[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.

[DWCAP]

[quote=kcal09]This is a brief article published yesterday. Would appreciate your opinions…

To buy or not to buy?

……[/quote]

Who wrote that? A RE agent? A home builder? Someone trying to sell a house? Cause that is a pretty bullish piece, completly missing a few key details.

1) Inventory is UP, not down. I dont know where they get that special 22% drop in inventory, but that isnt what I see. Not here in San Diego.

2) The author needs to show some math on that “owners vs Renter” comment at the end. Where, what houses/condo’s/townhomes, payment levels etc etc etc. Sure, there are some deals out there, but there are some real turkeys too. Are they including the tens of thousands of dollars itll take to turn some of the REO inventory this guy has to be talking about into rental quality? Blanket statements like that throw up red flags to me.

3) Sure mention rates, also mention what it takes to qualify for those rates. Better credit, higher downs, higher reserves, low debt. It takes people time to adjust to this.

4) How about talking about the LOSS of the FEDERAL REBATE instead of just blabbing on about the state tax CREDIT. The loss of the rebate drove buyers out of the market, simple as that. (Not to mention that 10k number is such bull, even the state is estimating that the real average rebate is gonna be about $5700, not 10k.) The Federal one was a guarenteed $8000. No wonder the state CREDIT over 3 years didnt make up for the federal $$ in hand.

5) Pricing was driven by the tax rebate, not some kinda ‘over correction’ atleast not as far as the general market is concerned. Now that the rebate is over prices are falling, why shouldnt buyers hold out for 10-15% drops in pricing now that the market is weak? That is alot more $$ than any dumb tax credit unless you are buying low end 1/1 apts.

6) JOBS JOBS JOBS, Do I need to say more?????

7) There was a large buying spree in the early spring for the tax credit. And all the good, well priced properties were sold. Now we have over priced, or junk. Not every house is created equal, but price will fix anything. So buyer wait for the right price.

Seriously, who wrote this????

[DWCAP]

[quote=kcal09]This is a brief article published yesterday. Would appreciate your opinions…

To buy or not to buy?

……[/quote]

Who wrote that? A RE agent? A home builder? Someone trying to sell a house? Cause that is a pretty bullish piece, completly missing a few key details.

1) Inventory is UP, not down. I dont know where they get that special 22% drop in inventory, but that isnt what I see. Not here in San Diego.

2) The author needs to show some math on that “owners vs Renter” comment at the end. Where, what houses/condo’s/townhomes, payment levels etc etc etc. Sure, there are some deals out there, but there are some real turkeys too. Are they including the tens of thousands of dollars itll take to turn some of the REO inventory this guy has to be talking about into rental quality? Blanket statements like that throw up red flags to me.

3) Sure mention rates, also mention what it takes to qualify for those rates. Better credit, higher downs, higher reserves, low debt. It takes people time to adjust to this.

4) How about talking about the LOSS of the FEDERAL REBATE instead of just blabbing on about the state tax CREDIT. The loss of the rebate drove buyers out of the market, simple as that. (Not to mention that 10k number is such bull, even the state is estimating that the real average rebate is gonna be about $5700, not 10k.) The Federal one was a guarenteed $8000. No wonder the state CREDIT over 3 years didnt make up for the federal $$ in hand.

5) Pricing was driven by the tax rebate, not some kinda ‘over correction’ atleast not as far as the general market is concerned. Now that the rebate is over prices are falling, why shouldnt buyers hold out for 10-15% drops in pricing now that the market is weak? That is alot more $$ than any dumb tax credit unless you are buying low end 1/1 apts.

6) JOBS JOBS JOBS, Do I need to say more?????

7) There was a large buying spree in the early spring for the tax credit. And all the good, well priced properties were sold. Now we have over priced, or junk. Not every house is created equal, but price will fix anything. So buyer wait for the right price.

Seriously, who wrote this????

[DWCAP]

[quote=kcal09]This is a brief article published yesterday. Would appreciate your opinions…

To buy or not to buy?

……[/quote]

Who wrote that? A RE agent? A home builder? Someone trying to sell a house? Cause that is a pretty bullish piece, completly missing a few key details.

1) Inventory is UP, not down. I dont know where they get that special 22% drop in inventory, but that isnt what I see. Not here in San Diego.

2) The author needs to show some math on that “owners vs Renter” comment at the end. Where, what houses/condo’s/townhomes, payment levels etc etc etc. Sure, there are some deals out there, but there are some real turkeys too. Are they including the tens of thousands of dollars itll take to turn some of the REO inventory this guy has to be talking about into rental quality? Blanket statements like that throw up red flags to me.

3) Sure mention rates, also mention what it takes to qualify for those rates. Better credit, higher downs, higher reserves, low debt. It takes people time to adjust to this.

4) How about talking about the LOSS of the FEDERAL REBATE instead of just blabbing on about the state tax CREDIT. The loss of the rebate drove buyers out of the market, simple as that. (Not to mention that 10k number is such bull, even the state is estimating that the real average rebate is gonna be about $5700, not 10k.) The Federal one was a guarenteed $8000. No wonder the state CREDIT over 3 years didnt make up for the federal $$ in hand.

5) Pricing was driven by the tax rebate, not some kinda ‘over correction’ atleast not as far as the general market is concerned. Now that the rebate is over prices are falling, why shouldnt buyers hold out for 10-15% drops in pricing now that the market is weak? That is alot more $$ than any dumb tax credit unless you are buying low end 1/1 apts.

6) JOBS JOBS JOBS, Do I need to say more?????

7) There was a large buying spree in the early spring for the tax credit. And all the good, well priced properties were sold. Now we have over priced, or junk. Not every house is created equal, but price will fix anything. So buyer wait for the right price.

Seriously, who wrote this????

[DWCAP]

[quote=kcal09]This is a brief article published yesterday. Would appreciate your opinions…

To buy or not to buy?

……[/quote]

Who wrote that? A RE agent? A home builder? Someone trying to sell a house? Cause that is a pretty bullish piece, completly missing a few key details.

1) Inventory is UP, not down. I dont know where they get that special 22% drop in inventory, but that isnt what I see. Not here in San Diego.

2) The author needs to show some math on that “owners vs Renter” comment at the end. Where, what houses/condo’s/townhomes, payment levels etc etc etc. Sure, there are some deals out there, but there are some real turkeys too. Are they including the tens of thousands of dollars itll take to turn some of the REO inventory this guy has to be talking about into rental quality? Blanket statements like that throw up red flags to me.

3) Sure mention rates, also mention what it takes to qualify for those rates. Better credit, higher downs, higher reserves, low debt. It takes people time to adjust to this.

4) How about talking about the LOSS of the FEDERAL REBATE instead of just blabbing on about the state tax CREDIT. The loss of the rebate drove buyers out of the market, simple as that. (Not to mention that 10k number is such bull, even the state is estimating that the real average rebate is gonna be about $5700, not 10k.) The Federal one was a guarenteed $8000. No wonder the state CREDIT over 3 years didnt make up for the federal $$ in hand.

5) Pricing was driven by the tax rebate, not some kinda ‘over correction’ atleast not as far as the general market is concerned. Now that the rebate is over prices are falling, why shouldnt buyers hold out for 10-15% drops in pricing now that the market is weak? That is alot more $$ than any dumb tax credit unless you are buying low end 1/1 apts.

6) JOBS JOBS JOBS, Do I need to say more?????

7) There was a large buying spree in the early spring for the tax credit. And all the good, well priced properties were sold. Now we have over priced, or junk. Not every house is created equal, but price will fix anything. So buyer wait for the right price.

Seriously, who wrote this????

[DWCAP]

[quote=kcal09]This is a brief article published yesterday. Would appreciate your opinions…

To buy or not to buy?

……[/quote]

Who wrote that? A RE agent? A home builder? Someone trying to sell a house? Cause that is a pretty bullish piece, completly missing a few key details.

1) Inventory is UP, not down. I dont know where they get that special 22% drop in inventory, but that isnt what I see. Not here in San Diego.

2) The author needs to show some math on that “owners vs Renter” comment at the end. Where, what houses/condo’s/townhomes, payment levels etc etc etc. Sure, there are some deals out there, but there are some real turkeys too. Are they including the tens of thousands of dollars itll take to turn some of the REO inventory this guy has to be talking about into rental quality? Blanket statements like that throw up red flags to me.

3) Sure mention rates, also mention what it takes to qualify for those rates. Better credit, higher downs, higher reserves, low debt. It takes people time to adjust to this.

4) How about talking about the LOSS of the FEDERAL REBATE instead of just blabbing on about the state tax CREDIT. The loss of the rebate drove buyers out of the market, simple as that. (Not to mention that 10k number is such bull, even the state is estimating that the real average rebate is gonna be about $5700, not 10k.) The Federal one was a guarenteed $8000. No wonder the state CREDIT over 3 years didnt make up for the federal $$ in hand.

5) Pricing was driven by the tax rebate, not some kinda ‘over correction’ atleast not as far as the general market is concerned. Now that the rebate is over prices are falling, why shouldnt buyers hold out for 10-15% drops in pricing now that the market is weak? That is alot more $$ than any dumb tax credit unless you are buying low end 1/1 apts.

6) JOBS JOBS JOBS, Do I need to say more?????

7) There was a large buying spree in the early spring for the tax credit. And all the good, well priced properties were sold. Now we have over priced, or junk. Not every house is created equal, but price will fix anything. So buyer wait for the right price.

Seriously, who wrote this????

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.[/quote]

Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.[/quote]

Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=XBoxBoy]
I’m no expert on the Tea Party, (nor would I categorize myself as a supporter) but my take runs something like this.

The Tea Party started as grass roots thing. It’s agenda was pretty undefined, with lots of different people all with their own idea of what it was about.

[/quote]

Your take is in conflict with history. It did not begin as a grass roots thing. And it’s agenda was better defined at its origin than it is now.

Look into who funded and promoted the initial events. Despite their claims to the contrary, it is astroturf gone organic.[/quote]

Id like to see some links or other supporting evidence.

[Author]

Posts