Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410320June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #409517
SDEngineer
ParticipantDoesn’t strike me as too out of line for the job and responsibilities. Considering the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company, it appears to me that like many in public service (not all, particularly politicians for life) they are a bit underpaid in comparison to the private sector equivalent, but the defined pension benefit largely makes up for that. I imagine a CEO that made it up the ladder quickly enough and retired in his/her mid-50’s if they lived at a similar standard of living to the 165K/yr would probably have enough in retirement accounts to be able to count on a similar retirement income.
It really depends on whether you want your money front or back loaded – private sector tends to front load careers by paying higher salaries, but in turn requires that employee to largely fund and manage their own retirement.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #409756ParticipantDoesn’t strike me as too out of line for the job and responsibilities. Considering the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company, it appears to me that like many in public service (not all, particularly politicians for life) they are a bit underpaid in comparison to the private sector equivalent, but the defined pension benefit largely makes up for that. I imagine a CEO that made it up the ladder quickly enough and retired in his/her mid-50’s if they lived at a similar standard of living to the 165K/yr would probably have enough in retirement accounts to be able to count on a similar retirement income.
It really depends on whether you want your money front or back loaded – private sector tends to front load careers by paying higher salaries, but in turn requires that employee to largely fund and manage their own retirement.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410003ParticipantDoesn’t strike me as too out of line for the job and responsibilities. Considering the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company, it appears to me that like many in public service (not all, particularly politicians for life) they are a bit underpaid in comparison to the private sector equivalent, but the defined pension benefit largely makes up for that. I imagine a CEO that made it up the ladder quickly enough and retired in his/her mid-50’s if they lived at a similar standard of living to the 165K/yr would probably have enough in retirement accounts to be able to count on a similar retirement income.
It really depends on whether you want your money front or back loaded – private sector tends to front load careers by paying higher salaries, but in turn requires that employee to largely fund and manage their own retirement.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410064ParticipantDoesn’t strike me as too out of line for the job and responsibilities. Considering the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company, it appears to me that like many in public service (not all, particularly politicians for life) they are a bit underpaid in comparison to the private sector equivalent, but the defined pension benefit largely makes up for that. I imagine a CEO that made it up the ladder quickly enough and retired in his/her mid-50’s if they lived at a similar standard of living to the 165K/yr would probably have enough in retirement accounts to be able to count on a similar retirement income.
It really depends on whether you want your money front or back loaded – private sector tends to front load careers by paying higher salaries, but in turn requires that employee to largely fund and manage their own retirement.
June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM in reply to: San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life… #410215ParticipantDoesn’t strike me as too out of line for the job and responsibilities. Considering the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company, it appears to me that like many in public service (not all, particularly politicians for life) they are a bit underpaid in comparison to the private sector equivalent, but the defined pension benefit largely makes up for that. I imagine a CEO that made it up the ladder quickly enough and retired in his/her mid-50’s if they lived at a similar standard of living to the 165K/yr would probably have enough in retirement accounts to be able to count on a similar retirement income.
It really depends on whether you want your money front or back loaded – private sector tends to front load careers by paying higher salaries, but in turn requires that employee to largely fund and manage their own retirement.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
And buying stuff I need from the higher priced vendor (USA) cuts in to my personal profits. That’s my point. Why should the consumer fund the “Buy American” campaign? Why not the producers ?
Seems to me the real cost is in the added overhead of minimum wage, and an effective tax rate of about 50 – 60% of all income over the poverty level.
Cut back on the 9% CA income tax, 30% USA income tax, the 8% sales tax, 15% social security, and set the minimum wage at $0.00 and we could potentially compete again.
[/quote]Sounds great – wait…didn’t we try that back in the 1800’s? Yeah, the middle class did really well back in those days.
You’re overestimating the tax burden a wee bit as well, unless you consider the poverty line to be something north of 200K/yr. My households total tax burden was about 35% (including fed, state, ssi, and medicare), and we make well into the six figures. Of course, my TOP marginal tax rate was above that, but I don’t pay that rate on my entire income.
I think our society has become just a wee bit too hung up over the pursuit of the almighty dollar. There was once a time, not too long ago, when you bought quality instead of the cheapest thing on the market, and when people bought products made in the USA because they knew they were helping fellow Americans.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
And buying stuff I need from the higher priced vendor (USA) cuts in to my personal profits. That’s my point. Why should the consumer fund the “Buy American” campaign? Why not the producers ?
Seems to me the real cost is in the added overhead of minimum wage, and an effective tax rate of about 50 – 60% of all income over the poverty level.
Cut back on the 9% CA income tax, 30% USA income tax, the 8% sales tax, 15% social security, and set the minimum wage at $0.00 and we could potentially compete again.
[/quote]Sounds great – wait…didn’t we try that back in the 1800’s? Yeah, the middle class did really well back in those days.
You’re overestimating the tax burden a wee bit as well, unless you consider the poverty line to be something north of 200K/yr. My households total tax burden was about 35% (including fed, state, ssi, and medicare), and we make well into the six figures. Of course, my TOP marginal tax rate was above that, but I don’t pay that rate on my entire income.
I think our society has become just a wee bit too hung up over the pursuit of the almighty dollar. There was once a time, not too long ago, when you bought quality instead of the cheapest thing on the market, and when people bought products made in the USA because they knew they were helping fellow Americans.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
And buying stuff I need from the higher priced vendor (USA) cuts in to my personal profits. That’s my point. Why should the consumer fund the “Buy American” campaign? Why not the producers ?
Seems to me the real cost is in the added overhead of minimum wage, and an effective tax rate of about 50 – 60% of all income over the poverty level.
Cut back on the 9% CA income tax, 30% USA income tax, the 8% sales tax, 15% social security, and set the minimum wage at $0.00 and we could potentially compete again.
[/quote]Sounds great – wait…didn’t we try that back in the 1800’s? Yeah, the middle class did really well back in those days.
You’re overestimating the tax burden a wee bit as well, unless you consider the poverty line to be something north of 200K/yr. My households total tax burden was about 35% (including fed, state, ssi, and medicare), and we make well into the six figures. Of course, my TOP marginal tax rate was above that, but I don’t pay that rate on my entire income.
I think our society has become just a wee bit too hung up over the pursuit of the almighty dollar. There was once a time, not too long ago, when you bought quality instead of the cheapest thing on the market, and when people bought products made in the USA because they knew they were helping fellow Americans.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
And buying stuff I need from the higher priced vendor (USA) cuts in to my personal profits. That’s my point. Why should the consumer fund the “Buy American” campaign? Why not the producers ?
Seems to me the real cost is in the added overhead of minimum wage, and an effective tax rate of about 50 – 60% of all income over the poverty level.
Cut back on the 9% CA income tax, 30% USA income tax, the 8% sales tax, 15% social security, and set the minimum wage at $0.00 and we could potentially compete again.
[/quote]Sounds great – wait…didn’t we try that back in the 1800’s? Yeah, the middle class did really well back in those days.
You’re overestimating the tax burden a wee bit as well, unless you consider the poverty line to be something north of 200K/yr. My households total tax burden was about 35% (including fed, state, ssi, and medicare), and we make well into the six figures. Of course, my TOP marginal tax rate was above that, but I don’t pay that rate on my entire income.
I think our society has become just a wee bit too hung up over the pursuit of the almighty dollar. There was once a time, not too long ago, when you bought quality instead of the cheapest thing on the market, and when people bought products made in the USA because they knew they were helping fellow Americans.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
And buying stuff I need from the higher priced vendor (USA) cuts in to my personal profits. That’s my point. Why should the consumer fund the “Buy American” campaign? Why not the producers ?
Seems to me the real cost is in the added overhead of minimum wage, and an effective tax rate of about 50 – 60% of all income over the poverty level.
Cut back on the 9% CA income tax, 30% USA income tax, the 8% sales tax, 15% social security, and set the minimum wage at $0.00 and we could potentially compete again.
[/quote]Sounds great – wait…didn’t we try that back in the 1800’s? Yeah, the middle class did really well back in those days.
You’re overestimating the tax burden a wee bit as well, unless you consider the poverty line to be something north of 200K/yr. My households total tax burden was about 35% (including fed, state, ssi, and medicare), and we make well into the six figures. Of course, my TOP marginal tax rate was above that, but I don’t pay that rate on my entire income.
I think our society has become just a wee bit too hung up over the pursuit of the almighty dollar. There was once a time, not too long ago, when you bought quality instead of the cheapest thing on the market, and when people bought products made in the USA because they knew they were helping fellow Americans.
Participant[quote=sobmaz]I keep hearing that line.
Need I point out that in San Diego during the early 80’s the average home price reflected 3 to 4 times annual income? So yes, when rates went up, prices stagnated rather than declined. Stagnation during inflation has the net affect of decreasing the REAL price.
Now, in North Park for example, the average house is anywhere between 7 and 10 times average wages.
It all seems pretty simple, never before have we had housing prices so out of whack. What happened in the past cannot be a predictor of the future.
Pretty simple if you ask me, interest rates will have a far far more drasitic effect compared to any other time. [/quote]
Depends on the area, of course – some places have felt significantly less pain than others, but, at least according to research done on this site by Rich (Mr. Pigg himself), prices are no longer fundamentally out of alignment. See here:
and you’ll note on the first chart that the Case Shiller median divided by per capita income is now about where it was in ’84 – well into the decline curve and fairly close to the historical bottoms.
BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.
Participant[quote=sobmaz]I keep hearing that line.
Need I point out that in San Diego during the early 80’s the average home price reflected 3 to 4 times annual income? So yes, when rates went up, prices stagnated rather than declined. Stagnation during inflation has the net affect of decreasing the REAL price.
Now, in North Park for example, the average house is anywhere between 7 and 10 times average wages.
It all seems pretty simple, never before have we had housing prices so out of whack. What happened in the past cannot be a predictor of the future.
Pretty simple if you ask me, interest rates will have a far far more drasitic effect compared to any other time. [/quote]
Depends on the area, of course – some places have felt significantly less pain than others, but, at least according to research done on this site by Rich (Mr. Pigg himself), prices are no longer fundamentally out of alignment. See here:
and you’ll note on the first chart that the Case Shiller median divided by per capita income is now about where it was in ’84 – well into the decline curve and fairly close to the historical bottoms.
BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.
Participant[quote=sobmaz]I keep hearing that line.
Need I point out that in San Diego during the early 80’s the average home price reflected 3 to 4 times annual income? So yes, when rates went up, prices stagnated rather than declined. Stagnation during inflation has the net affect of decreasing the REAL price.
Now, in North Park for example, the average house is anywhere between 7 and 10 times average wages.
It all seems pretty simple, never before have we had housing prices so out of whack. What happened in the past cannot be a predictor of the future.
Pretty simple if you ask me, interest rates will have a far far more drasitic effect compared to any other time. [/quote]
Depends on the area, of course – some places have felt significantly less pain than others, but, at least according to research done on this site by Rich (Mr. Pigg himself), prices are no longer fundamentally out of alignment. See here:
and you’ll note on the first chart that the Case Shiller median divided by per capita income is now about where it was in ’84 – well into the decline curve and fairly close to the historical bottoms.
BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.
Participant[quote=sobmaz]I keep hearing that line.
Need I point out that in San Diego during the early 80’s the average home price reflected 3 to 4 times annual income? So yes, when rates went up, prices stagnated rather than declined. Stagnation during inflation has the net affect of decreasing the REAL price.
Now, in North Park for example, the average house is anywhere between 7 and 10 times average wages.
It all seems pretty simple, never before have we had housing prices so out of whack. What happened in the past cannot be a predictor of the future.
Pretty simple if you ask me, interest rates will have a far far more drasitic effect compared to any other time. [/quote]
Depends on the area, of course – some places have felt significantly less pain than others, but, at least according to research done on this site by Rich (Mr. Pigg himself), prices are no longer fundamentally out of alignment. See here:
and you’ll note on the first chart that the Case Shiller median divided by per capita income is now about where it was in ’84 – well into the decline curve and fairly close to the historical bottoms.
BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.
-
AuthorPosts
