Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=phaster][quote=CA renter]Instead of posting pictures of lame cartoons, try responding to why we should take from those who worked (public sector employees) to give to those who don’t (wealthy commercial, industrial, and residential landlords; owners of vast tracts of land, etc.).
If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.
YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]
there’s nothing illegal or unethical about inheriting property and prop 13 IMHO is a spurious and tangential topic, but what the hell i’ll play along
i’ll be the first to admit i’m lucky to have a legacy which allows me some financial breathing room, and because of that i’m a pretty chill landlord who has never raised a tenant’s rent once they are in (kind of keeping with my parents management tradition), and appreciate prop 13 making costs predictable with respect to property taxes
as for how the market values RE (like an apt rental) I have no control over that, since it’s a global marketplace that is influenced by among other things the feds dual mandate to keep unemployment low and keep inflation in check @ around 2% (as explained in a planet-money podcast)
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/30/496136504/episode-727-you-asked-for-it-again
as I see things, prop 13 is an economic moderator to keep TPTB in check and seems to have come about because TPTB were unable to moderate things in the first place
BTW seems your rants/proposals about “reforming” prop 13 are kinda like the rest of your economic analysis,… WORTHLESS DELUSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! (took me all of two minutes of googling to find a study, with simple statement in the summary section that disproves a belief I’ll bet you’ve held for decades)
[quote=publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu]
…This study was undertaken to review the split roll proposal and to assess the prospective impact on the state economy if a split roll tax regime were adopted……Overall, this study finds that a split roll property tax regime would have a significant and detrimental impact on the state’s economy, especially at a time when the California economy is struggling…
on the other hand various news articles about the local public pension fund management seems dubious at best and more akin a con job on the public @ large (according to a text book that examined the topic)
[quote]
Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership (edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie)Though SDCERS investments were earning well above the 8 percent rate of return estimated by the system actuaries, under normal conditions investments surpluses are required to make up for below-average returns in other years to achieve the average rate of return. Therefore, unless the actuaries’ estimates are grossly incorrect, in the long run true “surplus earnings” are impossible. The use of surplus earnings for the purposes other than maintaining the pension system, such as to expand existing benefits should be viewed as a loan from the system THAT WILL REQUIRE REPAYMENT IN THE FUTURE.
page 286
looking at the bigger picture which you seem to miss from the beginning, like YEARS AGO, long, long, long before I found this forum to get a feel of what locals thought about the local economy
[quote=phaster]
October 22, 2016 – 8:30am
[quote=CA renter]
October 9, 2016 – 1:07amBTW, you’re not educating or informing anyone of anything. The pension issue was beaten to death LONG before you ever came into the picture.
[/quote]really???
http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=5#comment-262974
http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=6#comment-264989
[/quote]what seems applicable here is something I first heard and learned about as a kid “The Parable of the Talents”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas
as I see things inheriting rental property, is akin to being given an opportunity to build upon my parents “talents” in that by managing things legally and ethically (as I was raised) I’ve been able to share various “talents” w/ those less fortunate
from what I gather from your prior posts, you lack many vital “talents” needed to solve problems, for example NOT understanding middle school math concepts which is necessary to understand various economic problem(s), BTW NOT understanding middle school math concepts is what can cause economic problems in the first place
then there are questions of group ethics and individual morals of taking responsibility, etc., etc. (basically is the system better or worse off now, or in terms of “talents” is a majority benefiting or just a select few and were actions intentional or not)
[quote=sandiegoreader.com]
Did an unwritten city policy result in death?
“Public servants only care about their pensions.”
In April 2011 Farhad Bastani, a resident engineer for the City of San Diego, watched drivers punch their accelerators the moment they arrived at the newly widened section of Camino Del Sur, near the intersection with San Dieguito Road in Black Mountain Ranch.
The high speeds and high road elevations near Lusardi Creek concerned him. He feared drivers wouldn’t see pedestrians who were crossing Camino Del Sur to access the popular Santaluz hiking trails until it was too late.
The following day he met with one of his supervisors, Lisa Adams, to report his findings.
During his four years working as a field engineer for the City of San Diego Bastani had discovered other safety issues. In that time, he had learned the department’s unwritten policy for reporting any safety issues; do so verbally and refrain from mentioning them in any emails. Email, according to a 2013 email from then-supervisor David Zoumaras, could potentially make the city liable in case any lawsuits are filed.
Three months later, on August 30, 2011, Lawrence Farry was driving over 80 miles per hour on Camino Del Sur, near the intersection with Haaland Glen. Meanwhile 56-year-old Joan Milazzo, her husband Paul, and her sister, who had all been hiking the Del Sur Canyon Trail, were midway across Camino Del Sur walking to pick up the other side of the trail.
Farry saw the two women crossing but was unable to stop. His red Nissan Altima struck and killed Joan Milazzo. Her husband watched from a few feet away.
Bastani saw the emergency vehicles at the scene of the accident. In an email on the following day Bastani told his supervisor, Mike Arnold, about the accident. “…I heard a lady was injured there. I should mention that I have noticed some problem[s] in traffic control implementation and [the subcontractor] was aware of that.”
Arnold was not pleased. “Reporting to me this accident is unrelated to your duties as a city inspector,” Arnold wrote. “Please do not report on such events in the future. In addition, any concerns you have regarding traffic control or anything else related to your project should be brought to the attention of the project manager and the appropriate city staff, but not in this context.”
…Bastani says the problem goes much deeper than a fear of legal culpability. He says the problem is with municipal government as a whole. “Many of the managers and supervisors only have a title of public employee, but the only thing on their minds is attending work for eight hours a day, collecting their pensions and retirements. The concept of public service is one of their last priorities”…
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/oct/26/city-lights-public-servants-only-care-pensions/
[/quote]https://twitter.com/vosdscott/status/439478516447334400/photo/1

essentially before a problem can be solved (or kept from becoming worse), one must admit a problem exists (much like a drug addict or alcoholic isn’t going to pull out of a nosedive dragging family and friends down with them, until the addict admits there is a situation that needs to be corrected), secondly the problem must be fully understood (which in this case means using math that reflects reality, not just numbers pulled out of thin air which make a proposal sound good)
life is a game of chance, sometimes people get lucky being born to parents who provided an environment that stimulated/encouraged intellectual curiosity and left a financial legacy along w/ moral guidelines to hopefully do some good, in other cases people are not so lucky, guess the only thing I know is pretty certain is because neither condition (listed above) exists, things WRT public pensions are going to get a hell of a lot worse[/quote]
Wow. You win the award for delusional, rambling posts; and your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. You were lucky enough to have parents who were in the right place at the right time, and it sounds like they made some good decisions. That’s great, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor with you inheriting what your parents worked for. The problem is with taxpayers subsidizing your profits to the tune of thousands of dollars each and every year. You did NOTHING to earn this subsidy, and the only reason you’re getting it is because other equally-situated people with generally more economic and political power than the average citizen changed the law so that you could obtain this subsidy by inheriting property from your parents. Just based on your posts, I’d guess this subsidy is in the $7,000-$15,000 range, every single year.
Of course, I’m not even counting the subsidy you received when you didn’t have to pay cap gains taxes on the assets you’ve inherited since you got to step-up the costs basis at the time of inheritance.
Again, how in the world do you think you should be more entitled to this Prop 13 subsidy (not to mention the cap gains subsidy) — that you didn’t do a single thing to earn — than the people who have worked for many decades for their pensions (and whose pension income is taxed at the standard “earned income” rate, even if their money comes from long-term gains and qualified dividends)?
Just answer that — and leave the ridiculous cartoons, memes, and other junk out of your response.
October 31, 2016 at 4:36 AM in reply to: OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America #802880CA renter
ParticipantBTW, good post, NSR.
October 31, 2016 at 4:35 AM in reply to: OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America #802879CA renter
ParticipantThis article describes some of the issues being faced by Syrian refugees and people living in Turkey. They have a very long shared history, more similar cultures, religions, ethnic backgrounds, etc. Yet, there is tension and growing impatience on the part of the Turks (and the Syrians, as they didn’t think the situation would last so long).
It’s not always what the media tells you to think it is…sometimes, the issues are far more complex, and there are many different perspectives that aren’t being discussed in popular culture. Special interests control the narrative, and most people will just follow along. This is why I always beg people to do their own research regarding these various issues. More often than not, there is far more that we do not know, than what we do know.
IMHO, this is the real reason for the resistance to incoming refugees and immigrants.
———————
“Today, Gaziantep is a city in flux, affected deeply by the events continuing to unfold across the border in Syria. The flow of Syrian refugees has swelled its population by nearly a quarter, with approximately 350,000 people seeking shelter in Gaziantep. The price of rented accommodation has skyrocketed, while competition for jobs has fuelled tensions between Turkish and Syrian residents, occasionally leading to violence.
In places such as the Turkmenler Caddesi neighbourhood, where many Syrian refugees are now living, it is an uneasy coexistence.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/changing-face-gaziantep-161001110222924.html
CA renter
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]We should change state laws to make easier for munipalities to go bankrupt.
BG, i thought you support Trump. He likes to renegotiate contracts when debt holders from a position of strength to force them to take pennies on the dollars. If we can force pensioners to take less, then we have more money for services. What’s not to like about that?[/quote]
Clearly, you’re not thinking things through, Brian. If we made it easier for states and municipalities to go BK, what do you think that would do to bond rates? While the shills for the capitalists would like you to think that public employees are the problem, the majority of the fraud, corruption, and graft happens between public entities and private contractors. For large projects (and for regular spending, if there’s a deficit), govt entities almost always require bond funding. IMO, this could easily end up making things worse for these govt entities, not better.[/quote]
Brian never mentioned states going bankrupt.
There’s that reading comprehension problem again.
Brian mentioned renegotiating contracts – something Trump advocates as one of his strengths – and pointed out that that BG’s support for Trump is inconsistent with her position on pension policy. A reasonable and valid observation.
In typical fashion you respond with yet another vague irrelevant accusation. You go off on some hysterical tangent about bond rates and “fraud, corruption, and graft” in contracting.
Property taxes, the fed, graft, … you’re all over the place, blaming everybody and everything for the pension crisis.
Despite your lack of focused arguments, the roots of the pension problem are simple to identify. The culprits are the actual players involved: public-sector unions and the lawmakers who receive their support.[/quote]
Once again, your reading comprehension problem is rearing its ugly head, Pri. People on this blog have been advocating for both municipalities and states to have an easier path to BK, so I was addressing the “pension crisis” issue from a broader perspective. Unlike you, I also know that it was the state employees who pushed for the enhanced benefit formulas, lower retirement ages, etc. that helped contribute to the pension problems. The municipalities had to follow because they were losing employees to the state (and counties) after spending a small fortune on recruiting and training those employees.
And, unlike you, I know that all of these issues are interrelated. Public employees are not the only ones responsible for the financial problems at the state and local levels, not by a long shot. These are problems with a long history, and there have always been (and will always be) multiple stakeholders where government spending is concerned, and there are multiple causes of the financial difficulties being experienced at all levels of government — most of them having nothing to do with public employees.
The reason Prop 13 passed (because, unlike you, I was actually living here at the time, and remember all the ads and the discussions regarding this proposition), was because people didn’t want to be taxed out of their homes; the marketing for it focused on elderly people on fixed incomes who were going to be “taxed out of their homes” if Prop 13 didn’t pass. Unfortunately, as with many propositions, people didn’t read the fine print or look at who was behind the proposition — Howard Jarvis. Who was Howard Jarvis? He was a long-time anti-government, anti-tax crusader…and he was also the president of the Apartment House Association of Los Angeles/executive director of the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association.
Ultimately, it was business interests who were behind Prop 13. It’s these very business interests, including owners of rental properties, who should not be getting the Prop 13 subsidy. It should also not be extended to the heirs of long-time owners.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf0j49n3r4/entire_text/
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/15/the_california_tax_protest_that_inspired_the_tea_party/
None of my points are vague or irrelevant; it’s just that you are unable to comprehend complex issues (like how the government really works, or why some people oppose immigration, etc.) because you rely on the regurgitation of spoon-fed propaganda and short, mindless memes to form the basis of your opinions.
And Brian didn’t just reference “renegotiating contracts.” He specifically mentioned bankruptcy.
Trump’s inability and/or refusal to follow through on his contractual obligations are the very reason why he’s not been able to access loans via more traditional channels (see, it all goes back to my point about bond rates and the ability to borrow). It’s also the #1 reason why intelligent people doubt his ability to successfully fulfill is duties as POTUS. Trump is a complete and utter failure (albeit a tenacious and resilient failure).
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]We should change state laws to make easier for munipalities to go bankrupt.
BG, i thought you support Trump. He likes to renegotiate contracts when debt holders from a position of strength to force them to take pennies on the dollars. If we can force pensioners to take less, then we have more money for services. What’s not to like about that?[/quote]
Clearly, you’re not thinking things through, Brian. If we made it easier for states and municipalities to go BK, what do you think that would do to bond rates? While the shills for the capitalists would like you to think that public employees are the problem, the majority of the fraud, corruption, and graft happens between public entities and private contractors. For large projects (and for regular spending, if there’s a deficit), govt entities almost always require bond funding. IMO, this could easily end up making things worse for these govt entities, not better.
CA renter
ParticipantYou trounced nothing, as usual. Just more ad hominem attacks because you have no clue what you’re talking about.
CA renter
ParticipantLOL! I’ll just let your post sit there for everyone else to laugh at, Pri.
CA renter
ParticipantYep. I’ve been telling people that if Bernie didn’t make it past Clinton’s firewall, Trump would win in November. We were hitting the streets for Bernie over the past 1+ year, and it was very clear that there were two candidates who were fueling the the passions of Americans from all walks of life — Bernie and Trump. We rarely ever saw or heard from Hillary supporters, and we were working in every type of neighborhood. To be sure, she was more popular in the higher-end neighborhoods than in the poorer and middle-class communities, but she was largely unpopular across the board.
CA renter
Participant[quote=harvey][quote]If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.
YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]You do know that people receiving pensions are not working either?
Oh…but they did work in the past, right!
How do you think people buy investments like land? Many of them earn the money by working for it and then invest it, perhaps to finance their own retirements. Many of the Piggs here have done just that. They worked, they earned, they saved, they bought investment properties. For many, their rental properties are their pensions – they don’t get a government agency to take care of them.
Pensions are investments, just like real estate.
The cash flow from a pension is entirely passive. There are taxpayer-funded agencies, e.g. CalPERS, that do all the work. Pensioners just collect the checks.
Your use of the word “subsidized” horrendously twisted.
Real estate is taxed – money flows from the landowner to the state. There are no subsidies, regardless of how often you misuse the term.
Pensions are subsidized. Money flows from the state to the investor. The often unsustainable, guaranteed return of pensions are subsidized with taxpayer money when the investment falls short. There is no dispute that this is happening on a large scale. The recent LA Times article is one of many sources that thoroughly documents how pensions are being subsidized due to mismanagement and unrealistic objectives. The taxpayers – people working to fund their own retirements – are footing the bill.
No real estate investor receives a taxpayer-backed guaranteed return.
Your “solution” is to just tax more.
Your entire argument comes down to this: “MY investment should get a GUARANTEED return. If things don’t work out, we need to tax YOUR investment – the one that you made with YOUR EARNED MONEY – and GIVE IT TO ME. Because I worked for my money and you did not. I GET MINE EVEN IF WE HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM YOUR EARNINGS.”
Your claims of entitlement are staggering.[/quote]
It’s like you keep wanting to advertise your ignorance, Pri. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
Pensions are a form of deferred compensation. Employees and employers contribute to the pension fund, and this money earns a return. The pension funds (not taxpayers, as employers only pay toward the pensions of *existing* employees, not retirees) provide a stream of income upon the employee’s retirement. That money was earned, while the subsidies to Prop 13 beneficiaries are not.
There are issues with unfunded liabilities (still paid as a portion of existing employees’ pay), but these liabilities are created and exacerbated by the Federal Reserve’s boom-bust monetary policies — including ZIRP, which masks the true cost of money. I have long advocated for a return to the more conservative investing habits from decades ago — public pension funds should only be invested in Treasuries, with a small percentage being allocated to very highly-rated corporate and municipal bonds, and these Treasury/bond prices should be market-driven, not Fed-driven for political purposes. Pension formulas should return to pre-2000 levels, as well. These are things that I have always advocated for, and if these practices were in place, a “pension crisis” would be far less likely, and would be much more manageable if they did exist at all.
So, not only do you not understand how public pensions work, or how they are defined, you still haven’t grasped the definition of a tax subsidy, even though I’ve shown you the literal definition before.
It’s clear that you’re simply trolling, but I’m responding to you for anyone who might accidentally stumble on your rants, so that they don’t become ill-informed as a result of your posts.
BTW, everyone who has worked for their money has a defined-benefit pension that will be backed by the government (right-wing hysteria, notwithstanding). It’s called Social Security.
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]Instead of posting pictures of lame cartoons, try responding to why we should take from those who worked (public sector employees) to give to those who don’t (wealthy commercial, industrial, and residential landlords; owners of vast tracts of land, etc.).
If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.
YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?[/quote]
I don’t think there’s any kind of equivalence between Prop 13 and pensions.
Pensions shortfalls are a result of past budgets shenanigans and/or incompetence. Let it all work out in court when the time comes.
I would never support tax increases to paper over the pensions. Tax increases for services to citizens, fine. But no new taxes to pay for retired people who don’t provide us anything. Sorry.[/quote]
It’s not a “tax increase.” It’s repealing a subsidy that has benefited primarily those who have a higher net worth (because many of these properties are paid off) than those who are subsidizing them (more recent buyers who are more likely to have mortgages).
There is a strong argument in favor of Prop 13 where it applies to a single primary residence; but for those who are getting this subsidy for rental homes and apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, commercial/industrial properties, and vast tracts of raw land (often covered by the Williamson Act, too, which gives them even greater tax relief), it is 100% unethical and unjustifiable.
The “pension crisis” is indeed affected by these subsidies because the beneficiaries of Prop 13 are competing for the same money. The difference? One group earned that money, and the other one didn’t.
Before anyone starts complaining about those who have earned their compensation (which includes deferred compensation), we need to tighten up the largesse to those who never earned the subsidies they are benefiting from year after year.
Phaster is one of the greatest critics of public pensions, but he is also one of the greatest beneficiaries of Prop 13 because he inherited a multi-unit rental property from his parents who’ve owned it for many years. His subsidy is many thousands of dollars each year. He is in no position to criticize those who have worked for their money.
CA renter
ParticipantInstead of posting pictures of lame cartoons, try responding to why we should take from those who worked (public sector employees) to give to those who don’t (wealthy commercial, industrial, and residential landlords; owners of vast tracts of land, etc.).
If we were to stop subsidizing the land owners (not referring to a single primary residence, as that is why Prop 13 passed by such a large margin, and I do not believe in taxing people out of their homes), the “pension crisis” in California would mostly disappear.
YOU are the beneficiary of thousands of dollars of theses subsidies every year because you inherited your parents’ rental units. Why do you think a cop, firefighter, or teacher should give up the pensions that they have earned so that we can maintain these exceedingly profitable — AND TOTALLY UNEARNED — subsidies to YOU?
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
No political party would result in even more gridlock and some fantastic fights on the floor of congress.
We need to encourage more voter turnout so people are involved and understand the issues better.[/quote]
Why do you think that is? The time when elected officials represent the interests of *the people* instead of special interests is long overdue.
As it stands, it’s too easy for special interests to control politicians because they only have to control one or two political parties. Politicians feel that they have no choice but to work on behalf of these wealthy interests who finance their campaigns and give them their political (and economic, in many cases) power.
We need to get money and bribery (promises of jobs, special access to social power, resources, etc.) out of politics. The first step is to dismantle the party system that is specifically designed to serve the interests of a handful of wealthy individuals. If more gridlock results, then that is the price that many of us would be all too happy to pay in order to significantly reduce political corruption and the pandering to wealthy special interests.
CA renter
ParticipantYou literally made me laugh out loud, flu. 😉
CA renter
Participant[quote=ltsdd]
Voters need to change their mindset. Vote for the one who you think is best for the country/state/county/city and not simply check the box b/c the candidate is from one party or the other.[/quote]This needs to happen across the board. Too many voters just want to check a box next to a “D” or an “R.” This makes them feel good about voting while allowing them to be lazy and not really look into the individual candidates’ backgrounds and core issues.
The corrupt two-party system needs to be dismantled. We need to have NO political parties. Everyone should vote for the individual candidates and issues. This would (hopefully) force more people to actually to some research for a change.
-
AuthorPosts
