Toyota moving to Texas

[usctrojancpa]

Here's a thought...how about cut pensions for state workers?  Let's cut not raise taxes.  Novel idea, huh?

Pensions are contractual obligations the are between the state and the employee.  Why should the state be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of an employee's pension?

How about if the state doesn't have the money to pay for those obligations?  That's what bankruptcy is for and not raising taxes eternally to pay for these excessive pensions.

1)  Yes but the state would have to declare BK first...there are statutory/legal avenues for that

2)  Why are the pensions "excessive"?  Part of the reason why people go to work for the government is in part because of a pension and stability.  Teachers, FF, and police officers for example.  Wouldn't you want to encourage good candidates to take those positions?

I'm not going to get into how the pension programs are ridged for the people at the top to make out like bandits.  I'll just say that the state/municipal pensions are nothing more than a ponzi scheme that will collapse, worse than social security. 

 

[fortune11]

Here's a thought...how about cut pensions for state workers?  Let's cut not raise taxes.  Novel idea, huh?

Pensions are contractual obligations the are between the state and the employee.  Why should the state be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of an employee's pension?

How about if the state doesn't have the money to pay for those obligations?  That's what bankruptcy is for and not raising taxes eternally to pay for these excessive pensions.

1)  Yes but the state would have to declare BK first...there are statutory/legal avenues for that

2)  Why are the pensions "excessive"?  Part of the reason why people go to work for the government is in part because of a pension and stability.  Teachers, FF, and police officers for example.  Wouldn't you want to encourage good candidates to take those positions?

I'm not going to get into how the pension programs are ridged for the people at the top to make out like bandits.  I'll just say that the state/municipal pensions are nothing more than a ponzi scheme that will collapse, worse than social security.

I think pensions are a needed job security for the govt sector but agree here that some states like CA have abused them to enrich unions, particularly law enforcement types.  I also think this is where the mindset of the new tech-rich CA citizens will eventually clash with the older political establishment that is captive to the power of the public sector unions.  Schwarzenegger tried to take them on in 2005 through ballot initiatives but sadly was defeated thanks to heat spending by the public unions.

 

[qwerty]

Why are pensions needed for job security in the govt sector and not other sectors? 

There are plenty of shitty paying jobs across all sectors and most other sectors don?t have pensions.

 

[OCtoSV]

Would these state and local govt workers be able to command higher total compensation in the private sector? what % of law enforcement are degreed? The day Jerry Brown gave state employee unions the right to collective bargaining way back when was the first nail in the coffin.

 

[Hugo Township]

I'm sure ordinary citizens could find the funds for road repair that are already in the budget.

Me - fire every single non-STEM teacher in the UC / Cal State / Community College system. We don't need to pay for 200 different "Film Studies" or "Understanding 17 Century French Poetry" classes within a 50 mile radius do we? We don't need to make these "teachers" pension eligible either. If the market needs the jobs that require this kind of education, there are privately run colleges that can pick up the slack.

Bloat within the California State education system is incredible and should be the first place to cut.

My .02c

What's wrong with a simple proposal to tax the people who are using a service? It's a user fee.

I'll quote from the Cato Institute:

The purpose of user fees is to help consumers understand the true cost of what they use and help producers know where to invest in more facilities. Highway user fees should be proportional to how much people use highways, not how much fuel they use. Gas taxes were an adequate user fee when most cars got about the same miles per gallon, but they make less sense today.

Gas taxes were originally implemented by the states nearly a hundred years ago because they were cheap to collect and congestion wasn?t a serious problem. Today, Americans waste more than $100 billion a year sitting in traffic, and the main reason for congestion is that roads are improperly priced.

Gas taxes are an inefficient user fee because they don?t tell drivers that it costs more to drive on some roads than others or during some parts of the day than others. Oregon and other states are developing electronic fee collection systems that insure that people pay for what they use while protecting privacy.

These systems can eliminate congestion by actually increasing the rush-hour capacity of our roads. Rather than raise gas taxes, Congress should take steps towards implementing a new user fee system that preserves privacy, ends congestion, and eliminates highway subsidies.

I'm assuming you lean libertarian in your political view, if not, my mistake. If you believe in free markets I don't see how you can be against user fees, despite the wallet-related pain.

 

[morekaos]

I have dealt with CALPER's and STRS and I can tell you first hand, They are run by morons and riddled with corruption, nepotism and ineptness.  They consistently over-promise and under deliver on returns with very little accountability.  Both systems will collapse eventually.  Taxpayer funding of that "obligation" is all that keeps it afloat.

 

[Liar Loan]

Here's a thought...how about cut pensions for state workers?  Let's cut not raise taxes.  Novel idea, huh?

Pensions are contractual obligations the are between the state and the employee.  Why should the state be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of an employee's pension?

Cutting existing obligations is more difficult, but cutting pensions for new hires isn't that difficult.  Jerry Brown already pushed through some changes in this regard.  My wife will get a teacher's pension from CALSTRS and her insane benefits are slightly less insane for new teachers.  She will be able to start drawing a pension at age 51 while new hires will have to wait until age 55, I believe. (I don't feel like looking it up.)

Why are pensions needed for job security in the govt sector and not other sectors? 

There are plenty of shitty paying jobs across all sectors and most other sectors don?t have pensions.

I wouldn't consider CA teachers, firefighters, and cops to have shitty paying jobs either.  My wife makes $100k as a teacher with 3 months vacation.  That is 2-3x what a private school teacher typically makes at the elementary level.  Many firefighters and cops make $120k+ when you include overtime pay.

 

[qwerty]

I agree plenty of govt jobs pay well like cops and firefighters. The shitty pay is normally the excuse for why a pension is necessary. For cops and firefighters the excuse is that they need to retire at 50 because you wouldn?t want the Person trying to protect you or save your life being 50 do you?

 

[OCtoSV]

Here's a thought...how about cut pensions for state workers?  Let's cut not raise taxes.  Novel idea, huh?

Pensions are contractual obligations the are between the state and the employee.  Why should the state be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of an employee's pension?

Cutting existing obligations is more difficult, but cutting pensions for new hires isn't that difficult.  Jerry Brown already pushed through some changes in this regard.  My wife will get a teacher's pension from CALSTRS and her insane benefits are slightly less insane for new teachers.  She will be able to start drawing a pension at age 51 while new hires will have to wait until age 55, I believe. (I don't feel like looking it up.)

Why are pensions needed for job security in the govt sector and not other sectors? 

There are plenty of shitty paying jobs across all sectors and most other sectors don?t have pensions.

I wouldn't consider CA teachers, firefighters, and cops to have shitty paying jobs either.  My wife makes $100k as a teacher with 3 months vacation.  That is 2-3x what a private school teacher typically makes at the elementary level.  Many firefighters and cops make $120k+ when you include overtime pay.

The courts have been clear that state pension "contracts" are not unbreakable (I'm sure there is a better legal term). Look at Detroit. This day of reckoning is coming for everyone covered by CALPERS and STRS.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Here's a thought...how about cut pensions for state workers?  Let's cut not raise taxes.  Novel idea, huh?

Pensions are contractual obligations the are between the state and the employee.  Why should the state be allowed to unilaterally change the terms of an employee's pension?

Cutting existing obligations is more difficult, but cutting pensions for new hires isn't that difficult.  Jerry Brown already pushed through some changes in this regard.  My wife will get a teacher's pension from CALSTRS and her insane benefits are slightly less insane for new teachers.  She will be able to start drawing a pension at age 51 while new hires will have to wait until age 55, I believe. (I don't feel like looking it up.)

Why are pensions needed for job security in the govt sector and not other sectors? 

There are plenty of shitty paying jobs across all sectors and most other sectors don?t have pensions.

I wouldn't consider CA teachers, firefighters, and cops to have shitty paying jobs either.  My wife makes $100k as a teacher with 3 months vacation.  That is 2-3x what a private school teacher typically makes at the elementary level.  Many firefighters and cops make $120k+ when you include overtime pay.

The courts have been clear that state pension "contracts" are not unbreakable (I'm sure there is a better legal term). Look at Detroit. This day of reckoning is coming for everyone covered by CALPERS and STRS.

State pension contracts are unbreakable in California as of now...there is another SC review upcoming but Cali SC has been pretty consistent in holding that pensions are contractual obligations that cannot be broken unilaterally.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I agree plenty of govt jobs pay well like cops and firefighters. The shitty pay is normally the excuse for why a pension is necessary. For cops and firefighters the excuse is that they need to retire at 50 because you wouldn?t want the Person trying to protect you or save your life being 50 do you?

Deputy Chief, Michael Knox says staffing numbers are at a dangerous low. In fact, he says they?re down at least 300 street-ready officers right now. ?It causes us to put an enormous amount of stress on the existing staff,? Knox says ?to make up for everyone who has left this department.?

He blames the exodus mostly on a watershed moment back in 2012. That?s when San Jose voters passed local ballot measure B. The initiative poured vinegar into the sweet tea of public worker compensation deals by making sweeping cuts to retirement pensions. Current employees would have to pay more for their retirement benefits or take a less generous pension. New employees would be offered less. All public workers would lose their disability protections as well the certainty of their pensions, altogether if there was a fiscal emergency.

?That has made it increasingly difficult to compete with other agencies,? says Knox. ?And not only to recruit but to retain our staff.?

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/01/01/a-case-study-on-pension-reform-san-joses-grand-compromise/

 

[Liar Loan]

So he's saying other agencies that haven't reformed pensions yet are scooping up all the talent.  This is the argument that police departments have been making for all eternity.  It's the reason pensions got so out of control to begin with.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So he's saying other agencies that haven't reformed pensions yet are scooping up all the talent.  This is the argument that police departments have been making for all eternity.  It's the reason pensions got so out of control to begin with.

He is saying that pensions are a factor in getting good candidates for the job. 

BTW:  Back to your other point.  Teachers do make 6 figures but after 10+ years and with some sort of advanced degree.  They fund their own pension just like people fund SS.  The problem is no different, you have a huge group retiring and people are living longer.  And one of the biggest issue in health benefits, which is also an issue that is much bigger than pensions.
http://www.ppic.org/publication/public-pension-liabilities-in-california/

I also don't get the concern over unfunded liabilities...it's is no different than mortgages that most of us carry.  We pay as we go.  Does not mean that somehow mortgages are bad ideas.

 

[Liar Loan]

One teensie, eensie, weensie difference is that SS only allows you to start collecting at age 62, and it's a tiny fraction of what one would have earned in their final year of employment.  For instance, my dad retired at age 63 and was getting 31% of his final salary.

My wife's CalSTRS pension will allow her to retire at age 51 with 50% of her final year's salary.  If she waits until age 62, she will get 98% of her pay.  So to equate SS to a public pension is a bit misleading.  One system ensures some basic level of survival, and the other is extremely generous.

Teachers do fund their own pensions, but only part of it.  The district covers the rest, and when the district can't afford to make those payments, they either impose tax increases on other citizens to pay for them, or they cut money for existing classrooms.

 

[daedalus]

I also don't get the concern over unfunded liabilities...it's is no different than mortgages that most of us carry.  We pay as we go.  Does not mean that somehow mortgages are bad ideas.

To stick with a bad analogy, pensions are more like a negative amortization loan, but worse.  The costs are going to increase over time, while the projections to pay for them are based on aggressive bullshit assumptions about future investment returns.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I also don't get the concern over unfunded liabilities...it's is no different than mortgages that most of us carry.  We pay as we go.  Does not mean that somehow mortgages are bad ideas.

To stick with a bad analogy, pensions are more like a negative amortization loan, but worse.  The costs are going to increase over time, while the projections to pay for them are based on aggressive bullshit assumptions about future investment returns.

That makes some sense.  I mean I get the concern but a lot of the issues with pensions have to do with demographics and the Great Rescission.  I mean one of the big contentions pension critics have is that they use too high of RoR to calculate pension contribution but the 7% used is in line with historical norms.

 

[eyephone]

Taxpayers are on the hook for governmental pensions.

 

[usctrojancpa]

I also don't get the concern over unfunded liabilities...it's is no different than mortgages that most of us carry.  We pay as we go.  Does not mean that somehow mortgages are bad ideas.

To stick with a bad analogy, pensions are more like a negative amortization loan, but worse.  The costs are going to increase over time, while the projections to pay for them are based on aggressive bullshit assumptions about future investment returns.

That makes some sense.  I mean I get the concern but a lot of the issues with pensions have to do with demographics and the Great Rescission.  I mean one of the big contentions pension critics have is that they use too high of RoR to calculate pension contribution but the 7% used is in line with historical norms.

Problem is that the pension system is broken, it should be more like SS where you make a fraction of your highest salary not nearly 100% of it.

 

[morekaos]

Quoting for 2018.

MoreKaos' predictions have been scarily correct (except for the mass exodus of businesses from California ).

I stand by my predictions...causality, cause and effect.

Nearly 450,000 People Fled These Three Deep Blue States In 2017

California was the third deep blue state to experience significant domestic out-migration between July 2016 and July 2017, and it couldn?t blame the outflow on retirees searching for a more agreeable climate. About 138,000 residents left the state during that time period, second only to New York.

Going forward, one factor that could worsen domestic out-migration from New York, California and Illinois is the newly-enacted tax reform bill, which caps state and local tax (SALT) deductions at $10,000. The limit on SALT deduction is poised to hit taxpayers harder in those states than it will in just about any other.

According to the Tax Foundation, New York, Illinois and California had three of the five highest tax rates expressed as a percentage of per capita income, with residents paying 12.7 percent, 11 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/26/nearly-450000-people-fled-these-three-deep-blue-states-in-2017/
https://youtu.be/6HU6FkEMx7k

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Yet Cali's population grew by 335,000 residents:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2017PressRelease.pdf

Cali is still the most populated state and 3rd in growth numerically:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/estimates-idaho.html

So maybe we are not doing as well as previous years in terms of economic growth, it's still growing.

Still waiting for morekaos to tell us when he's moving out of Cali.