains are optional
Students will be required to purchase a current California Vehicle Code. This reference can be purchased at a DMV field office for $6.00 each.

http://www.sdmiramar.edu/academics/policeacademy/studentinfo

Do you think you might be “smart enough” or “special enough” to get through it in one piece??

Just remember, you can’t go too far astray if your uniform is on correctly and you just answer everything with, “Sir!”

Uhhh, CE, on second thought, I think you’d best get some kneepads before enrolling. Looks like you’ll be doing a lot of “crawling around” out there. (And they’ll come in handy later, down at the station if you should finally get hired and are in desperate need of a “mentor” for report-writing.) :=D

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]ayy yahhh!… I give up..

Bang… that’s my gun. that’s me.. I’m spawled on the floor right now…

Dear Uncle Sam,

Please unsubscribe me from my lifetime membership of your highly exclusive club, effective immediately…

Sincerely,
FLU…[/quote]

flu, I can refer you to a creative and fantastic tax consultant … she’ll even fight your case with the tax courts! But she’s located a little far from you. pm me if you need her info :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Just a side note. I have closed approx 100 short sale listings in the last 3 years. The have invloved public sector and private sector workers. Some have been strategic defaults (taking advantage of the non-recourse nature of some loans) while others have involved legitimate hardships. Going back in my mind and thinking about the public sector workers I have doen short sales for I cant think think of a single one that wasnt strategic to a very large degree. I guess job security does that.[/quote]

I forgot to ask: Did you “coach” all these supposedly “well-paid” and “well-benefited public sector workers” to actually default and take the hit to their credit so they could qualify to “sell short” and possibly “keep the change?”

And how did they “qualify” to “sell short” when the “financials” they “should” have submitted to their lender should have shown they were “secure” in their employment? Could it be that they got away with submitting “phony financials” to their lender(s)? If so, who helped them with that??

Inquiring minds want to know ….

[bearishgurl]

Thank you for your post, HLS. Not surprisingly, it seems like another one here is shopping properties that are “out of their league.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Just a side note. I have closed approx 100 short sale listings in the last 3 years. The have invloved public sector and private sector workers. Some have been strategic defaults (taking advantage of the non-recourse nature of some loans) while others have involved legitimate hardships. Going back in my mind and thinking about the public sector workers I have doen short sales for I cant think think of a single one that wasnt strategic to a very large degree. I guess job security does that.[/quote]

Did closing all these “strategic” short sales make you feel like a “Good Samaritan” or was it all just for the commissions??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]1. Do you think that with all the pensions underpeforming the markets, that it’s sustainable for local and state governments to continue to make up for the shortfall?[/quote]

I honestly don’t know the answer. I know an employee in the same classification as I was who is “retiring” today will receive a monthly benefit of about 250% of mine. This is partly due to their own mandatory payroll contributions of approximately $77K over the last ten years and partly due to being a member of the “enhanced benefit tier.” When the PTB voted this in in 2002, they were all members of the (retirement) system themselves who wished to “convert” their own pensions to an “enhanced” version. For this group, healthcare premium credits ($200-$300 mo) are not guaranteed and can be taken away at any time. If this has not already been taken away, I see it happening soon as a partial solution.

I don’t believe there would have been a shortfall under the old system.

I erred in a previous post when I said members of the old system were not required to contribute. Actually, they were but not until reaching 45 years of age. These (4% to 7.5%) contributions were staggered every year from then on until they retired.

[quote=flu]2. Unlike a normal organization in which if it can’t pay for it’s bills, it files for bankruptcy to restructure debt and relinquish itself from a unpayable debt burden (like the airline industry did to unpayable pensions), governments do not have the ability to file for BK and get any pension debt relieve. Do you agree that is the predicament of our local and state governments?[/quote]

Yes, that is their predicament. Actually, airlines are still paying their pensions. I have a relative who is a retired American flight attendant (age 68) who has been collecting her pension for many years and also flying “Space A” wherever and whenever she wants.

[quote=flu]3. Finally, do you think that it’s right that both current and future taxpayers (even the ones that are kids who had no voting power) will continue to pay for this benefit that up their asses so that a small percentage of people can continue to collect an return that has since fallen completely out of wack with reality?[/quote]

Unless laws are repealed/changed, I see no way out. Mandatory contributions by its working members can always be raised.

[quote=flu]All the “data” you are arguing over. About how much harder the job is, death rate, how little pay inheritance it is, etc etc…Death rate…It’s all irrelevant…[/quote]

It is ALL …. absolutely relevant. A government employee, by the nature of their employment, loses basic freedoms and rights of privacy that private-sector workers enjoy. Everyone is free to choose their own path.

[quote=flu]What part of “we can’t afford to pay for this” are you not understanding??? Doesn’t it bother you one bit, it’s not me or you that’s really going to suffer from this, but your kids (unless you’re going to encourage them to move out of CA and not deal with it)…[/quote]

My kid(s) already make over twice what I made at the time of leaving my gov’mt job. I never in my life dreamed of making that much money. I’m happy for them. They are also living a life I never dreamed of and have no plans to EVER leave CA. If I am ever in a position to help them in the future to buy a house, I might (if I took out a second TD on it as I wouldn’t want to go on title with them or sign a mortgage note with them).

[quote=flu]In our current local/state government setup, this hard decision is being temporarily deferred, because it can apparently tap into an unlimited credit line from the taxpayers (at least that’s what folks think)…And it will continue to do some until the tax burden is so high and so large, people say enough…Then we have a snowball effect in which business/people do less business here, which means fewer tax dollars, which means the local/state has even a bigger shortfall. The unlimited taxpayer credit line for our local/state government is no different than the loose financing that allowed someone with a fake alt-a stated income to borrow as much money as he/she can without any consequences.[/quote]

Understand, but I see the “taxpayer burden” on pension shortfalls shrinking gradually due to VERY high current mandatory payroll deductions on existing workers, deaths of near-retirees and current retirees and other “tweaks” of most or all of the public retirement systems currently in place in CA, which have the effect of greatly reducing or entirely eliminating future pension obligations. Tax and “teeter fund” shortfalls to local governments will improve once these lagging, lazy lenders begin to wise up, foreclose and let the damaged RE markets begin to heal.

On this thread, you used the analogy of a mortgage loan borrower submitting fake credentials for qualification and “persons who took cash out of their properties” and had debt forgiven to compare to govm’t pension shortfalls. They are not one and the same. The pension plans for CA governments explicitly follow state law (in place for many decades) in administering their pensions. Banks who refuse to foreclose in the absence of receiving any mortgage payments for many months from their borrowers are NOT following the law laid out expressly and explicitly for them to do so. And lenders loaned money to anyone who could fog a mirror because they already had some poor distant chump to take the dubious loan off their hands the next day (at a discount, of course). Lenders’ stupid lending decisions during the “boom years” were all due to a combination of runaway greed on several levels, Big Bank gross incompetency and lack of oversight of their “so-called” registered “mortgage brokers” in the field. The only state law in place to support lenders’ procrastination in foreclosing is this one:

http://www.cahomesalessolutions.com/resources-for-truth-in-lending-act-respa-and-other-foreclosure-help/new-ca-law-90-day-extension-of-foreclosure-time-line-more/

…(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.

….giving them an addt’l 90 days to foreclose on mortgage loans which qualified. (“90 days” is not an extra 2-3 yrs, btw.) Lenders who are exempt from this law don’t have to follow it. That’s it. The game was supposed to be OVER . . . but alas . . . it wasn’t and it isn’t. Too many “enterprising borrowers” made off with hundreds of thousands of dollars in phony “equity,” likely FAR MORE than I will ever recover in my paltry “govm’t pension” in my lifetime. This continuing debacle has cost this country FAR MORE than partially or almost fully-funded govm’t pension funds will. I for one am in hopes that this section dies on the vine and goes away quietly due to our legislature finally getting a clue that almost no one qualifies for a “mod,” lol ….

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl]If you want to lobby for govm’t pension reform in CA, then complain to your legislator. Better yet, line out the old legislation and draft it anew![/quote]Nope, I’ll just find more legal creative ways pay less taxes, or legally shelter my income/assets…with no remorse…Since better me than someone else..Hey, I’m kinda liking the new “me way of thinking”[/quote]Certainly, you are totally, completely within your rights here and I would do the same thing if I felt I was being “gouged” by the IRS and FTB :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=fat_lazy_union (aka “flu”)]…Regardless of whether someone can or can’t do a public sector job this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether this arrangement is right or wrong to begin with..(I’m pretty sure I can, do the job but that’s irrelevant). Bringing this sort of “well if it’s so great, you do it…” sort of argument seems to be that you’ really in agreement that this pension arrangement with the taxpayer isn’t correct, but there are no other valid counterpoints to justify that its existence…[/quote]

What I DO understand is the “enhanced pensions” awarded local gov’t workers in the last 10 years and those rare pension “outliers” as mentioned in the OP (who managed to “juice the system” in various legal ways put in place by YOUR elected officials) have put governments of all levels in the position they are now in …. responsible for funding any pension shortfall they may have. However, I am a REALIST and I don’t see all these gov entities filing under Chapter 9 to relieve themselves of this obligation nor do I see the BK courts allowing them to discharge this debt. They will likely continue to take higher pension payroll deductions from current workers and hope a good portion of their used-up worn-out boomer-retirees die sooner than later (not an unlikely possibility for many).

In the absence of the repeal of entire sections of the CA Government Code and Education Code, there is nothing in state law which would suggest that the formulas for pensions already promised and awarded could be jettisoned.

If you want to lobby for govm’t pension reform in CA, then complain to your legislator. Better yet, line out the old legislation and draft it anew!

Here . . . I’ll get you started on your first “gut and paste” project:

http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp

No one here has addressed the percentage of deaths that happen to current gov employees of substantial seniority or a deferred gov retiree where their heirs don’t receive a dime unless the employee has contributed their own funds to the plan. These two groups are eligible for but have not yet received their pensions. In SDCERA, this “employee contribution” requirement wasn’t in place until just over ten years ago and so most of the retirees who retired PRIOR to 2002 have pensions which are $500 – $1200 mo. Many, many are now deceased.

Let me ask you, flu, if you were a non-management gov’t worker, would YOU “bend over” for 20-30 years if you knew you would receive a $300 – $1200 per month after the end of your service in the form of a pension? This is what was promised to these workers.

And then ask yourself if I would have put up with it as long as I did in the absence of a promise of a pension. You have carte blanche to speak for me ;=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=fat_lazy_union (aka “flu”)]…Let me ask you a question…Have you ever had to sign a legal document that says no matter why you get terminated (whether it’s voluntary or not), you cannot go seek employment at a “competitor” or work on competing product Y at anothe company for 2 years, for potentially face XYZ lawsuits? (even though it’s arguable whether it’s enforceable in CA)…[/quote]

I’ve heard of these “noncompete agreements” but have never worked in a biz that uses them.

[bearishgurl]

Wow, flu, all I can say is “You’re on a loose leash, dude” . . . Acc to your post, it sounds like your employer just gives you something to do and expects you’ll do it. Why, if your “boss” liked you, he/she just might give you a month or more off to “go on vacation” without you having to have that pesky 15 years of service in first, lol …

Like your situation, I would much prefer to be in charge of my own time and be given deadlines for projects instead of have to do daily “face time” because it’s in the rules. Of course one wouldn’t care too much about leave accrual if this was the case. These types of arrangements are more compatible with “real life.”

Another question …. What will happen if you aren’t able to finish a project given to you by the “deadline” or your “deadline” comes and goes and the “project” assigned to you remains unfinished?

[Author]

Posts