[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]
BTW, no “librarian” is making $225K for life.

[/quote]

You’re right, it’s not $225k, it’s 227k and 234k:

From: San Diego Tax Fighters

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Feb/15/top-city-pensioner-paid-307000/

Our retired head San Diego city librarian made $139,000 salary as an employee. She now receives $227,000 in pensions, PLUS has another major pension we can’t quantify. Contrast that with a Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps — a FOUR STAR general position. That general’s pension for 30 years often arduous and dangerous service is about $149,000 a year.

Top pensions 2011
Assistant city attorney $307,758

Investment officer $255,509

Fire battalion chief $244,435

Assistant police chief $242,947

City librarian $234,091<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< "Public employee pensions and other retiree benefits (e.g free healthcare) suck the life out of the taxpayer who will never see such outrageous benefits. Here's some simple math: $65,000 per year + $12,000 per year for free healthcare for 25 years of retirement = $2,000,000 payout! (A lottery hit) Unsustainable for the poor taxpayer who's services are being cut to fund this black hole. This ain't "middle class" stuff folks and I'm already paying my "fair share" of it."[/quote] Link? Let's look into this some more, shall we? Since pension benefits are paid as a percentage of the employee's salary, this number does not make any sense. Clearly, your sources have been grossly misleading, to say the least. Still waiting for your response on that "teachers fighting the union" nonsense. ------------- And how about stuff like this: http://www.sdcta.org/Uploads/Documents/Proposition%20Z.SD%20Unified%20Bond%20Measure%20PUBLIC.pdf

...and this:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2012/08/06/where-borrowing-105-million-will-cost-1-billion-poway-schools/

...and this:

http://voiceofsandiego.org/2012/08/06/where-borrowing-105-million-will-cost-1-billion-poway-schools/

(I could go on, and on, and on...)

No, to you, it's all the unions' fault. That is nothing less than pure propaganda.

--------------

And let's get one thing perfectly clear, once again. The pension benefits come from the pension funds, not "the taxpayers' pockets." These pension benefits are paid out of separate pension funds that are financed by: investment returns (the greatest portion), employer contributions (calculated as a percentage of *current* employees' wages/salaries), and employee contributions (usually 9% of their wages/salaries for the higher-paid public employees, which is subject to increases going forward). Public employers have also been reducing pension benefits, and public employees will be increasing their contributions going forward, so your claim that "taxpayers" are the only ones taking the hit is pure bullshit. DB pensions are a form of deferred compensation; there is no "lottery hit" here.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount]We’re really off in the twilight zone now; I for one am sick/tired of subsidizing ridiculous govt worker (total) compensation.

Govt workers are mandated to contribute 3% to their pensions, but are given a 4% out-of-cycle raise for their troubles.

Cities in California aren’t strapped because they don’t take in enough prop 13 or other tax money (there are ways around prop 13 – bonds, fees, etc…) – they are strapped because a librarian in San Diego is getting paid $225,000 for life (and were not even talking about med benefits, etc…).

California is closing in on $700 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for govt workers – don’t be surprised if you catch one of Jerry’s kids digging in your sofa for loose change.

They want every last penny for their wealth redistribution agenda.[/quote]

Yeah, you just keep on spouting that same old propaganda, paramount. No need to actually understand the issues or rely on facts or data. Rhetoric and propaganda are all that’s need to convince Joe Sixpack that the unions are the ones who’ve destroyed his financial security. Never mind the facts.

BTW, no “librarian” is making $225K for life.

And how about answering for the facts dug up about your “California Teachers taking on the Teachers’ Union” garbage?

Why is it that whenever the facts come out, you disappear?

http://piggington.com/ot_california_teachers_taking_on_the_california_teachers_union

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]Capitalism is all about maximizing profits, and nothing else. That’s why we need to regulate it. Personally, I believe in capitalism for the wants, as long as it doesn’t pollute the environment or use up scarce natural resources; we need socialism for the needs, and for the allocation of scarce natural resources, IMHO.

There is an inherent conflict of interest in a for-profit healthcare system. What’s best for patients (prevention, a healthy life with the least intervention) is not at all what’s best for the medical industry.[/quote]

One of the biggest roadblocks is medical malpractice/product liability. In most places other than the US doctors, pharma companies, etc don’t have to worry much about lawsuits (contingency fee arrangements are not allowed in most countries and lawyers are VERY expensive). This changes the ultimate cost of healthcare. Would the average American be willing to give up the option of suing for malpractice or product liability if they were negligently harmed?[/quote]

Under no circumstances should the ability to sue for malpractice be waived. While many doctors make understandable mistakes, there are too many stories where arrogant doctors didn’t listen to the patient or other healthcare providers (like their nurses) and ended up causing permanent damage and injuries to their patients.

But the issue of medical liability seems overblown, at least based on what I’ve read. Of course, ~$56 billion isn’t insignificant, but it’s the price we pay to ensure that doctors give more consideration to their patients’ well-being.

—-

In an effort to separate fact from fiction—and to provide the first academic study of medical liability system costs— a comprehensive analysis from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers found that medical liability costs totaled about 2.4% of annual health care spending in the United States, or $55.6 billion per year in 2008.

Medical liability costs in U.S. pegged at 2.4 percent of annual health care spending

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]the argument that total property tax receipts are too low because of prop 13 is totally dishonest.

Since prop 13, real estate prices have skyrocketed. Notwithstanding prop 13, property tax receipts have outpaced population growth plus inflation. In that regard, Prop 13 totally failed to cap government’s take.[/quote]

Yes, we are all being subsidized, and we are all subsidizing (those of us who pay taxes, or higher prices for goods/services, etc.).

I’m not necessarily arguing that tax receipts are too low, though I’m not arguing against that, either. We’ve also added billions upon billions (trillions?) of dollars in debt because taxpayers keep voting for more expensive infrastructure, services, and amenities.

And you’re failing to account for the *type* of population growth since the passing of Prop 13. We’ve been adding more and more poor immigrants who tend to consume more of our taxpayer-funded goods and services. But I’m not going to blame them so much as I blame their employers who are paying less than a living wage because of our subsidies. All users (illegal immigrants, and I’d be willing to add citizens to the group so that places like Walmart are held accountable, too) of public goods and services should have to possess an “entitlement” card, paid for by their employer, that covers all of the public costs associated with them and their dependents.

[CA renter]

Capitalism is all about maximizing profits, and nothing else. That’s why we need to regulate it. Personally, I believe in capitalism for the wants, as long as it doesn’t pollute the environment or use up scarce natural resources; we need socialism for the needs, and for the allocation of scarce natural resources, IMHO.

There is an inherent conflict of interest in a for-profit healthcare system. What’s best for patients (prevention, a healthy life with the least intervention) is not at all what’s best for the medical industry.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]”Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]

bad analogy. Once there is a major policy implemented, there is institutional self-perpetuation as well as momentum. It takes a whole generation to right the ship.[/quote]

It’s all the same policy. They just change the names.[/quote]

Exactly right, Allan. The puppets might be portrayed as being from opposite sides, but they are all controlled by the same puppet masters. Those who say that we actually have a say in how we are governed aren’t paying attention to the facts.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]it does seem like there is a difference between a new subsidy, and one that’s been in place a long time.

a subsidy that’s been in place a long time isn’t going to affect behavior, except int he sense that people fear its removal, since as noted above it has already been reflected in market price for the item.

a new subsidy is a different story.

maybe there needs to be different terms for each type of subsidy.[/quote]

But it’s still a subsidy. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]

Not only are your property taxes subsidized (assuming prices have risen more than 2% per year since you’ve bought it), but the interest rate on your mortgage is also subsidized if it’s a govt-backed mortgage.
[/quote]

the subsidy argument is hogwash. If there was a subsidy, it would already have been reflected in the net present value of the house at time of purchase.

with my property taxes, I feel like I’m subsidizing the breeders and their kids. Not that I mind… but the subsidy point can be taken to a circular argument.

The law is what it is… there is no subsidy unless one is specifically designed to a provide a subsidy to a group. government backed mortgages is a subsidy to the housing industry or finance industry, yes. But it’s not a subsidy to homebuyers.[/quote]

Once again…

[quote=CA renter]
As for the subsidy:

“Definition of ‘Subsidy’

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.”

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

…..

tax subsidy
noun [C or U] TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
› a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

[Which Prop 13 largely fails to do, BTW, since most LLs charge market rent, irrespective of the subsidies they receive.]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/tax-subsidy
—–

Prop 13 is absolutely the very essence of a tax subsidy to those who least need it (people who own more property than they can use for themselves). It is unconscionable that we are providing these subsidies when the state and local governments are so strapped.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/comment/reply/18092/243011?quote=1#comment-form

[CA renter]

[quote=CA renter]
As for the subsidy:

“Definition of ‘Subsidy’

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.”

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

…..

tax subsidy
noun [C or U] TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
› a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

[Which Prop 13 largely fails to do, BTW, since most LLs charge market rent, irrespective of the subsidies they receive.]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/business-english/tax-subsidy
—–

Prop 13 is absolutely the very essence of a tax subsidy to those who least need it (people who own more property than they can use for themselves). It is unconscionable that we are providing these subsidies when the state and local governments are so strapped.[/quote]

http://piggington.com/comment/reply/18092/243011?quote=1#comment-form

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]

TemkuT – you have a point, but you do not extend it far enough. There are very few bad things that happen to us that are completely out of our control. Genetic illnesses (including some forms of cancer) and being killed by a meteorite are a few. But let the person who never speeds, who never drinks, who manages their stress well, who stays out of dangerous situations cast the first stone.

There are some who would argue that quick cooking oatmeal (not instant – rolled) for breakfast is not the best choice in terms of it’s glycemic index. I ate it for years (and grape nuts) thinking these were very healthy (now I eat Old Fashioned Oats or eggs). Maybe these choices will end up harming me and costing you money (you seem to have an issue with eggs. . . .) But my guess is that you wouldn’t be resentful because my heart was in the right place. Does that make sense? Here’s another example – a friend of mine had a patient that almost died of liver failure due to some herbal tea she drank for a few months. That was a terrible choice – but probably her level of intelligence played into it (not smart to eat something from an unregulated source). The intelligence of our choices is largely influenced by our intelligence, which is largely genetic.

I feel like food morality is becoming the new religion. Obesity is indeed a problem – I thank my lucky stars that I have managed to avoid it. I know the food industry plays a part – but I’m not sure we know what the answer is. For years people thought ulcers were caused by stress alone. Now we know that they are caused by a bacterial infection. There is some evidence that gut bacteria play a part in obesity. Maybe all of our antimicrobial efforts are coming back to haunt us . . . .[/quote]

Totally concur with you on this, njtosd. I’ve seen too many situations where people who’ve always taken care of their health were stricken with cancer, heart attacks, strokes, etc. while others who’ve smoked, drank, and eaten junk all their lives managed to make it into their 80s relatively unscathed. I think we like to attribute health problems to a person’s lack of discipline because we all want to believe that we have far more control over our lives than we really do.

I, for one, acknowledge our lack of control where health and death are concerned; and I have no problem paying for someone else’s healthcare because I know that I could just as easily be in their shoes. Anyone who thinks that we are in control needs to spend some time in a chemo room to see how many “fat” people who “deserve it” get cancer (very few chemo patients are obese, at least based on what I’ve seen).

We all need to be a bit more compassionate because what we are all guilty of doing things that might compromise our heath and well-being in some way; and that includes those who participate in various diet and exercise regimes.

[CA renter]

CE, do you think it’s because of, or done under the guise of “terrorism.” It seems as though they are using “terrorism” as an excuse to justify all manner of despicable behavior on the part of the govt and its agents.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]
and how they were increased above your already-low, *taxpayer-subsidized rate* because of “Jerry’s kids”!

[/quote]

Talk about nonsense – taxpayers subsidizing me? There’s no way in the world jerry’s kids are subsidizing me – no way.

I’m not even a RE investor per IRS rules. I did not buy the house strictly as an investment.[/quote]

Not only are your property taxes subsidized (assuming prices have risen more than 2% per year since you’ve bought it), but the interest rate on your mortgage is also subsidized if it’s a govt-backed mortgage.

But you’re deflecting again, as always. Answer the question: Which taxes, specifically, are higher than market rate because of “Jerry’s kids”? And by how much, exactly (show your work!). Let’s see actual numbers. And specify exactly why you think it’s “Jerry’s kids” vs. your fellow taxpayers/voters who’ve voted for additional debt or overly-fancy new schools, parks, libraries, or other improvements that are being reflected on your tax bills (and how about those multimillionaire developers and all of the other “private sector” govt contractors…are they “Jerry’s kids,” too?).

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]

You sure it’s not because you’ve paid too much, or that it’s older and needs more maintenance, or that you’re not getting the right tenants who will care for it better, or that your insurance is too high, or your interest rate is too high, or that you haven’t made the right improvements and marketed it properly to get the best possible rent/tenants? No, it’s because of “Jerry’s kids.” [/quote]

yes, I’m sure – and you’re right it is because of Jerry’s Kids – even Bill Maher knows this:

To the list of liberals who vote for higher taxes — and then proceed to complain about them — add comedian Bill Maher.

Incredibly, the caustic, left-wing Maher recently warned, “ln California, I just want to say: Liberals — you could actually lose me.” As a resident of California, a state with high income taxes, Maher complained that his taxes are “over 50 percent.” What’s more, Maher made a point seldom heard except on Fox News or by a rich Parisian. Maher said, “Rich people … actually do pay the freight in this country … like 70 percent” of the taxes. (Presumably, Maher meant that the top 10 percent of taxpayers pay about 70.5 percent of the federal income taxes.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-nX5YsKHBQ%5B/quote%5D

Once again, you’re deflecting and not answering the question. How is it that “Jerry’s kids” are making this house a losing proposition? DETAILS on your property tax changes over the years, please, and how they were increased above your already-low, *taxpayer-subsidized rate* because of “Jerry’s kids”!

Otherwise, you’re full of nonsense. You always like to post nonsensical, right-wing rhetoric without any understanding of the issues.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]What worries me is that the lodger is 64. Does she gain any extra rights or protections when she turns 65? My guess is that evicting elders is more complicated.[/quote]

Good question. Also, since the couple didn’t pay the nanny wages in addition to room and board, it seems that they had broken some law, too. Might make things more difficult.

As horrible as this nanny may be, the couple seem pretty awful, themselves. For one, why in world does the **stay-at-home** mom needs a full-time, live-in nanny? Apparently, the mom knows taking care of three kids and keeping the house clean is a lot of hard work (which is why she hired the nanny), but she didn’t want to pay wages to the person who would be doing all the work? And I’ll be the mom would have foisted all of the “difficult” stuff onto the nanny, too.

Lots of bad actors here, IMHO.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/knx-couple-legally-should-have-paid-the-wont-go-nanny/

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
CAR: Except, in this instance, you can make a strong case that the lodger, by refusing to perform said services, has reneged and breached the contract.

The suggestion below is a good one: Hire a company that does this professionally and have them deal with this.[/quote]

Agree on the breach of contract, but it seems (just based on other articles and comments about the story) that a live-in worker has rights because the home is considered their residence.

Crazy stuff, and one more reason for us not to build a granny flat in our backyard that we were thinking about. UCGal’s story regarding her tenant’s girlfriend/boyfriend was my other red flag.

BTW, UCGal, how did you end up handling that? Did you have them sign the new rules regarding how many nights a bf/gf can stay per week?

[Author]

Posts