View Full Version : Report has public pension short fall at $4.6 trillion
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/u-s-public-pension-shortfall-4-6-trillion-budget-group-says.html
Moody's has it at about $2 trillion; the report states that the average pension is 41% funded--Yipes!
Apparently, one of the major culprits was the optimistic expected return on the pension fund investments--typically pegged at 8%. CALPERS earned just 1% in the past year indicating how far off even the major pension funds can be.
Naturally, the tax payers will have to make up the difference.
aircarver
01-04-2013, 16:18
Can nobody in government do math ? .....:frown:
.
Glock20 10mm
01-04-2013, 16:20
Can nobody in government do math ? .....:frown:
.
Sure! We just don't understand the math they are doing though.:faint:
pensions are a Ponzi scheme
There are not sustainable, so the people that get in early enough get paid, everybody else is just a payer.
NV PERS had a return for 2012 of 16%. Since 1984 they have a net return of 9.3%, also greater than the 8% expected. So does that mean I should get a refund of my contributions since they did better than their expected rate of return? If there was a shortfall you would expect that I would have to contribute more, right?
The problem with a lot of pension plans (CALPERS included) is that the money wasn't put into the plan to be invested as required. Instead the lawmakers wrote an IOU and spent the money elsewhere. Since that money wasn't invested, there's no way for it to achieve the rate of return required to sustain the system.
This kind of misappropriation committed by politicians across the country would land everyone involved in prison if it were done in private business. If the systems are underfunded and going broke it's because of mismanagement at the highest level, not because they're unsustainable.
certifiedfunds
01-04-2013, 16:48
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/u-s-public-pension-shortfall-4-6-trillion-budget-group-says.html
Moody's has it at about $2 trillion; the report states that the average pension is 41% funded--Yipes!
Apparently, one of the major culprits was the optimistic expected return on the pension fund investments--typically pegged at 8%. CALPERS earned just 1% in the past year indicating how far off even the major pension funds can be.
Naturally, the tax payers will have to make up the difference.
CALPERS? Unpossible! Where's CACop?
Here's a rough tip: If your employer is promising you a pension that is much better than the productive sector receives, or, is something the productive sector has had to abandon because it is unaffordable -- you might be in for a surprise.
certifiedfunds
01-04-2013, 16:50
NV PERS had a return for 2012 of 16%. Since 1984 they have a net return of 9.3%, also greater than the 8% expected. So does that mean I should get a refund of my contributions since they did better than their expected rate of return? If there was a shortfall you would expect that I would have to contribute more, right?
The problem with a lot of pension plans (CALPERS included) is that the money wasn't put into the plan to be invested as required. Instead the lawmakers wrote an IOU and spent the money elsewhere. Since that money wasn't invested, there's no way for it to achieve the rate of return required to sustain the system.
This kind of misappropriation committed by politicians across the country would land everyone involved in prison if it were done in private business. If the systems are underfunded and going broke it's because of mismanagement at the highest level, not because they're unsustainable.
The politicians spent your contributions or the taxpayers' contributions?
If it is taxpayers contributions how is it misspent? Did they break the law?
fastbolt
01-04-2013, 16:52
Kind of depends upon the retirement system.
The one I'm in only has more than 10K members.
It's funded ratio is over 70%. It's been as high as almost 80%, and as low as the middle 60's.
In 2009-10 it earned 14%.
In 2010-11 it earned 24%.
For 2011-12, when the recovery stalled, it went to essentially zero. For the first 3 months of 2012-13 fiscal year it rose to over 5%, and for the 12 months ending in Sep 2012 it had earned over 18%.
I don't believe the fund can be "borrowed from", either. ;)
Things fluctuate, but it appears that some retirement systems and funds can be managed well.
I'm just lucky that I ended up in what's seemingly a good retirement system. This wasn't known to me as a young man, nor was I really thinking about it back then when I took the job.
Florida's is 87% http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/aug/06/florida-retirement-system-among-nations-healthy/ Or 101% in this report http://www.governing.com/topics/public-workforce/pensions/pension-preparedness.html And has been well funded since 2000 http://www.santarosa.fl.gov/hr/documents/FLRetirementSystemmemo032309ver5.pdf
And the state has had retirement systems in place since 1945 for state and county employees and a system for state employees since 1927. Sort of a long time for a ponzi scheme to survive.
That said I think it was Illinois that was funded at ~54% which seems to me to be a potential for a problem.
Hell, that's only one more tax by the feds to pay for those obligations that will be unfunded. The middle class has unlimited funds to shore up bad risks. Just ask any Congressman or Federal employee.
The politicians spent your contributions or the taxpayers' contributions?
If it is taxpayers contributions how is it misspent? Did they break the law?
It's misspent because the money was budgeted to be paid into the retirement system, not to be spent on operating expenses. Just like when a company budgets to build a new factory but instead gives a raise to the ceo. It isn't illegal to spend the money in that manner, but it doesn't negate the fact that the factory still needs to be built.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/u-s-public-pension-shortfall-4-6-trillion-budget-group-says.html
Moody's has it at about $2 trillion; the report states that the average pension is 41% funded--Yipes!
Apparently, one of the major culprits was the optimistic expected return on the pension fund investments--typically pegged at 8%. CALPERS earned just 1% in the past year indicating how far off even the major pension funds can be.
Naturally, the tax payers will have to make up the difference.
1% Incredible...imagine how much the fund managers are making on that money to make that 1%. Good thing they beat the market.
certifiedfunds
01-04-2013, 17:44
It's misspent because the money was budgeted to be paid into the retirement system, not to be spent on operating expenses. Just like when a company budgets to build a new factory but instead gives a raise to the ceo. It isn't illegal to spend the money in that manner, but it doesn't negate the fact that the factory still needs to be built.
But didn't the lawmakers vote to spend it on something else?
Should one group of lawmakers be bound by another group of lawmakers who are no longer in office?
What if the taxpayers want their money spent elsewhere and direct their representatives to do it? Is that not their right to have their views represented?
When a company's owners decide their money is better spent bonusing the CEO than building a new factory why are they wrong? It's their money.
Can nobody in government do math ? .....:frown:
.
Damn the torpedoes! It's that fuzzy math!
But didn't the lawmakers vote to spend it on something else?
Should one group of lawmakers be bound by another group of lawmakers who are no longer in office?
What if the taxpayers want their money spent elsewhere and direct their representatives to do it? Is that not their right to have their views represented?
When a company's owners decide their money is better spent bonusing the CEO than building a new factory why are they wrong? It's their money.
It's not the owners of the company making the decision but their elected board. You have no more direct influence over what our legislators decide to do with our tax money than I do. We trust them to honor the commitments that were made when they established the pension system. If they don't want to fund it properly, they should just disband the pension, refund everyone's contributions and call it good. Then we'll see the quality of employee the government can really attract.
certifiedfunds
01-04-2013, 18:40
It's not the owners of the company making the decision but their elected board.
In some cases the owners are the board. In every case, the owners appoint the board. In every case, the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to make the best use of their money or they will find themselves on the losing end of litigation.
You have no more direct influence over what our legislators decide to do with our tax money than I do.
Should the legislators be bound by the acts of a previous legislature that is no longer in office?
We trust them to honor the commitments that were made when they established the pension system.
You trust the government?:upeyes:
What about the taxpayers that may not want their money going into a pension fund that was created decades ago by their parents? Who should they trust?
If they don't want to fund it properly, they should just disband the pension, refund everyone's contributions and call it good. Then we'll see the quality of employee the government can really attract.
So most government employees are in it for the pension gravy?
Generally speaking, the government doesn't attract the best and brightest (to say the least). I guess what you're saying is that if you can't dangle a lucrative pension in front of them, it'll get worse?
In some cases the owners are the board. In every case, the owners appoint the board. In every case, the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders to make the best use of their money or they will find themselves on the losing end of litigation.
Should the legislators be bound by the acts of a previous legislature that is no longer in office?
You trust the government?:upeyes:
What about the taxpayers that may not want their money going into a pension fund that was created decades ago by their parents? Who should they trust?
So most government employees are in it for the pension gravy?
Generally speaking, the government doesn't attract the best and brightest (to say the least). I guess what you're saying is that if you can't dangle a lucrative pension in front of them, it'll get worse?
Yes, I understand in many cases the board is the owners of the business who have a direct stake in the success of the company but at the least are appointed by the ownership. In cases where they are not the owners, they have a fiduciary duty to the owners as you stated. However, they have no stake in the operation of the company and could do what they wanted as long as they were acting "in the best interests" of the company.
I know you're intentionally being dense on this parallel I'm drawing because you refuse to admit that it's the same thing. Lawmakers have a fiduciary duty to be fiscally responsible when handling the taxpayers' money, wouldn't you agree? How is it fiscally responsible to knowingly incur debt and spend the money that was budgeted to pay that debt anyway? Just because they say "oh well, we spent your pension money" doesn't mean that the gov isn't still obligated to pay that pension. There have been court cases regarding that very issue. This is why changes to the pension system only apply to new members going forward, not to those already in the system. Because they would find themselves on the losing end of litigation.
I trust the government as long as its' employees fear going to jail or its elected officials fear losing election. I believe the current legislators should honor the commitments made by prior legislators, otherwise disband the entire system and refund my contributions (and those of everyone else).
But didn't the lawmakers vote to spend it on something else?
Should one group of lawmakers be bound by another group of lawmakers who are no longer in office?
What if the taxpayers want their money spent elsewhere and direct their representatives to do it? Is that not their right to have their views represented?
When a company's owners decide their money is better spent bonusing the CEO than building a new factory why are they wrong? It's their money.
By their very definition they can not be, plus almost every state constitution clearly states this.
NV PERS had a return for 2012 of 16%. Since 1984 they have a net return of 9.3%, also greater than the 8% expected. So does that mean I should get a refund of my contributions since they did better than their expected rate of return? If there was a shortfall you would expect that I would have to contribute more, right?
The problem with a lot of pension plans (CALPERS included) is that the money wasn't put into the plan to be invested as required. Instead the lawmakers wrote an IOU and spent the money elsewhere. Since that money wasn't invested, there's no way for it to achieve the rate of return required to sustain the system.
This kind of misappropriation committed by politicians across the country would land everyone involved in prison if it were done in private business. If the systems are underfunded and going broke it's because of mismanagement at the highest level, not because they're unsustainable.
In other words see Stockton for what not to do with a city. They built stadiums and convention centers when nobody wants to go there. Trust me, I grew up there, if you find yourself on I-5 or 99 driving through Stockton, don't bother getting off the freeway unles you need gas or food. And if you get off dont get off any exit other than Ben Holt or Hammer.
It's getting so bad in Stockton they are loosing so many officers they will have to pay the Feds back money they took for funding officer positions. The only people who apply can't meet the minimum standards.
engineer151515
01-04-2013, 20:45
..........
Lawmakers have a fiduciary duty to be fiscally responsible when handling the taxpayers' money, wouldn't you agree? ....
I haven't seen the US Senate pass a budget in 3 going on 4 years. And they are Constitutionally required to do so.
So, no. There is no evidence that fiscal responsibility in handling the taxpayers' money is a requirement.
http://www.ai-cio.com/channel/ASSET_ALLOCATION/CalPERS_Wins_on_Hard_Assets.html
Sounds like they are changing stratagies.
The $251.5 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) gained 9.3% on its real asset portfolio, and plans to invest more next year, according its annual report for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. As of June 30, the fund’s real asset portfolio totaled $4.69 billion.
Sounds like that porfolio did better than the commodities.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/calpers-commodity-holdings-fell-55-in-october-to-1-564-billion.html
Maybe they shouldn't have listened to some on GT about buying gold.
certifiedfunds
01-04-2013, 21:52
Yes, I understand in many cases the board is the owners of the business who have a direct stake in the success of the company but at the least are appointed by the ownership. In cases where they are not the owners, they have a fiduciary duty to the owners as you stated. However, they have no stake in the operation of the company and could do what they wanted as long as they were acting "in the best interests" of the company.
I know you're intentionally being dense on this parallel I'm drawing because you refuse to admit that it's the same thing.
I'm intentionally being dense on this because it wasn't a valid analogy and I was using "density":supergrin: to illustrate that. Instead of picking the above excerpt apart, lets just let it go and address the meat of the issue:
Lawmakers have a fiduciary duty to be fiscally responsible when handling the taxpayers' money, wouldn't you agree?
No. They don't. I wish they did but they don't. If they did have such a duty they most certainly would have been jailed for creating most of these public pensions in the first place because by creating them they would have been in violation of it.
Furthermore, if they had a fiduciary duty at the present they would likely be in violation of it for allowing the pension funds to continue, and for most public employee union contracts.
A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation:
A legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. The obligated party is typically a fiduciary, that is, someone entrusted with the care of money or property. Also called fiduciary obligation.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fiduciary-duty.html#ixzz2H4VRycGI
The people who manage the funds within the pension plans DO have a fiduciary duty.
How is it fiscally responsible to knowingly incur debt and spend the money that was budgeted to pay that debt anyway?
Well, it isn't. I agree. However, your point is based on a fallacy. There is no debt if the legislators legislate it away.
In other words, taxpayer funds in public pensions are only guaranteed so far as the last law written to protect them. It is taxpayer money. The lawmakers can simply pass a law and re-allocate it. The taxpayers have a right to have their interests represented. If they, via their legislators, decide to remove taxpayer money, stop depositing taxpayer money or dissolve the pension (assuming not contractually bound), they have a right to do that and can do it.
I'm not passing judgement on it one way or another. I'm just saying they can.
However, current taxpayers/current legislatures cannot be bound by previous legistures. In other words, just because some legislature 30 years ago promised you a pension package, the current legislature can change that obligation and they should be able to. The current taxpayers were not represented by the previous legislature.
Truth be told, this is generally the biggest problem with public union contracts and public pension systems. Some politician years ago made an agreement to spend some other person's money in the future for their own political benefit today.
Just because they say "oh well, we spent your pension money" doesn't mean that the gov isn't still obligated to pay that pension. There have been court cases regarding that very issue. This is why changes to the pension system only apply to new members going forward, not to those already in the system. Because they would find themselves on the losing end of litigation.
Sure they can walk away from it. Courts may or may not rule against them. If they so choose, they can amend their respective constitution. Nothing with the government is iron-clad, and it shouldn't be. That's my basic point.
Remember that though we put judges in black robes and call them "your honor", they're still just lawyers and most of them are political hacks or politicians themselves. It is what it is.
I trust the government as long as its' employees fear going to jail or its elected officials fear losing election.
I don't. Government has proven it is untrustworthy. It has proven it does not have a fiduciary duty or even a "fiduciary mindset". I truly feel sorry for honest hardworking NECESSARY government employees who are put in this compromising postion. The good news for you folks is that in reality, not paying you would be political suicide in MOST cases. However, as the fiscal crises grow public opinion seems to be changing a bit as well and should the taxpayers send politicians to the state house with a mandate to relieve them of pension obligations, rest assured it will happen. I think it is highly unlikely though because the government pretty much has a monopoly on force and will bring as much pressure to bear on the taxpayers to force them to pay in order to protect their political status.
I believe the current legislators should honor the commitments made by prior legislators,
I do too, if possible. But I don't believe I should have to bail it out at any cost, as a taxpayer. You have to be conscious of the possibility that it may not be feasible at some point. No matter the reason or the malfeasance involved, there is a limit, unless the federal government starts bailing them out with printed money. Even still, there is a limit, you just might realize that limit slowly.
otherwise disband the entire system and refund my contributions (and those of everyone else).
I would vote for that in a heartbeat and put public employees on a 401k type plan with very conservative taxpayer contributions/matches, like the productive sector has.
I suspect that can't happen because it is mathematically impossible and would trigger collapse in any number of areas. So to that extent, we're all in it together.
SunsetMan
01-04-2013, 22:15
NV PERS had a return for 2012 of 16%. Since 1984 they have a net return of 9.3%, also greater than the 8% expected. So does that mean I should get a refund of my contributions since they did better than their expected rate of return? If there was a shortfall you would expect that I would have to contribute more, right?
The problem with a lot of pension plans (CALPERS included) is that the money wasn't put into the plan to be invested as required. Instead the lawmakers wrote an IOU and spent the money elsewhere. Since that money wasn't invested, there's no way for it to achieve the rate of return required to sustain the system.
This kind of misappropriation committed by politicians across the country would land everyone involved in prison if it were done in private business. If the systems are underfunded and going broke it's because of mismanagement at the highest level, not because they're unsustainable.
Do you have proof the CALPERS money was not put into the plan? My roommate says all the money was only used for CALPERS.
I had a discussion with him that his pension could become insolvent if California became bankrupt, that promises were made that CA maybe could not keep. He was fairly convinced that was impossible.
Do you have proof the CALPERS money was not put into the plan? My roommate says all the money was only used for CALPERS.
I had a discussion with him that his pension could become insolvent if California became bankrupt, that promises were made that CA maybe could not keep. He was fairly convinced that was impossible.
To understand CalPERS you have to understand how they pay out. There are three streams.
1. Intrest off their holdings. This runs 70-90% depending on the economy. I haven't checked the current rate in awhile but it is out there if you want to find it.
2. Employee contributions. For public safety it is default 9% of each working employee's pay. Non public safety is 7%.
3. Employer contributions. This varies. During much of the 90s and 2000s most cities paid 0-5% assuming they did not pay their employees' share. I looked up my city and they got 2% back one quarter. Also factored into this is disability retirements CalPERS has to pay for people vs. the city paying for it. I won't even go there because I could write 10 pages on that alone.
Essentially for CalPERS to go bankrupt cities would have to stop paying into it yet demand their retirees get paid by CalPERS. Not going to happen. CalPERS would tell them to pay them or they are on their own.
CalPERS is essentially like the Mob. Once you are in there is only one way out, meanwhile you pay the vig.
Also CalPERS is a public/private organization. Somewhat similar to BART.
SunsetMan
01-05-2013, 00:35
1. Intrest off their holdings. This runs 70-90% depending on the economy. I haven't checked the current rate in awhile but it is out there if you want to find it.
This is where I see the big problem if say a 7% rate of return is what was planned for. I don't think my roomy expects the tax payers to make up any difference in rate of return, but I'm assuming CalPERS has been supplemented out of the general fund. I have nothing to back that up though. Research on that has turned up nothing.
I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
I'm intentionally being dense on this because it wasn't a valid analogy and I was using "density":supergrin: to illustrate that. Instead of picking the above excerpt apart, lets just let it go and address the meat of the issue:
No. They don't. I wish they did but they don't. If they did have such a duty they most certainly would have been jailed for creating most of these public pensions in the first place because by creating them they would have been in violation of it.
Furthermore, if they had a fiduciary duty at the present they would likely be in violation of it for allowing the pension funds to continue, and for most public employee union contracts.
A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation:
The people who manage the funds within the pension plans DO have a fiduciary duty.
Well, it isn't. I agree. However, your point is based on a fallacy. There is no debt if the legislators legislate it away.
In other words, taxpayer funds in public pensions are only guaranteed so far as the last law written to protect them. It is taxpayer money. The lawmakers can simply pass a law and re-allocate it. The taxpayers have a right to have their interests represented. If they, via their legislators, decide to remove taxpayer money, stop depositing taxpayer money or dissolve the pension (assuming not contractually bound), they have a right to do that and can do it.
I'm not passing judgement on it one way or another. I'm just saying they can.
However, current taxpayers/current legislatures cannot be bound by previous legistures. In other words, just because some legislature 30 years ago promised you a pension package, the current legislature can change that obligation and they should be able to. The current taxpayers were not represented by the previous legislature.
Truth be told, this is generally the biggest problem with public union contracts and public pension systems. Some politician years ago made an agreement to spend some other person's money in the future for their own political benefit today.
Sure they can walk away from it. Courts may or may not rule against them. If they so choose, they can amend their respective constitution. Nothing with the government is iron-clad, and it shouldn't be. That's my basic point.
Remember that though we put judges in black robes and call them "your honor", they're still just lawyers and most of them are political hacks or politicians themselves. It is what it is.
I don't. Government has proven it is untrustworthy. It has proven it does not have a fiduciary duty or even a "fiduciary mindset". I truly feel sorry for honest hardworking NECESSARY government employees who are put in this compromising postion. The good news for you folks is that in reality, not paying you would be political suicide in MOST cases. However, as the fiscal crises grow public opinion seems to be changing a bit as well and should the taxpayers send politicians to the state house with a mandate to relieve them of pension obligations, rest assured it will happen. I think it is highly unlikely though because the government pretty much has a monopoly on force and will bring as much pressure to bear on the taxpayers to force them to pay in order to protect their political status.
I do too, if possible. But I don't believe I should have to bail it out at any cost, as a taxpayer. You have to be conscious of the possibility that it may not be feasible at some point. No matter the reason or the malfeasance involved, there is a limit, unless the federal government starts bailing them out with printed money. Even still, there is a limit, you just might realize that limit slowly.
I would vote for that in a heartbeat and put public employees on a 401k type plan with very conservative taxpayer contributions/matches, like the productive sector has.
I suspect that can't happen because it is mathematically impossible and would trigger collapse in any number of areas. So to that extent, we're all in it together.
I see where the disconnect is. Your jaded and cynical view of government is shading your view of government pensions. Since you don't expect the government to act with a fiduciary responsibility, you assume that they are all completely reckless and irresponsible with tax revenue. Even in light of information to the contrary and evidence showing that a pension system is completely sustainable you argue that "I don't get a pension so neither should you." Then you defend their years of failing to meet their obligations set by law when the system was established by saying they aren't obligated to honor commitments made by prior legislatures. If they have the opportunity to amend the law and fail to do so, doesn't that constitute a tacit acceptance of the obligation to follow that law?
Do you have proof the CALPERS money was not put into the plan? My roommate says all the money was only used for CALPERS.
I had a discussion with him that his pension could become insolvent if California became bankrupt, that promises were made that CA maybe could not keep. He was fairly convinced that was impossible.
The problem is the cities and counties (employers) who didn't pay their contributions to the system that they were required to pay on behalf of their employees.
As an example, I work for the state of Nevada. With every pay check, I contribute 12.25% of my salary to PERS. In turn, my employer also is required to contribute the same for a total contribution of 24.5% of my salary. That money is meant to be invested and through the power of compounding the returns, will eventually be enough to pay me a pension as well as pay other expenses related to managing the pension system. When the state budgets for each position, they plan for this expense based on the salary set for the position.
The problem comes in when employers fail to plan for their expected contribution and spend that money elsewhere. The whole pension system suffers because that money doesn't have a chance to "grow" as an investment because it doesn't get invested when it should.
This is where I see the big problem if say a 7% rate of return is what was planned for. I don't think my roomy expects the tax payers to make up any difference in rate of return, but I'm assuming CalPERS has been supplemented out of the general fund. I have nothing to back that up though. Research on that has turned up nothing.
I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
I think government pensions would be just fine if the elected officials would stop stealing from them.
G36's Rule
01-05-2013, 08:28
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/u-s-public-pension-shortfall-4-6-trillion-budget-group-says.html
Moody's has it at about $2 trillion; the report states that the average pension is 41% funded--Yipes!
Apparently, one of the major culprits was the optimistic expected return on the pension fund investments--typically pegged at 8%. CALPERS earned just 1% in the past year indicating how far off even the major pension funds can be.
Naturally, the tax payers will have to make up the difference.
Oh no, that can't be...
We've been told time and time again on this site that these pension funds, CALPERS in particular, are fully funded and will never use taxpayers dollars!
:rofl:
series1811
01-05-2013, 08:31
No problem here that minting five of those trillion dollar coins won't solve.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 08:51
I see where the disconnect is. Your jaded and cynical view of government is shading your view of government pensions.
No. Math shaded my view of government pensions. There is no disconnect there. The point of the article is that they are trillions of dollars in the hole.
Since you don't expect the government to act with a fiduciary responsibility, you assume that they are all completely reckless and irresponsible with tax revenue.
First of all, you need to understand that government does not have a fiduciary duty. I already explained that.
Secondly, they are all completely reckless and irresponsible with tax revenue. Would you really like me to gather evidence to support that assertion? Will take about 2 minutes.
No government employee or politician gives a dollar of tax revenue the same regard that the citizen who originally earned it did. Never will.
Even in light of information to the contrary and evidence showing that a pension system is completely sustainable you argue that "I don't get a pension so neither should you."
It is only sustainable if the government bails it out (generally speaking). They will do so by extracting yet more money from the taxpayers who did not agree to this.
What I see here is arrogance. I'm one of the people paying for these pensions but I just need to STFU and pay, right?
Then you defend their years of failing to meet their obligations set by law when the system was established by saying they aren't obligated to honor commitments made by prior legislatures.
I defended nothing. I explained to you and 2bgop explained to you that one legislature cannot be bound by another. This is a basic constitutional principle and it should be.
Other than your personal greed, can you explain why one citizen should be bound by the commitments of a legislature decades before he was even alive?
Let me explain something else to you. When you do business with the government, you might be awarded a 10 year contract. However, that contract always carries in a a clause that says it can be cancelled if the legislature does not appropriate the money for it, each year. This is how it works.
I get it. You want your pension. You don't care if it isn't sustainable and the taxpayers will have to pay more. You trusted the government and believed the lies.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 09:01
Pensions sustain itself by making the principle earn interests, which is used to pay for the pension. And there is a formula (basically based on age of entering pension, and expected years to retirement) that determine each member's required contribution (let's call that the "principle.")
So, ideally, the pension fund should receive $X in principle each year (for each member that's 20 to 30 years before needing it). But if politicians go to the pension fund and removes (say) 25- to 30-percent of the principle, writes an IOU, but when the IOU is due, the politician at the time says... "sorry, it was my predecessor, and in any case, we have no money to repay you..." what do you think will happen?
The "borrowed" principle loses several years/decades of interest (due to being unable to be invested and interests re-invested).
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 09:15
Pensions sustain itself by making the principle earn interests, which is used to pay for the pension. And there is a formula (basically based on age of entering pension, and expected years to retirement) that determine each member's required contribution (let's call that the "principle.")
So, ideally, the pension fund should receive $X in principle each year (for each member that's 20 to 30 years before needing it). But if politicians go to the pension fund and removes (say) 25- to 30-percent of the principle, writes an IOU, but when the IOU is due, the politician at the time says... "sorry, it was my predecessor, and in any case, we have no money to repay you..." what do you think will happen?
The "borrowed" principle loses several years/decades of interest (due to being unable to be invested and interests re-invested).
While I don't think that is responsible behavior, if it is taxpayer money they are removing, it is within their legal purview and it should be.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 09:26
I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
In some ways, a 401K is better than a pension because when you die unexpectly, the entire 401K goes to your estate. With a pension, if I die (say) one year after retirement, guess where all my unused contribution goes? (hint: not to my estate).
A 401K type plan is fine if all new employees are told this is what's going to happen. And of course, current salaries would have to be increased to match private industry's.
For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.
Where I'm at, we contribute 7.5-percent of gross salary into my own pension, year after year, until retirement. So it's not true that we get a free pension.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 09:29
For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.
Yes. But taxpayers today should not be obligated to follow the commitments made by representatives 40 years ago when they were not represented.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 09:32
While I don't think that is responsible behavior, if it is taxpayer money they are removing, it is within their legal purview and it should be.
As a matter of fact, in NJ, the courts deemed it legal.
The point is, you can't remove a large chunk of $$$ that was earmarked for one thing (and where interest earnings are important), hand out IOUs as a future promise to repay, then 10 or 15 years later when the IOU comes due, the current politician says "sorry... no money."
And then wonder why there isn't enough money in that earmarked fund.
devildog2067
01-05-2013, 09:39
And of course, current salaries would have to be increased to match private industry's.
"Of course"? That's BS. Lots of problems with that assumption.
1) This would only be true if the government were unable to attract qualified candidates at the current salary levels. For many positions, the waiting lists are years long. Salaries need to be reduced, not increased, in many cases.
2) How can you say that salaries should "match" private industry? Many government jobs have no private industry counterpart. If a job can be performed by someone in private industry, it probably shouldn't be a government job.
devildog2067
01-05-2013, 09:40
I think government pensions would be just fine if the elected officials would stop stealing from them.
And if pigs had wings they would fly.
devildog2067
01-05-2013, 09:43
For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)
Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.
Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
Patchman
01-05-2013, 09:44
Yes. But taxpayers today should not be obligated to follow the commitments made by representatives 40 years ago when they were not represented.
Oh believe me, I've often wished gov't agencies would just say, "we're not enforcing such and such laws/regulations unless the current (politicians) specifically enact laws requiring us to do so. Laws/regulations passed by past administrations have no binding effect on us today."
devildog2067
01-05-2013, 09:45
In some ways, a 401K is better than a pension
In every way, a defined-contribution plan is better than a pension. For everyone involved.
Where I'm at, we contribute 7.5-percent of gross salary into my own pension, year after year, until retirement. So it's not true that we get a free pension.
You expect to get a defined amount, regardless of what happened to your 7.5-percent contribution. That's illogical and irrational.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 09:53
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)
Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.
Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
If you're going to compare Enron (or other private companies) to governments, let's not forget that
Enron did very well for itself when it was soaring. Many of their employees got great bonus packages annually.
Oh believe me, I've often wished gov't agencies would just say, "we're not enforcing such and such laws/regulations unless the current (politicians) specifically enact laws requiring us to do so. Laws/regulations passed by past administrations have no binding effect on us today."
No past legislature can compel a future state legislature to appropriate funds. I see it happen all the time, some company has a contract with a state, you get a change in the approps chairs or the governor and contract is just not funded.
This is where I see the big problem if say a 7% rate of return is what was planned for. I don't think my roomy expects the tax payers to make up any difference in rate of return, but I'm assuming CalPERS has been supplemented out of the general fund. I have nothing to back that up though. Research on that has turned up nothing.
I think government pensions should operate like private 401k's where you get back what you have put in plus actual interest on holdings.
CalPERS "supplements" by having either employers or employees kick down more money. Right now me and the city are paying in at about a 60/40 ratio of about 30-40% of my base pay.
If there is no money coming in there will be no money going out for that government entity. They don't care how you do it but they want their money or you set up your own pension plan. Good luck with that. See Orange County for a nightmare. Oh, and San Jose is about to join them in hell.
Oh no, that can't be...
We've been told time and time again on this site that these pension funds, CALPERS in particular, are fully funded and will never use taxpayers dollars!
:rofl:
I have never said they don't use taxpayer money. Anything from government is going to cost money therefore taxes must be raised.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 10:03
You expect to get a defined amount, regardless of what happened to your 7.5-percent contribution. That's illogical and irrational.
Defined amount is actually a falsity that many don't understand. Pensions promise X-years of service and will get Y-percent of salary. That's not the case. What you actually get is based on how much $principle you have in your pension account.
In the course of your career, you can borrow from your pension contribution, such as to purchase a house or for some medical emergencies. You may or may not be required to pay back-depends on pension. Which means, at the end of your work life, your pension principle may be short of what you're suppose to have. You actual pension amount is calculated on how much principle you have in your account. For us, the pension deducts about $110 for each $1000 that you're short on your principle.
Pension payout is based on actureal lifes. But let's also not forget that with pensions, if you die prematurely, your pension stops.
In some ways, a 401K is better than a pension because when you die unexpectly, the entire 401K goes to your estate. With a pension, if I die (say) one year after retirement, guess where all my unused contribution goes? (hint: not to my estate).
A 401K type plan is fine if all new employees are told this is what's going to happen. And of course, current salaries would have to be increased to match private industry's.
For someone who started 30-40 years ago, the pension was part of the employment package they agreed to. They also agreed to take a lower salary than employees in private industries, with the understanding that the pension is part of the "overall" compensation package.
Where I'm at, we contribute 7.5-percent of gross salary into my own pension, year after year, until retirement. So it's not true that we get a free pension.
Good point in order for my pension to go to my wife upon my death I will have to give up a HUGE chunk of change to do it.
I've run the numbers. Even with the large cost of setting up whole life at 50 when I retire it will be better than doing the survivor's benefit.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:08
CalPERS "supplements" by having either employers or employees kick down more money. Right now me and the city are paying in at about a 60/40 ratio of about 30-40% of my base pay.
If there is no money coming in there will be no money going out for that government entity. They don't care how you do it but they want their money or you set up your own pension plan. Good luck with that. See Orange County for a nightmare. Oh, and San Jose is about to join them in hell.
Calpers contributes 40%?
Yes. But taxpayers today should not be obligated to follow the commitments made by representatives 40 years ago when they were not represented.
If you do that to public employees (already found illegal in the 1940s in CA) then anyone is next.
Too expensive to maintain sewer? **** you, you're cut off. Go septic.
Too expensive to maintain water service? **** you, you're cut off. Drill a well. No water under your property? Better hope your neighbor does or you are **** out of luck.
There is a long list of **** yous the governement can do to you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you suck off the teat too.
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)
Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.
Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
Eron went out of business. The City of Stockton is still open for business.
With a woefully understaffed police department by the way. The only place bleeding more officers is San Jose.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:16
Stockton is not a business
If you do that to public employees (already found illegal in the 1940s in CA) then anyone is next.
Too expensive to maintain sewer? **** you, you're cut off. Go septic.
Too expensive to maintain water service? **** you, you're cut off. Drill a well. No water under your property? Better hope your neighbor does or you are **** out of luck.
There is a long list of **** yous the governement can do to you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you suck off the teat too.
This is a little off topic, but that is going to happen in some major city in the country in the not too distant future. One of the things I do is help municipalities reach settlement agreements with state and federal agencies.
The EPA is leveeing fines for sewer and wastewater violations that cities simply can not comply with. A couple large midwestern cities are facing fines so large that it would constitute well over a 400% increase in sewer and water fees on residents.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:18
If you do that to public employees (already found illegal in the 1940s in CA) then anyone is next.
Too expensive to maintain sewer? **** you, you're cut off. Go septic.
Too expensive to maintain water service? **** you, you're cut off. Drill a well. No water under your property? Better hope your neighbor does or you are **** out of luck.
There is a long list of **** yous the governement can do to you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you suck off the teat too.
So you believe that one congress or legislature should be able to bind another?
Defined benefits plans went out the door in the private sector years ago. Not many offer them any longer.
The reason is those funds were handled by business people, who understood they were not sustainable. Except those who gave in to union demands, that now have to be bailed out by Uncle Sam-see the Auto Industry.
The govt however, State, Local and Federal is run by politicians. They wouldn't recognize fiscal responsibility if it came up and bit them on the butt.
However, they have the power to steal- - er- tax-$ from the public.
But sooner or later the public runs out of money.
Then Anarchy.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:21
BTW, I see you're saying you do suck the teet. However, how do I?
Instead of lashing out again perhaps you could just tell me how.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:23
Defined benefits plans went out the door in the private sector years ago. Not many offer them any longer.
The reason is those funds were handled by business people, who understood they were not sustainable. Except those who gave in to union demands, that now have to be bailed out by Uncle Sam-see the Auto Industry.
The govt however, State, Local and Federal is run by politicians. They wouldn't recognize fiscal responsibility if it came up and bit them on the butt.
However, they have the power to steal- - er- tax-$ from the public.
But sooner or later the public runs out of money.
Then Anarchy.
Businesses can't send men with guns to seize your assets. That's why defined benefit plans went away
CACop:
What do you think will happen to all the current retirees from Stockton, OC, San Jose, and all the other mismanaged cities and counties; when the money just isn't there to pay them?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:25
CACop:
What do you think will happen to all the current retirees from Stockton, OC, San Jose, and all the other mismanaged cities and counties; when the money just isn't there to pay them?
Excellent question.
Calpers contributes 40%?
Reread my first post.
CalPERS pays 70-90% of pensions from the intrest on their porfolio.
Employers and employees pay the difference. They pay the difference based on what current employees make.
For example. The going rate for a police officer in the greater Bay Area is around $100K for a top step officer w/o OT. Employers and employees right now are paying for police around 40%. I say around because it changes a lot and it depends on how many disability retirements PERS has to pay for vs. the employer. Now the employees and employers can split up that 40% ny way they want. Right now we pay about 20% of our pay towards our retirement. The city pays the remainder. Ther are some cities, like Atherton, where their employees pay 0%
For us we have traditionally paid 9% of base pay while the city paid 0-5% for much of the 90s and 2000s. If our city was like Morgan Hill where they paid into a slush fund for economies like now they would be sitting pretty and nothing would have changed.
If you have problems with my explination go to CalPERS' website. They are an open book. Unlike some pension plans.
Stockton is not a business
It's still there running. Personally I think any city that goes bankrupt should be forced to unincorporate.
So you believe that one congress or legislature should be able to bind another?
Then chnge the laws in such a way they will survive the courts. No one has been willing to do that because they know in the future they will be **** out of luck if they do. See Stockton. They are bleeding officers.
BTW, I see you're saying you do suck the teet. However, how do I?
Instead of lashing out again perhaps you could just tell me how.
Drive on roads, fly in planes, call 911 for whatever reason, go to a sporting arena, etc.
Reread my first post.
Nothing in your first post addresses my question.
So please humor me and restate it in simple terms.
CACop:
What do you think will happen to all the current retirees from Stockton, OC, San Jose, and all the other mismanaged cities and counties; when the money just isn't there to pay them?
Current retirees will get paid unless the city leaves PERS and even then the divorce will kill them. Stockton needs to unincorporate. San Jose is effectively killing itself. At least there the voters approved it. East SJ is coming to their side soon.
Nothing in your first post addresses my question.
So please humor me and restate it in simple terms.
I did it again for CF.
If you can't get it go to CalPERS. They are an open book. They have a website and all.
Dennis in MA
01-05-2013, 10:36
1% Incredible...imagine how much the fund managers are making on that money to make that 1%. Good thing they beat the market.
Lol
1%? I'll manage it for .25% and would have done 10x better last year. Lol
Current retirees will get paid unless the city leaves PERS and even then the divorce will kill them. Stockton needs to unincorporate. San Jose is effectively killing itself. At least there the voters approved it. East SJ is coming to their side soon.
So Stockton runs out of money and quits paying into Calpers.
Do the currently retired Stockon officers still get paid by Calpers, or are they cut off?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:38
Reread my first post.
CalPERS pays 70-90% of pensions from the intrest on their porfolio.
Employers and employees pay the difference. They pay the difference based on what current employees make.
For example. The going rate for a police officer in the greater Bay Area is around $100K for a top step officer w/o OT. Employers and employees right now are paying for police around 40%. I say around because it changes a lot and it depends on how many disability retirements PERS has to pay for vs. the employer. Now the employees and employers can split up that 40% ny way they want. Right now we pay about 20% of our pay towards our retirement. The city pays the remainder. Ther are some cities, like Atherton, where their employees pay 0%
For us we have traditionally paid 9% of base pay while the city paid 0-5% for much of the 90s and 2000s. If our city was like Morgan Hill where they paid into a slush fund for economies like now they would be sitting pretty and nothing would have changed.
If you have problems with my explination go to CalPERS' website. They are an open book. Unlike some pension plans.
No I trust that your info on your pension system is probably very good.
So the article says CALPERS has a serious shortfall. What happens then?
What happens if the government decides to stop paying as much?
What happens if investments don't earn sufficient returns?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:40
Drive on roads, fly in planes, call 911 for whatever reason, go to a sporting arena, etc.
Don't I pay for those?
Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for those things?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 10:42
It's still there running. Personally I think any city that goes bankrupt should be forced to unincorporate.
Obviously. But it's not a business. It produces nothing.
Then chnge the laws in such a way they will survive the courts. No one has been willing to do that because they know in the future they will be **** out of luck if they do. See Stockton. They are bleeding officers.
Is that a yes or a no? Should one general assembly be able to bind a future one to appropriate funds?
I understand it is an entirely theoretical question because it is impossible to do, I was just interested to see how you feel about it.
If you have problems with my explination go to CalPERS' website. They are an open book. Unlike some pension plans.
I couldn't find the section about what happens if your former employer quits paying into the system after you retire.
Seems like a simple enough question, not sure why you wouldn't want to give a quick answer if you know it.
My wife is a LA county employee working in a county hospital. I am not counting on her pension paying out 30 yrs from now when they run out of money. If you have insight into what happens if her employer goes the way of Stockton city employees, it would be appreciated.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 11:08
I couldn't find the section about what happens if your former employer quits paying into the system after you retire.
Seems like a simple enough question, not sure why you wouldn't want to give a quick answer if you know it.
My wife is a LA county employee working in a county hospital. I am not counting on her pension paying out 30 yrs from now when they run out of money. If you have insight into what happens if her employer goes the way of Stockton city employees, it would be appreciated.
That's wise.
Taxes are certain to rise to meet debt obligations, they are certain to rise more to meet social security promises, they are certain to rise to meet Medicare promises, they are certain to rise to meet public pension promises.
I'm already having north of 50% of my income consumed by taxes. At some point I won't be able to pay any more. I wonder what happens then?
Will government be forced to cut employees? When they do, that will reduce the people paying into pensions like calpers. Less money coming in.
What happens then?
fastbolt
01-05-2013, 12:02
Will government be forced to cut employees? When they do, that will reduce the people paying into pensions like calpers. Less money coming in.
What happens then?
Reasonable questions. The answer doesn't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. ;)
In these economic times, it certainly seems prudent for all levels of government pension programs to be doing some careful self-examination. They certainly aren't created equal, though, are they?
Looks at CA's county programs. There are only 3 ways for counties to set up retirement programs. As I recall, it's along the lines of setting up an independent program, going with CalPERS or the 1937 Act. Last time I looked, the numbers fell along the lines of maybe 37 counties going with CalPERS and 20 going with their own under the 1937 Act.
We have 58 counties in CA, and I think the numbers were running close to 405 cities, townships, villages, etc. (Not all that many for a state our size, with the largest state population in the country, though, is it?) Not all of those local municipalities probably run their own services. A lot of the smallest ones have either contracted for their services, or have decided to change over to contracting/merging in these hard economic times.
A well managed retirement fund program, set up with foresight and planning, which isn't subject to being used as a slush fund by other government programs or entities, ought not to be a problem.
There's the rub, though, isn't it?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 12:09
So long as tax money is flowing into it, it the politicians are able to reallocate that money or stop putting money in. And it should be so.
Tax money only. Not employee contributions.
Honestly the rub is a defined benefit plan. That is the fundamental problem.
Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)
Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.
Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?
How is that possible when Enron was founded in 1985?
I worked for Arthur Andersen when the Enron scandal went down. We had 401k's and so did most other big corporations.
I think you have it backwards. CalPERS was founded in 1932. Nevada PERS was created in 1947. Illinois State Retirement System was created in 1944. Government pensions were not created in response to Enron and other corporations' offering pensions. Government pensions were first. IBM just stopped contributing to employees' pensions in 2005. UPS drivers still have a pension. UAW employees still get a pension. I found a good article on the history of pensions at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30pensions.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0 if you're interested in learning facts, not propaganda.
SunsetMan
01-05-2013, 12:12
CalPERS "supplements" by having either employers or employees kick down more money. Right now me and the city are paying in at about a 60/40 ratio of about 30-40% of my base pay.
If there is no money coming in there will be no money going out for that government entity. They don't care how you do it but they want their money or you set up your own pension plan. Good luck with that. See Orange County for a nightmare. Oh, and San Jose is about to join them in hell.
Thanks for this explanation and all the others.
Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 12:23
Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.
Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?
Patchman
01-05-2013, 12:40
Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.
Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?
Bind future legislatures for...
social programs like social security and medicaid?
programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?
programs like constructing capital infrastructure?
programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?
continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?
Are you talking a blanket binding/non-binding? Or binding/non-binding with some programs/funding, while not with others?
Bind future legislatures for...
social programs like social security and medicaid?
programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?
programs like constructing capital infrastructure?
programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?
continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?
Is that a yes or a no?
Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.
Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?
Benefits are a part of your total compensation, correct?
You take a job under the agreement that you will be paid xx in money and benefits for performing yy work, correct?
Should your employer be allowed to raise or lower your compensation on a whim with no explanation? Would you continue to work for that employer if they did that?
In the budgeting process when the current legislature plans for the current budget, they determine what their contribution to PERS will be based on the employee's salary. When they're determining how much that will be, they know up front what percentage the law requires them to pay. If they have no intention of actually paying that into PERS, why would they pass the budget? In fact they aren't being bound by prior legislatures, but by their own budgeting. If they don't want to pay the pension contributions and use the money for other things that's fine. Just be honest about it and lay off the employee or disband the system.
As I said in my first post on the subject...disband the system and see what kind of talent you attract.
So Stockton runs out of money and quits paying into Calpers.
Do the currently retired Stockon officers still get paid by Calpers, or are they cut off?
That would depend on what the bankrupcy judge says. CalPERs is suing Stockton last I heard.
Doesn't matter anyway Stockton is bleeding employees.
Actually if you want as little government as possible Stockton should be your place.
Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question.
Should legislatures be able to bind future legislatures?
Yes. Unless the legislature changes the law that can stand in court.
Yes. Unless the legislature changes the law that can stand in court.
That is the very reason one can't bind another, they can always just change the statue or simply just not appropriate. That is why it isn't possible to do.
What do you do when a state leg simply does appropriate funds to something? You can't force them to do it, a court can not force them to do it. It is a definition a separation of powers issue. The executive and the judiciary do not appropriate, that power lies solely within the legislature.
"Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question."
That's not a simple question, just a tricky way of asking.
Don't I pay for those?
Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for those things?
That was my point.
You can stamp your feet all you want but you got to pay taxes.
"Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?"
They do it in Virginia, so I was interested in CA. This appears to be a short history through 2009.
http://calpensions.com/2009/04/04/a-kinder-gentler-raid-on-calpers-funds/
Thanks for this explanation and all the others.
Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?
CalPERS was set up to be public/private to prevent raids.
The real problem is scities and counties not saving for a rainy day and handing money out left and right when times were good. Now people need to debate what is an essential need. If they had saved they would not be having this debate.
Just like many people here during the boom asking what gun they should buy with their bonus. Don't hear much of that now do you?
For the record I never did get a bonus in my 15 years. That's part of the deal.
"Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question."
That's not a simple question, just a tricky way of asking.
It is commonly discussed within the policy making world, particularly in the appropriation process. It is a rather simple concept.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:31
Benefits are a part of your total compensation, correct?
You take a job under the agreement that you will be paid xx in money and benefits for performing yy work, correct?
Should your employer be allowed to raise or lower your compensation on a whim with no explanation? Would you continue to work for that employer if they did that?
In the budgeting process when the current legislature plans for the current budget, they determine what their contribution to PERS will be based on the employee's salary. When they're determining how much that will be, they know up front what percentage the law requires them to pay. If they have no intention of actually paying that into PERS, why would they pass the budget? In fact they aren't being bound by prior legislatures, but by their own budgeting. If they don't want to pay the pension contributions and use the money for other things that's fine. Just be honest about it and lay off the employee or disband the system.
As I said in my first post on the subject...disband the system and see what kind of talent you attract.
My employer changes my comp all the time. Every year in fact. Private employers also routinely change 401k matching % and sometimes eliminate them.
As to disbanding the system:
Politicians won't because it'll cost them a huge block of votes. They dont have to either because they can send other public employees with guns out to seize wealth and property as needed. However I find it interesting that you admit that public employees are only in it for the pension gravy.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:33
That would depend on what the bankrupcy judge says. CalPERs is suing Stockton last I heard.
Doesn't matter anyway Stockton is bleeding employees.
Actually if you want as little government as possible Stockton should be your place.
As little government as possible and a small bankrupt government that has a large dependence class are two different things.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:37
That was my point.
You can stamp your feet all you want but you got to pay taxes.
No that wasn't your point. At least remain honest.
You said I suck at the teet too and gave common use public infrastructure as an example. I said I pay for those and I do. In fact I subsidize other's use of those things.
I find your response here interesting though and a great supporting statement of what I said above about how politicians don't have to act with a "fiduciary" duty because they can send out public employees with guns to seize more money.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:39
It is commonly discussed within the policy making world, particularly in the appropriation process. It is a rather simple concept.
And still though CACOP and jpa are responding to other posts, they're ignoring this question
No that wasn't your point. At least remain honest.
You said I suck at the teet too and gave common use public infrastructure as an example. I said I pay for those and I do. In fact I subsidize other's use of those things.
I find your response here interesting though and a great supporting statement of what I said above about how politicians don't have to act with a "fiduciary" duty because they can send out public employees with guns to seize more money.
IIRC you sell medical devices. No governement money there.:upeyes:
I would be willling to bet if Medicare went away you would either be looking for a job or you pay would get cut back.
You should be thanking Obama for Obamacare. You are going to make more money because of it.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:40
Yes. Unless the legislature changes the law that can stand in court.
Apologies. I missed this response.
You are absolutely incorrect.
My employer changes my comp all the time. Every year in fact. Private employers also routinely change 401k matching % and sometimes eliminate them.
As to disbanding the system:
Politicians won't because it'll cost them a huge block of votes. They dont have to either because they can send other public employees with guns out to seize wealth and property as needed. However I find it interesting that you admit that public employees are only in it for the pension gravy.
San Jose just voted to cut pay and benes. They are reaping what they sow now.
Apologies. I missed this response.
You are absolutely incorrect.
Ok. Whatever you say.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:43
IIRC you sell medical devices. No governement money there.:upeyes:
I would be willling to bet if Medicare went away you would either be looking for a job or you pay would get cut back.
You should be thanking Obama for Obamacare. You are going to make more money because of it.
Excellent! You pay attention. In all of these threads and all of the public employee butthurt, no one has ever made that connection.
Correct on all points. My income doesn't come from Medicare 100% but a large portion of it does.
That said I support the elimination of Medicare and would gladly find another job if it happened.
You?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:44
San Jose just voted to cut pay and benes. They are reaping what they sow now.
Have you ever been out of California?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:46
Ok. Whatever you say.
Fine. Explain to me how one legislature can write law that another legislsture can reverse.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:47
"Neither jpa nor CACOP seem to want to answer that simple question."
That's not a simple question, just a tricky way of asking.
No it isn't. It is actually the most common way of discussing it.
How would you ask it?
SunsetMan
01-05-2013, 13:48
"Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?"
They do it in Virginia, so I was interested in CA. This appears to be a short history through 2009.
http://calpensions.com/2009/04/04/a-kinder-gentler-raid-on-calpers-funds/
Thanks. I saw that link. It was not as definative as I would like. Seems all I can find are inferences that CalPERS has been raided, but no definates. I'd like to see a list of amounts and the year they were borrowed, if the money was borrowed.
My roommate is certain that CalPERS has not, CANNOT, be raided.
Kind of the same thing I run into when trying to correlate federal tax rates to revenues. No definates.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 13:50
Bind future legislatures for...
social programs like social security and medicaid?
programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?
programs like constructing capital infrastructure?
programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?
continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?
Are you talking a blanket binding/non-binding? Or binding/non-binding with some programs/funding, while not with others?
You're wrong about all of the above.
SS and Medicare are great examples though. Just like public pensions.
Excellent! You pay attention. In all of these threads and all of the public employee butthurt, no one has ever made that connection.
Correct on all points. My income doesn't come from Medicare 100% but a large portion of it does.
That said I support the elimination of Medicare and would gladly find another job if it happened.
You?
Already looking. Just depends on what I want to do and where I want to do it. The way I look at it there are these choices:
1. Start firearms instruction school. I have the training and experience to do it.
2. Get into gunsmithing. This one I have less training and experience in terms of smithing.
3. Private investigation. Kroll and Associates would be my first choice. Apple next up. Then any numerous law firms or PI firms.
4. Just about anything else. To be honest it would be better than listening to people like you whine about the cost of public safety yet sleep feeling all smug in bed.
My employer changes my comp all the time. Every year in fact. Private employers also routinely change 401k matching % and sometimes eliminate them.
As to disbanding the system:
Politicians won't because it'll cost them a huge block of votes. They dont have to either because they can send other public employees with guns out to seize wealth and property as needed. However I find it interesting that you admit that public employees are only in it for the pension gravy.
Again, you're intentionally missing my point. If you didn't know from year to year what your salary was going to be, would you continue to do that job? I understand you're in sales and I don't know if part of your compensation is commission based, but if so you started your job with that understanding, correct? I'm also not talking about raising or lowering 401k matching contributions, but a fundamental change in the structure of the pension from what you originally started with.
I also never said public employees are "only in it for the pension gravy." I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits. Eliminate the benefits and those who are qualified will leave for better paying jobs, probably in the private sector.
I also never said public employees are "only in it for the pension gravy." I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits. Eliminate the benefits and those who are qualified will leave for better paying jobs, probably in the private sector.
The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 14:24
Already looking. Just depends on what I want to do and where I want to do it. The way I look at it there are these choices:
1. Start firearms instruction school. I have the training and experience to do it.
2. Get into gunsmithing. This one I have less training and experience in terms of smithing.
3. Private investigation. Kroll and Associates would be my first choice. Apple next up. Then any numerous law firms or PI firms.
4. Just about anything else. To be honest it would be better than listening to people like you whine about the cost of public safety yet sleep feeling all smug in bed.
Good luck. It's good to have options. Let us know what you decide. The more people we have out producing the better
As for whining about the cost: would public employees prefer the people paying them just shut up and pay whatever the unions and politicians decide on their behalf? Is that really the kind of country you want?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 14:44
Again, you're intentionally missing my point. If you didn't know from year to year what your salary was going to be, would you continue to do that job? I understand you're in sales and I don't know if part of your compensation is commission based, but if so you started your job with that understanding, correct? I'm also not talking about raising or lowering 401k matching contributions, but a fundamental change in the structure of the pension from what you originally started with.
I also never said public employees are "only in it for the pension gravy." I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits. Eliminate the benefits and those who are qualified will leave for better paying jobs, probably in the private sector.
I work on salary and commission. My commission is 2/3 of my comp. Every year the market changes and the company objectives change and my comp plan changes. One year I had $100k taken out of my comp plan RETROACTIVELY. It stings. I stayed there for 3 more years. I hated it but I understood the reason and I had significant stock and options so I was an owner.
Likewise, pre SarbOx we had an ESPP plan. I put a full 15% of my comp into it. 6 month offering period. We got the lowest price on opening or closing minus 10%. Price could go down but never go up. I was buying shares at $15.51 for 5 or so years. When we got bought the price was $170/share.
About midway thru the government mandated changes that affected how those shares hit the company's books. The plan got too expensive so the company changed it, at our expense. The EMT got to keep their plan. I won't say how much it cost me except to say it was a whole lot more than fun money. It sucks but it had to happen. The government forced it.
Likewise I've had changes in the matching % in my 401k plans.
See, like we talked about earlier, the BOD of a company has a fiduciary duty to look after the shareholders money. The government doesn't. In private industry resources get managed most effectively. In government resources get consumed and mismanaged.
To people leaving if the pensions are diluted:
Yes. With those statements you just made the 3rd time, you're saying public employees are in it for the pension gravy.
As elsolo said, the data proves public employee comp is too high.
Really we WANT public employees coming to work everyday busting their butts in hope of breaking out into the productive sector. We need more there. So if diluting the pensions causes that, it might be a good thing. We want our best people out pulling the wagon, not riding in it.
Clearly what we have now is unaffordable. I think we should at least try. If we make a mistake changes can always be made again b
fastbolt
01-05-2013, 15:08
So long as tax money is flowing into it, it the politicians are able to reallocate that money or stop putting money in. And it should be so.
Tax money only. Not employee contributions.
Honestly the rub is a defined benefit plan. That is the fundamental problem.
"Tax" monies aren't flowing into mine. "Employer contributions", yes, but no specifically raised taxes for that purpose.
Employees pay significant contributions into the system. I know I did. The more I made, the more I paid into it.
The other benefits aren't "free" to me, either, costing me either accumulated service hours (worth money), and/or my own money.
I'm not surprised to see how counties and municipalities have been curtailing certain benefits, other than the actual pensions, either. I remember when I knew employees of other agencies who had retirement programs that included free medical for themselves and their spouses, as retirees, for life. That's been going away all over.
Also, creating safety retirement tiers that are 3%@55 instead of 3%@50 are going to be saving a lot of money. I think we'll continue to see more of them. I've spoken to board members who said the calculations showed that delaying raising the retirement age just 5 years generated (prevented paying out) millions of dollars in the fund.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 15:45
"Tax" monies aren't flowing into mine. "Employer contributions", yes, but no specifically raised taxes for that purpose.
Employees pay significant contributions into the system. I know I did. The more I made, the more I paid into it.
The other benefits aren't "free" to me, either, costing me either accumulated service hours (worth money), and/or my own money.
I'm not surprised to see how counties and municipalities have been curtailing certain benefits, other than the actual pensions, either. I remember when I knew employees of other agencies who had retirement programs that included free medical for themselves and their spouses, as retirees, for life. That's been going away all over.
Also, creating safety retirement tiers that are 3%@55 instead of 3%@50 are going to be saving a lot of money. I think we'll continue to see more of them. I've spoken to board members who said the calculations showed that delaying raising the retirement age just 5 years generated (prevented paying out) millions of dollars in the fund.
If you are a public employee those "employer contributions" are tax money. Your entire compensation package is tax money. Don't play word games.
I think CACOP said earlier that his employer paid 40% of his contribution. My employer pays a small fraction of that.
When I retire my private plan guarantees NOTHING unless I purchase certain instruments.
And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55? That's flat out luxurious. In the the productive sector that's a dream reserved for either the very frugal or the wealthy.
The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.
Only 5% of the people who apply to us can meet minimum standards. We have been short 5% for the last three years. By your measure we should be paying more.
If you are a public employee those "employer contributions" are tax money. Your entire compensation package is tax money. Don't play word games.
I think CACOP said earlier that his employer paid 40% of his contribution. My employer pays a small fraction of that.
When I retire my private plan guarantees NOTHING unless I purchase certain instruments.
And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55? That's flat out luxurious. In the the productive sector that's a dream reserved for either the very frugal or the wealthy.
Try again.
Of the money me and my employer are paying I am paying 60%. It is 20.54% of my base pay. Before my portion was 9%. Of course before the city was paying 0-5%.
The reason why it is confusing is because every single employee/employer contract in CalPERS is different. Before the crash my uncle who is an IT manager for CalPERS said they offer "800 products" to cities and counties. Essentially they have 800 packages they can sell. Just take judges for example. There are three retirement plans for them depending on start dates. Then there are various deals over who pays what.
This is why CalPERS is going nowhere. They offer way more choices than any pension plan out there. If you dont like what they have to offer they just might make a new plan just for you.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 16:08
Try again.
Of the money me and my employer are paying I am paying 60%. It is 20.54% of my base pay. Before my portion was 9%. Of course before the city was paying 0-5%.
The reason why it is confusing is because every single employee/employer contract in CalPERS is different. Before the crash my uncle who is an IT manager for CalPERS said they offer "800 products" to cities and counties. Essentially they have 800 packages they can sell. Just take judges for example. There are three retirement plans for them depending on start dates. Then there are various deals over who pays what.
This is why CalPERS is going nowhere. They offer way more choices than any pension plan out there. If you dont like what they have to offer they just might make a new plan just for you.
If you're paying 60% who's paying the other 40%??
Change employer to taxpayer. It makes things clearer.
Good luck. It's good to have options. Let us know what you decide. The more people we have out producing the better
As for whining about the cost: would public employees prefer the people paying them just shut up and pay whatever the unions and politicians decide on their behalf? Is that really the kind of country you want?
The people we negotiate with are hired by politicians. The politicians are brought into office by voters. I don't vote for to the politcians I negotiate with. Only 12% of our officers live in the city. I honestly don't even know why we bother endorsing people. We certainly don't give them money so they don't do us any favors. They also know we can't vote for them. It is a joke.
If the voters were really upset with our pay and benes they could so what San Jose voters just did. Of course they caused a exodus of officers never before seen. SJPD went from 1345 officer to a current 920. They just lost 30 in the last 60 days. Just before the crash the then cheif said they needed over 1800 officers.
This is for a city of 1 million people. This is for a city that built a hockey arena. A city that has an international airport. A city that proclaims itself to be "The Capital of Silicon Valley." It also claims to be "The Safest Big City in America" and they could back it up.
They just had the most homicides in 20 years this last year.
You get what you pay for.
If you're paying 60% who's paying the other 40%??
Change employer to taxpayer. It makes things clearer.
Like I said earlier. We have been short 5% for three years. They should pay more. Pay less and you will get less.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 16:25
Only 5% of the people who apply to us can meet minimum standards. We have been short 5% for the last three years. By your measure we should be paying more.
Not necessarily.
1. Your target number may not be appropriate.
2. Running a little lean is good.
At my company, we run super lean. I'd say 1 person doing the job of 3. Certainly less than 95%. The shareholders decide how much revenue they want and how much overhead they'll accept. We work with that and constantly look for more heads to cut.
That's because our BOD has a fiduciary duty, jpa
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 16:27
Like I said earlier. We have been short 5% for three years. They should pay more. Pay less and you will get less.
See above. Simply being "short" means nothing. 95% filled is pretty damn good.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 16:28
The people we negotiate with are hired by politicians. The politicians are brought into office by voters. I don't vote for to the politcians I negotiate with. Only 12% of our officers live in the city. I honestly don't even know why we bother endorsing people. We certainly don't give them money so they don't do us any favors. They also know we can't vote for them. It is a joke.
If the voters were really upset with our pay and benes they could so what San Jose voters just did. Of course they caused a exodus of officers never before seen. SJPD went from 1345 officer to a current 920. They just lost 30 in the last 60 days. Just before the crash the then cheif said they needed over 1800 officers.
This is for a city of 1 million people. This is for a city that built a hockey arena. A city that has an international airport. A city that proclaims itself to be "The Capital of Silicon Valley." It also claims to be "The Safest Big City in America" and they could back it up.
They just had the most homicides in 20 years this last year.
You get what you pay for.
Clearly the taxpayers prefer to spend their money elsewhere. Who are you to disagree with the people writing the checks?
Not necessarily.
1. Your target number may not be appropriate.
2. Running a little lean is good.
At my company, we run super lean. I'd say 1 person doing the job of 3. Certainly less than 95%. The shareholders decide how much revenue they want and how much overhead they'll accept. We work with that and constantly look for more heads to cut.
That's because our BOD has a fiduciary duty, jpa
We had 105,000 calls for service last year. 15 years ago when I started we had 45,000 calls for service.
Same number of officers.
Now tell me what that does for response times and length of time for follow investigations?
devildog2067
01-05-2013, 16:32
I'm also not talking about raising or lowering 401k matching contributions, but a fundamental change in the structure of the pension from what you originally started with.
When a private company goes out of business (for whatever reason) guess what happens to the people who depend on it for a pension? They get screwed.
Generally, people who get paid a public pension just scream until the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.
I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits.
1) This is fiscally unsustainable. The reason it is this way is that politicians 40 years ago figured out that if they promised benefits instead of wages, they would be out of office before anyone would have to pay for it.
2) Government pay doesn't "suck" all that badly. Some people are underpaid, a whole lot are overpaid compared to what they could receive in the employment market.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 16:40
We had 105,000 calls for service last year. 15 years ago when I started we had 45,000 calls for service.
Same number of officers.
Now tell me what that does for response times and length of time for follow investigations?
Work faster
Work faster
Can't the line at the jail slows me down. Hire more correctional officers.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 16:49
Can't the line at the jail slows me down. Hire more correctional officers.
Sure it does
Only 5% of the people who apply to us can meet minimum standards. We have been short 5% for the last three years. By your measure we should be paying more.
I have no doubt that is true at the police department you work at.
I was speaking of government jobs in general, which for the far majority of them do not have the hiring restrictions that LEO's have.
90% of the government employees I know personally are not LEO's, but rather clerks, maintenance mechanics on elevators of boilers, teachers, etc. They all get paid far in excess of what they made in the private sector, not including the benefits or retirement. Too bad the people getting hired today don't get a retirement deal anywhere near as good, because every time a union negotiates, they barter away the benefits of the new hires. Like a Ponzi scheme, if you got in early you get paid handsomely.
If there is a waiting list a year long just to take the test to even be considered for an opening, that says to me that there is a surplus of applicants.
Oh believe me, I've often wished gov't agencies would just say, "we're not enforcing such and such laws/regulations unless the current (politicians) specifically enact laws requiring us to do so. Laws/regulations passed by past administrations have no binding effect on us today."
And current legislators can change laws. These laws can be changed to say we are not honoring old obligations.
Actually that sounds like it might be the perfect solution to the government related fiscal issues. Each government entity that owes money could simply pass legislation saying they will not honor the obligation. No more debt with a simple legislative change.
SunsetMan
01-05-2013, 17:39
And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55? That's flat out luxurious. In the the productive sector that's a dream reserved for either the very frugal or the wealthy.
Don't forget, this is at 50 to 80% of base salary averaged over the last 3 years. Move from a small town to a big city your last 3 years and double your pension. :poke:
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 17:40
Actually that sounds like it might be the perfect solution to the government related fiscal issues. Each government entity that owes money could simply pass legislation saying they will not honor the obligation. No more debt with a simple legislative change.
Keep watching then
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 17:42
Don't forget, this is at 50 to 80% of base salary averaged over the last 3 years. Move from a small town to a big city your last 3 years and double your pension. :poke:
From what I understand this formula gets gamed quite frequently with employees nearing retirement padding their hours with bs assignments with a wink and a nod from their superiors.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 17:44
And current legislators can change laws. These laws can be changed to say we are not honoring old obligations.
Precisely. It's amazing how so many people don't understand this simple truth
Actually that sounds like it might be the perfect solution to the government related fiscal issues. Each government entity that owes money could simply pass legislation saying they will not honor the obligation. No more debt with a simple legislative change.
Would you as a business owner ever do work for the government knowing they can cancel your contract without having to pay you?
I ask because CalTrans does not build roads. They hire private companies to do that. Would anyone take on roadbuilding if they knew the government could pass a law forbiding payment for that work?
Would you as a business owner ever do work for the government knowing they can cancel your contract without having to pay you?
I ask because CalTrans does not build roads. They hire private companies to do that. Would anyone take on roadbuilding if they knew the government could pass a law forbiding payment for that work?
I am telling you for a fact the answer is yes and many thousands of yeses are said each year. I do this almost everyday of my life for a living, there are contracts worth hundreds of millions a year to private companies that are absolutely subject to appropriation. The fact it is true is the reason I get paid.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 18:13
Would you as a business owner ever do work for the government knowing they can cancel your contract without having to pay you?
I ask because CalTrans does not build roads. They hire private companies to do that. Would anyone take on roadbuilding if they knew the government could pass a law forbiding payment for that work?
I also negotiate multiyear contracts with government entities. We have special contracts and terms for them (which are basically THEIR contracts and terms). Without fail every single one of them has an annual out clause because it is contingent on the government body appropriating the money to satisfy the terms of the contract.
This is standard stuff.
Now, what we know is that because most governments employ some form of baseline budgeting, the chances of it not getting funded are low. Nonetheless it is a risk.
Apparently the only folks who think the government can't choose not to pay on any given year are those who expect a pension, salary or welfare (Social Security, Medicare, Housing) check.
I also negotiate multiyear contracts with government entities. We have special contracts and terms for them (which are basically THEIR contracts and terms). Without fail every single one of them has an annual out clause because it is contingent on the government body appropriating the money to satisfy the terms of the contract.
This is standard stuff.
Now, what we know is that because most governments employ some form of baseline budgeting, the chances of it not getting funded are low. Nonetheless it is a risk.
Apparently the only folks who think the government can't choose not to pay on any given year are those who expect a pension, salary or welfare (Social Security, Medicare, Housing) check.
You are just talking about a multiyear contract being cancelled early. I m talking, your company delivers the product and then the government says, "**** you, we ain't paying."
Can they do that per your contract with them?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 18:38
You are just talking about a multiyear contract being cancelled early. I m talking, your company delivers the product and then the government says, "**** you, we ain't paying."
Can they do that per your contract with them?
I've never heard of it. Depends on what the law says. The government can't spend a dime until it is appopriated. Let me give you an example that might be sort of what you're talking about:
I sell $1MM worth of instrumentation to a government entity on a lease. The lease has a term of 36 months. The gov requires an annual out clause in case the government doesn't appropriate the money. Its called a muni lease.
When the lease is signed, the 3rd party leasing company (or even finance company under our corporate umbrella) funds our company the entire amount (less finance charges). We're whole. Now, if the money doesn't get appropriated, the leasing company gets the equipment back. We have our money and they have used equipment that they have to figure out how to dispose of for pennies on the dollar. IOW, the finance company gets screwed.
What are you getting at? How is not paying for a delivered product relevant to this discussion?
I've never heard of it. Depends on what the law says. The government can't spend a dime until it is appopriated. Let me give you an example that might be sort of what you're talking about:
I sell $1MM worth of instrumentation to a government entity on a lease. The lease has a term of 36 months. The gov requires an annual out clause in case the government doesn't appropriate the money. Its called a muni lease.
When the lease is signed, the 3rd party leasing company (or even finance company under our corporate umbrella) funds our company the entire amount (less finance charges). We're whole. Now, if the money doesn't get appropriated, the leasing company gets the equipment back. We have our money and they have used equipment that they have to figure out how to dispose of for pennies on the dollar. IOW, the finance company gets screwed.
What are you getting at? How is not paying for a delivered product relevant to this discussion?
Just seeing what people know about contract law.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 18:54
Just seeing what people know about contract law.
I dont know much. We have legal.
You?
Just seeing what people know about contract law.
Try me.
How does a court force a legislature to appropriate money? What does the court do when a legislature says piss off?
Who appropriates to the money to fund the court system?
When a state's court system submits a budget request, who does it go to?
When they present their request, who is the person they call Mr/Mrs Chairman/Woman?
You are just talking about a multiyear contract being cancelled early. I m talking, your company delivers the product and then the government says, "**** you, we ain't paying."
Can they do that per your contract with them?
What is a a pension other than a multi-year contract?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:06
he's busy googling contract law
What is a a pension other than a multi-year contract?
Exactly my point. His company hedges his bets by having a finanicing company pay them up front. The financing company takes the hit if the government welches. Of course this is not without cost. I am sure it is pased onto the consumer/taxpayer.
Try me.
How does a court force a legislature to appropriate money?In CA the Sheriff would. Or at the very least a lien/collections would be placed. What does the court do when a legislature says piss off?Find the person who made the decision in contempt. It could actually be the hoosegow or it could be just a fine. Take a look at some city's fight against pro 2A rlings.
Who appropriates to the money to fund the court system? The statehouse. But you are telling me they are going to cut funding to the courts? It would have to be all funding becuase as the courts have shown recently they can get by on crumbs if we get creative with the law. Judges do not like being told to pound sand.
When a state's court system submits a budget request, who does it go to? In CA there is no such thing as a budget request. You either get the money you would like or you don't. You still have to do the job. Of course civil actions take a back seat to criminal actions. BTW contempt is a criminal action.
When they present their request, who is the person they call Mr/Mrs Chairman/Woman?huh?
I don't know about your state but in CA this matter was handled in the 1940s. The only way out for a city is bankruptcy. Even then they are stuck with certain realities. SJ voters slashed pay and benes by ballot. They are bleeding good employees. The SO in my county just picked up a bunch of guys from SJPD. The resumes of these guys is impressive. Homicide, Narc, SWAT. And that is just one of their guys. I think they even picked up a Sgt. The Assistant Chiefs are bailing too. The Chief is leaving earlier than expected.
Like I said before you can stamp your feet all you want but it isn't goingt o change a thing. In case you didn't notice 2012 didn't turn out quite the way we would like. Of course I live in CA so I have watched this train wreck before.
Exactly my point. His company hedges his bets by having a finanicing company pay them up front. The financing company takes the hit if the government welches. Of course this is not without cost. I am sure it is pased onto the consumer/taxpayer.
Whenever someone has to default on a contract, there are losers.
The problem you seem to have with this concept, is that you think the tax payers should be the losers and not the public employees. In the world of provate companies, the party who is owed money is typically the loser.
When money is gone, someone is going to feel pain. Now it is just a discussion of WHO should feel the pain.
Like I said before you can stamp your feet all you want but it isn't goingt o change a thing. In case you didn't notice 2012 didn't turn out quite the way we would like. Of course I live in CA so I have watched this train wreck before.
You are missing something. CA is bleeding business away because of what the CA govt is doing. This makes the downward spiral faster.
Whenever someone has to default on a contract, there are losers.
The problem you seem to have with this concept, is that you think the tax payers should be the losers and not the public employees. In the world of provate companies, the party who is owed money is typically the loser.
When money is gone, someone is going to feel pain. Now it is just a discussion of WHO should feel the pain.
Examine Vallejo and their bankruptcy. You may learn something if you care to see.
Whenever someone has to default on a contract, there are losers.
The problem you seem to have with this concept, is that you think the tax payers should be the losers and not the public employees. In the world of provate companies, the party who is owed money is typically the loser.
When money is gone, someone is going to feel pain. Now it is just a discussion of WHO should feel the pain.
Nice concise summary
You are missing something. CA is bleeding business away because of what the CA govt is doing. This makes the downward spiral faster.
No I have noticed. What is interesting is that it isn't so much businesses leaving it is when they expand they expand elsewhere. Then the middle class follows. See Austin for details.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:30
Exactly my point. His company hedges his bets by having a finanicing company pay them up front. The financing company takes the hit if the government welches. Of course this is not without cost. I am sure it is pased onto the consumer/taxpayer.
Exactly wrong. You don't know much about revenue recognition in the post SarbOx world.
That is how a capital lease works if you buy a car as well.
We design manufacture and sell medical instrumentation. We don't hold paper. We don't take payments and we don't extend terms beyond 30 days because they all affect revenue recognition. You buy it from us or you buy it from the leasing company and they buy it from us.
Muni leases are relatively rare and generally only used when the institution does not have the capital available to spend and has a significant need.
So you asked the question with an agenda, formed an uninformed opinion based on my honest answer and you're still wrong.
What was your point again? Contract law or finance?
No I have noticed. What is interesting is that it isn't so much businesses leaving it is when they expand they expand elsewhere. Then the middle class follows. See Austin for details.
Costs too much to up and leave all at once. What will happen is they will expand in other areas as phase 1. Then as phase two, they will move out when the other area is up and running.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:33
I don't know about your state but in CA this matter was handled in the 1940s. The only way out for a city is bankruptcy. Even then they are stuck with certain realities. SJ voters slashed pay and benes by ballot. They are bleeding good employees. The SO in my county just picked up a bunch of guys from SJPD. The resumes of these guys is impressive. Homicide, Narc, SWAT. And that is just one of their guys. I think they even picked up a Sgt. The Assistant Chiefs are bailing too. The Chief is leaving earlier than expected.
Like I said before you can stamp your feet all you want but it isn't goingt o change a thing. In case you didn't notice 2012 didn't turn out quite the way we would like. Of course I live in CA so I have watched this train wreck before.
I never thought you were an unintelligent person until this post, specifically the red text you inserted in the quote. If you think the judicial can force the legislative to appropriate money, you're a moron.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:35
Examine Vallejo and their bankruptcy. You may learn something if you care to see.
Instead of playing coy and pretending that you actually countered his point effectively, why don't you provide the relevant information here and teach us. You obviously have great knowledge of it and how it applies.
I don't know about your state but in CA this matter was handled in the 1940s. The only way out for a city is bankruptcy. Even then they are stuck with certain realities. SJ voters slashed pay and benes by ballot. They are bleeding good employees. The SO in my county just picked up a bunch of guys from SJPD. The resumes of these guys is impressive. Homicide, Narc, SWAT. And that is just one of their guys. I think they even picked up a Sgt. The Assistant Chiefs are bailing too. The Chief is leaving earlier than expected.
Like I said before you can stamp your feet all you want but it isn't goingt o change a thing. In case you didn't notice 2012 didn't turn out quite the way we would like. Of course I live in CA so I have watched this train wreck before.
Get real. A country sheriff is going to force a state legislature to appropriate money for a certain program? That isn't even close to realistic.
I don't do a bunch of work in CA, but I do know for a fact that the state court system does present a proposed budget to both the house and senate budget committees.
As far as your 2nd amendment argument, this isn't a court finding a state statue or city ordinance unconstitutional, which is what they are there for, this is a court forcing a legislature to take a legislative action. That would be the definition of a separation of powers violation.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:39
CACop, still waiting to hear if you're an expert on contract law.
Costs too much to up and leave all at once. What will happen is they will expand in other areas as phase 1. Then as phase two, they will move out when the other area is up and running.
With the bigger names I think they will keep HQ here but most of th work will be done elsewhere. Smaller companies I can see pulling the plug.
My town has some HQs but the bulk of the business is elsewhere.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:42
With the bigger names I think they will keep HQ here but most of th work will be done elsewhere. Smaller companies I can see pulling the plug.
What is this opinion based on?
Instead of playing coy and pretending that you actually countered his point effectively, why don't you provide the relevant information here and teach us. You obviously have great knowledge of it and how it applies.
Vallejo went bankrupt. Pay and benes went to just below median for the area. There was no great victory for either side. You keep waiting to spank public employees but it isn't going to happen. The work still has to get done. You and your fellow taxpayers demand it.
I think what is happening with some smaller government folks is that they realize they are losing hearts and minds so they are trying to drive public employees out of the workforce. All it does is trim any fat and increase turnover. See SJPD for details. They are losing centuries of experience monthly.
CACop, still waiting to hear if you're an expert on contract law.
Nope just read the relavant case law on public employee pensions. You clearly haven't.
With the bigger names I think they will keep HQ here but most of th work will be done elsewhere. Smaller companies I can see pulling the plug.
My town has some HQs but the bulk of the business is elsewhere.
They will go or stay where they make the most money. Raise taxes in CA to where it is cheaper to go elsewhere and they are gone. Companies are much more loyal to money than anything else.
There is a reason Switzerland has the headquarters of so many companies in it (hint, 13% corporate tax and that is typically after the 10 year tax holiday)
I don't know about your state but in CA this matter was handled in the 1940s. The only way out for a city is bankruptcy. Even then they are stuck with certain realities. SJ voters slashed pay and benes by ballot. They are bleeding good employees. The SO in my county just picked up a bunch of guys from SJPD. The resumes of these guys is impressive. Homicide, Narc, SWAT. And that is just one of their guys. I think they even picked up a Sgt. The Assistant Chiefs are bailing too. The Chief is leaving earlier than expected.
Like I said before you can stamp your feet all you want but it isn't goingt o change a thing. In case you didn't notice 2012 didn't turn out quite the way we would like. Of course I live in CA so I have watched this train wreck before.
Sorry, I can't stop thinking about this. So an a law enforcement officer, you think that a judge could hold a state legislator in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action?
I can't even begin to explain how stunned I am by the lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles.
What is this opinion based on?
When you read the articles on companies "leaving" CA watch the wording. The latest one posted here talked about CA companies doing "new hiring out of state." It also talked about layoffs unless people were to relocate.
I also know more than a few people in the tech industry and I was a part of it a while back. It is hard to stay out of the loop when it comes to tech in the Bay Area.
I think a lot of the "CA is dying" stories come from people who want this liberal hell to fail. I think they don't grasp the complexities of this state. I certainly think they don't grasp the complexities of the Bay Area.
While it might be easy to paint everyone in CA with a broad brush it just isn't going to stick.
Sorry, I can't stop thinking about this. So an a law enforcement officer, you think that a judge could hold a state legislator in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action?
I can't even begin to explain how stunned I am by the lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles.
To be honest your question was rather silly. There is no way any politician is going to cut off funding to the courts because of one ruling. They are not as impulsive as you. If they have the votes the politicians need to rewrite the law.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 19:58
Vallejo went bankrupt. Pay and benes went to just below median for the area. There was no great victory for either side. You keep waiting to spank public employees but it isn't going to happen. The work still has to get done. You and your fellow taxpayers demand it.
What's the lesson there? You implied there was a lesson for DanaT if he read up on it.
I think what is happening with some smaller government folks is that they realize they are losing hearts and minds so they are trying to drive public employees out of the workforce. All it does is trim any fat and increase turnover. See SJPD for details. They are losing centuries of experience monthly.
I get it. You're a big government guy.
Actually what is happening is that we're sick and tired of being treated like tax cattle. We're tired of paying for unnecessary government employees and overpaying for the necessary ones. We're tired of seeing politicians spend our money irresponsibly with the contracts they negotiate with employee unions. We're tired of being effectively taxed by politicians who were in office before we were born.
Most of, as the article in the OP shows, there is a major crisis of public employee pensions looming and we know that the government is going to put a gun to our heads and take our wallet to bail them out.
To be honest your question was rather silly. There is no way any politician is going to cut off funding to the courts because of one ruling. They are not as impulsive as you. If they have the votes the politicians need to rewrite the law.
You are the one who said that a court could hold an elected state official in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action. Do you really believe that to be true?
Do you really believe a county sheriff can force a state assembly to appropriate money to a certain place?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:00
Sorry, I can't stop thinking about this. So an a law enforcement officer, you think that a judge could hold a state legislator in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action?
I can't even begin to explain how stunned I am by the lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles.
Yup. And economic principles too.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:01
Nope just read the relavant case law on public employee pensions. You clearly haven't.
No, but I did pay attention in civics class in junior high. You clearly didn't.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 20:04
The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.
But real life shows gov't paychecks pay less than private paychecks.
They will go or stay where they make the most money. Raise taxes in CA to where it is cheaper to go elsewhere and they are gone. Companies are much more loyal to money than anything else.
There is a reason Switzerland has the headquarters of so many companies in it (hint, 13% corporate tax and that is typically after the 10 year tax holiday)
CA is in a death spiral but it is going to take 20 years. Realistically it will just change the way CA works.
I forsee rich liberals running company HQ's here for the cool factor so to speak but the bulk of the work will be done elsewhere. Public employees will be the only real middle class. Someone has to teach the gangbangers in the schools until they drop out. Cops have to arrest them when they stab someone. Etc, etc, etc. Those public employees will make lots of money doing it because there is no one around who can or wants to do it. They will then leave for other states. The poor will consist of illegals doing unskilled labor, mostly agricultural.
Since you live in CO I expect you to be where we are now in 20 years, maybe less. Remember CA voted Bush in 1988. It was considered a toss up state in 1992. Who did your state vote for the last two elections?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:05
To be honest your question was rather silly. There is no way any politician is going to cut off funding to the courts because of one ruling. They are not as impulsive as you. If they have the votes the politicians need to rewrite the law.
Who said they were going to "cut off" funding?
Some reading for you. Apparently CA courts have had their budgets reduced by the state assembly and are working on strategies to get the budget increased......by the CA state assembly.......who you say they will hold in contempt and send a county sheriff to arrest all the assemblymen.
I'm sorry but this is so absurd I honestly can't believe it was typed here.
You are the one who said that a court could hold an elected state official in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action. Do you really believe that to be true?
Do you really believe a county sheriff can force a state assembly to appropriate money to a certain place?
No. Do you really beleive a state legislature is going to cut off all funding to the courts?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:08
When you read the articles on companies "leaving" CA watch the wording. The latest one posted here talked about CA companies doing "new hiring out of state." It also talked about layoffs unless people were to relocate.
You don't know much about public affairs either, apparently.
When a company announces new hiring will occur out of state, that means they're laying tracks to relo.
Silicon valley is a bit unique in that there is a disproportionate amount of industry talent there. Don't for a second think that makes it impossible though.
Who said they were going to "cut off" funding?
.
The same retard who said what are the courts going to do if they cut off funding.
Does he really beleive the state is going to cut off funding?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:10
No. Do you really beleive a state legislature is going to cut off all funding to the courts?
Who said that? CA courts are currently trying to get previous funding restored. Courts in general (or any government body) is pretty much perpetually trying to get funding increased. If you don't think legislators will use that politically, you're simply naive.
How does a court force a legislature to appropriate money? What does the court do when a legislature says piss off?
Who appropriates to the money to fund the court system?
When a state's court system submits a budget request, who does it go to?
When they present their request, who is the person they call Mr/Mrs Chairman/Woman?
Sounds like he is saying they will cut off funding because they don't like a ruling.
No. Do you really beleive a state legislature is going to cut off all funding to the courts?
I said they could, which absolutely is true.
You said a sheriff could force a legislature to appropriate money and a court could hold an state legislator in contempt if they didn't take an legislative action. All of which is absolutely not true.
The same retard who said what are the courts going to do if they cut off funding.
Does he really beleive the state is going to cut off funding?
This retard also understands that you are clueless if you think a county sheriff is going to force a general assembly to appropriate money.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:13
The same retard who said what are the courts going to do if they cut off funding.
Does he really beleive the state is going to cut off funding?
If you're going to call him names you should provide the quote where he said that.
What's really funny here is that I know what 2bgop does for a living. You don't. If you did, you would know how foolish you look.
And while I don't think a legislator would shut down the courts by "cutting off" funding, you bet your ass they could and they will tinker with it punitively.
I still can't believe you posted something so stupid, honestly. A court will hold an entire assembly in contempt for not appropriating money and send a country sheriff to arrest them.:faint:
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:16
How does a court force a legislature to appropriate money? What does the court do when a legislature says piss off?
Who appropriates to the money to fund the court system?
When a state's court system submits a budget request, who does it go to?
When they present their request, who is the person they call Mr/Mrs Chairman/Woman?
Sounds like he is saying they will cut off funding because they don't like a ruling.
No, it doesn't. You don't know the difference between "cutting off" funding and reducing funding or refusing to increase funding?
Your post earlier about changing careers and getting into the private sector.....forget what I said. Stay where you are. You won't do better out here.
I said they could, which absolutely is true.
You said a sheriff could force a legislature to appropriate money and a court could hold an state legislator in contempt if they didn't take an legislative action. All of which is absolutely not true.
Theoretically they could but are you seriously thinking a legislature would actually do that because of one ruling? Aside from your fantasies.
This retard also understands that you are clueless if you think a county sheriff is going to force a general assembly to appropriate money.
You know what my problem is I actually fell into the trap of playing theoretical games with you.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:20
Theoretically they could but are you seriously thinking a legislature would actually do that because of one ruling? Aside from your fantasies.
:rofl::rofl::rofl: says the guy who said the court could force the assembly to appropriate money and have the local sheriff arrest them if they didn't.
If you're going to call him names you should provide the quote where he said that.
What's really funny here is that I know what 2bgop does for a living. You don't. If you did, you would know how foolish you look.
And while I don't think a legislator would shut down the courts by "cutting off" funding, you bet your ass they could and they will tinker with it punitively.
I still can't believe you posted something so stupid, honestly. A court will hold an entire assembly in contempt for not appropriating money and send a country sheriff to arrest them.:faint:
Here is where a contempt citation would stem from.
County or city stops paying pensions or whatever.
Lawsuit ensues.
After going through all the courts it gets sent back to the lower court with "Yes they do have to pay."
Mayor or whoever said "We aren't going to pay" that started it still says we aren't going to pay.
That is where the contempt would flow.
Now if the legislature wants to get involved and cut funding they can. But the mayor or whoever still has to pay up.
Or are you saying an executive branch memeber can do whatever they want as long as they have the legislative branch behind them?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:21
2bgop - just curious. How many attorneys do you hire each year to do what it is that you do with government agencies?
Patchman
01-05-2013, 20:29
One of the things I do is help municipalities reach settlement agreements with state and federal agencies.
The EPA is leveeing fines for sewer and wastewater violations that cities simply can not comply with. A couple large midwestern cities are facing fines so large that it would constitute well over a 400% increase in sewer and water fees on residents.
Then why not have the current municipality state that because past administrations were responsible for these EPA violations, that the current administration is not responsible for them.
And also because the past administrations knew they were violating EPA laws/regulations which would "someday" cause the municipality a huge fine, the past administration has effectively forced a future debt onto a future administration. Which they can't do. Which, therefore, the current administration should not be legally responsible for.
2bgop - just curious. How many attorneys do you hire each year to do what it is that you do with government agencies?
Personally, I always have a few on staff. However, when we staff up, it can be a couple dozen at any one time.
Then why not have the current municipality state that because past administrations were responsible for these EPA violations, that the current administration is not responsible for them.
And also because the past administrations knew they were violating EPA laws/regulations which would "someday" cause the municipality a huge fine, the past administration has effectively forced a future debt onto a future administration. Which they can't do. Which, therefore, the current administration should not be legally responsible for.
A muni does have the ability to tell the feds to take a hike, they don't because they don't have backbone to do it, but they certainly can.
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:35
Here is where a contempt citation would stem from.
County or city stops paying pensions or whatever.
Lawsuit ensues.
After going through all the courts it gets sent back to the lower court with "Yes they do have to pay."
Mayor or whoever said "We aren't going to pay" that started it still says we aren't going to pay.
That is where the contempt would flow.
Now if the legislature wants to get involved and cut funding they can. But the mayor or whoever still has to pay up.
Or are you saying an executive branch memeber can do whatever they want as long as they have the legislative branch behind them?
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
The executive can't pay if the legislative doesn't appropriate the money.
I guess that's when you send the local sheriff to arrest the entire California Assembly?
:rofl:
Here is where a contempt citation would stem from.
County or city stops paying pensions or whatever.
Lawsuit ensues.
After going through all the courts it gets sent back to the lower court with "Yes they do have to pay."
Mayor or whoever said "We aren't going to pay" that started it still says we aren't going to pay.
That is where the contempt would flow.
Now if the legislature wants to get involved and cut funding they can. But the mayor or whoever still has to pay up.
Or are you saying an executive branch memeber can do whatever they want as long as they have the legislative branch behind them?
So would the sheriff go to a city council meeting and force a majority of council members to vote to appropriate the money? Does he get to hold them in jail until they agree to vote yes?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:38
Then why not have the current municipality state that because past administrations were responsible for these EPA violations, that the current administration is not responsible for them.
And also because the past administrations knew they were violating EPA laws/regulations which would "someday" cause the municipality a huge fine, the past administration has effectively forced a future debt onto a future administration. Which they can't do. Which, therefore, the current administration should not be legally responsible for.
Oh dear God :faint:
So would the sheriff go to a city council meeting and force a majority of council members to vote to appropriate the money? Does he get to hold them in jail until they agree to vote yes?
If the courts rule that something is unconstitutional then there is no need for a vote unless they want to rewrite the law so that it stands review.
My city just had a muni code ruled uncon. What would happen if I kept writing tickets based on it?
The city is wisely rewriting the law rather than telling me to keep writing.
Patchman
01-05-2013, 20:44
A muni does have the ability to tell the feds to take a hike, they don't because they don't have backbone to do it, but they certainly can.
In the EPA situation, what would be the repercussions for the municipality? Future federal funding? What else?
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:48
If the courts rule that something is unconstitutional then there is no need for a vote unless they want to rewrite the law so that it stands review.
My city just had a muni code ruled uncon. What would happen if I kept writing tickets based on it?
The city is wisely rewriting the law rather than telling me to keep writing.
The court would hold your agency in contempt and send the state police to arrest your entire agency.
If the courts rule that something is unconstitutional then there is no need for a vote unless they want to rewrite the law so that it stands review.
My city just had a muni code ruled uncon. What would happen if I kept writing tickets based on it?
The city is wisely rewriting the law rather than telling me to keep writing.
That is not even close to the same. It required no action at all, once it was ruled in violation of the state or federal constitution, it just doesn't exist anymore. If they rewrite it, that is their decision.
How would the sheriff force to city council to appropriate money? I mean physically force them to do it? How does it happen, does he go take a check from the treasurer and write it himself?
Would he arrest anyone who didn't vote the way a court ruled?
Would be arrest them and then hold them until they agreed to vote a certain way?
In the EPA situation, what would be the repercussions for the municipality? Future federal funding? What else?
Yeah, almost entirely based on funding. There are a few other things they could use to screw with them, but almost everything comes back to money. No surprise there.
Since you live in CO I expect you to be where we are now in 20 years, maybe less. Remember CA voted Bush in 1988. It was considered a toss up state in 1992. Who did your state vote for the last two elections?
Coloradans voted Republican. Californians who moved to CO voted democrat. Our only problem is that the Federal law forbids us from not allowing Californians in.
BTW. My state income tax is half of what your is. That right there is a big incentive..
certifiedfunds
01-05-2013, 20:59
I'm guessing you participate in a public pension too since you jumped back in to wave the stupid flag. I mostly ignored this earlier but we can go ahead and pick it apart since you're back in.
Bind future legislatures for...
social programs like social security and medicaid?
Excellent example. The congress could end either of those programs tomorrow if they could grow a set of balls or believe they could weather the political storm. Period. End of story.
Social Security and medicare are nothing more than tax and spend entitlement welfare programs with a super powerful lobby.
programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?
Of course. You think a legislature is somehow bound to purchase toilet paper on a multiyear contract that is iron clad?
programs like constructing capital infrastructure?
Yes. Those can certainly be defunded. Hell, DOD cancels new weapons all the time. There are threads right here on GT about it.
programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?
Without a doubt. In fact, Louisiana is currently considering this very thing with its old Charity Hospital system. After Katrina, the VA Hospital in New Orleans never re-opened.
The legislature has no constitutional requirement to fund a Level I trauma center. What was that about?
continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?
The Congress can absolutely defund federal agencies. Do you not remember the talk of the Republican House defunding Obamacare?
Do you know that there is a current law providing for a department to work with convicted felons who have served their time and wish to have their constitutional rights re-instated?
It has no funding.
Are you talking a blanket binding/non-binding? Or binding/non-binding with some programs/funding, while not with others?
There is no such thing as a multi year binding contract with the government.
Coloradans voted Republican. Californians who moved to CO voted democrat. Our only problem is that the Federal law forbids us from not allowing Californians in.
BTW. My state income tax is half of what your is. That right there is a big incentive..
Doesn't matter where they are from it is where they vote that counts.
20 years is long enough for a generation of voters born of CA immigrants in CO to turn your state into CA.
Don't count on your tax rate staying where it is.
fastbolt
01-06-2013, 01:03
If you are a public employee those "employer contributions" are tax money. Your entire compensation package is tax money. Don't play word games.
I wasn't playing word games. Nor was I being disingenuous. Of course funds used by gov agencies are the result of taxes (although some small donations do occur, of course). How else would the public ever receive any services, of even the most basic type, from any form of government if not funded by taxes?
No special taxes, though (like ballot measures, dedicated parcel taxes, etc).
And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55?
When I was hired the typical life expectancy for a retired cop was often said to be an average of 2 years. The stresses of the job, along with injuries and what's now considered as 'presumptive' health conditions related to the working conditions, took their toll on cops.
It's not an unknown situation for people working in LE.
Perhaps it's better health care, nowadays, along with a better awareness of encouraging healthy lifestyles for public safety employees, and probably better preventive health care, which has seemingly benefited retirees who left the field after the 70's & 80's. Dunno. I can say that I'm seeing people of my "generation" retiring and living longer.
A separate (but related) issue which municipalities have been facing in recent years are work-related disability retirements.
When a large city finds that 70% of its public safety (fire/police) retirements have been work-related disability retirements, what would you change to prevent that from happening?
Even when you factor out the fraudulent claims, it's still a staggering percentage of the workforce that's being injured on the job (including exposure to hazardous materials, pathogens, etc) and are unable to continue serving in their public safety careers.
Personally ... and I acknowledge some small amount of personal bias in this regard ;) ... I think that serving in the public safety field for 25-35 years ought to be long enough for anybody, regardless of what age someone starts.
BTW, I worked in the private sector for more than 10 years before entering LE. My family never had the same sort of everyday worries about whether I'd be coming home at the end of the day.
sourdough44
01-06-2013, 03:08
And while it's totally underwater let's promise more benefits.
Restless28
01-06-2013, 05:15
I'm employed in the fire service in Alabama, and I'm a 20+ year Retirement Systems of Alabama(RSA) member.
If it weren't for the RSA, the state's tourism would suck. The RSA developed the Robert Trent Jones Golf Trail and has done more to promote the state than the state has.
This being said, necessary changes to the RSA were made recently to stabilize the pension system. If the teachers would relent and give up their ultra cheap state paid for insurance that cops and firefighters do not get, it would be even more solvent.
Alas, the teachers side of the system is filled with unsatiable socialists.
I think I'm in the last generation of what we know as a traditional pension system, and rightfully so. The world is changing. Adapt or die.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 05:56
I'm guessing you participate in a public pension too since you jumped back in to wave the stupid flag. I mostly ignored this earlier but we can go ahead and pick it apart since you're back in.
Absolutely in a public pension. 16 years years ago, when I first got in, the pension system told me that if I participated, they promised certain levels of retirement benefits. And in return, I agreed that I would contribute 7.5-percent of my pay, for the next 25 years. Of continuous service. And so a bargain was struck. If today, after 16 years of meeting their every demand and requirement, the pension system says "sorry, we're eliminating or decreasing your promised pension" you're darn right I'd fight.
Also, because for the past 16 years I've relied on their pension promise, my pension is an important part of my retirement plans.
Compensate me fairly today, for giving up my pension tomorrow? I'd seriously consider it. But if they can't compensate me fairly, and because for the past 16 years I've relied on their promises, I'm going to make sure I get everything that was promised me.
Excellent example. The congress could end either of those programs tomorrow if they could grow a set of balls or believe they could weather the political storm. Period. End of story.
Social Security and medicare are nothing more than tax and spend entitlement welfare programs with a super powerful lobby.
Not to mention SS and medicare are mandatory enrollment. I never had a choice to opt out of SS. If I could get all my principle back from SS (Im not even asking for interest that began in 1978) today and not be part of it tomorrow, I would. SS was never part of my retirement plans, so I couldn't care less if it is eliminated all together.
Of course. You think a legislature is somehow bound to purchase toilet paper on a multiyear contract that is iron clad?
Yes. Those can certainly be defunded. Hell, DOD cancels new weapons all the time. There are threads right here on GT about it.
Without a doubt. In fact, Louisiana is currently considering this very thing with its old Charity Hospital system. After Katrina, the VA Hospital in New Orleans never re-opened.
The legislature has no constitutional requirement to fund a Level I trauma center. What was that about?
The Congress can absolutely defund federal agencies. Do you not remember the talk of the Republican House defunding Obamacare?
Do you know that there is a current law providing for a department to work with convicted felons who have served their time and wish to have their constitutional rights re-instated?
It has no funding.
There is no such thing as a multi year binding contract with the government.
These are just examples of different government contracts and projects where it's easier for some to be cancelled without repercussions than others.
Yes, Gov't have a right to cancel/defund. Fine. Let them. :dunno:
engineer151515
01-06-2013, 07:27
But if they can't compensate me fairly, and because for the past 16 years I've relied on their promises, I'm going to make sure I get everything that was promised me.
You'll get everything they promise. Just not in the form you expected. You'll be paid in highly devalued US dollars (or, worse yet, State issued IOU's) and be told to stand in the Obamacare line for your healthcare.
The State will declare the "promise" was upheld.
"I'm guessing you participate in a public pension too since you jumped back in to wave the stupid flag."
The stupid flag? I used to think you had at least a little class.
Doesn't matter where they are from it is where they vote that counts.
20 years is long enough for a generation of voters born of CA immigrants in CO to turn your state into CA.
Don't count on your tax rate staying where it is.
Do remind me how Californians the are trying to ruin our state.
Very hard to raise taxes here based upon CO laws.
These are just examples of different government contracts and projects where it's easier for some to be cancelled without repercussions than others.
Yes, Gov't have a right to cancel/defund. Fine. Let them. :dunno:
This shows you are just selfish.
You think that the people losing their jobs because of the govt contracts being cancelled think the contracts are "cancelled without repercussions." You shouldn't be a cop; you seem to be less than truthful. Why do I say this? There are the same type of repercussion on people when any contract is cancelled you just dont care because there are no repercussions FOR YOU if they are cancelled. That is all you care about Paul. Why Paul? Because you sure dont mind taking from Peter.
Big Bird
01-06-2013, 08:16
pensions are a Ponzi scheme
There are not sustainable, so the people that get in early enough get paid, everybody else is just a payer.
Not true. A true Defined Benefit Pension plan can be a sound way to design retirement benefits and has been used for many many decades by companies to pay retirement benefits to employees. Most are economically sound.
PUBLIC Pensions (ie Government Pensions promised to Government Employees--teachers, firemen, police, Postal Workers etc) are not subject to the funding rules surrounding privately sponsored defined benefit plans. The polticians simply write a new law promising more benefits to get more public sector workers to vote for them but they have no intention of ever funding those promises. They also deliberately underfund those programs as in the CALPERS example above by making unrealistic returns assumptions. This allows them to spend more tax dollars now than they would otherwise be required to set aside to fund all those pensions. FWIW many Unions also have successfully lobbied for different funding rules for Union Pensions and guess what--many Union sponsored pension plans are going broke as well.
The reason Pension Plans and Social Security is going broke is because people are living too long. 30 years ago the average life expectancy for a man was age 68 and 73 for a woman. So it was no big deal to fund a pension that would last no more than 5-10 years. But today, people are living 20 and 30 years into retirement and that makes funding a sound pension for these folks VERY expensive. Which is why only 15% of the Fortune 500 companies still offer Defined Benefit Pension plans when 20 years ago 85% of those companies offered pensions.
The real problem is if you add up all the unfunded liabilities for this nation--between state, local and federal governments--including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal pensions, State Pensions, Military Pensions etc etc...we have over $160 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities...$80 Trillion is SS and Medicare/Medicaid alone This was published in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago.
Quite literally, there is not that much wealth on the entire planet. We couldn't tax everyone on the face of the earth 100% of all their income and assets and pay for it. Historically what has happened when governments get into this kind of pickle? They default on their debt and don't pay their obligations. Think that's BS? Who in Washington is seriously making proposals for paying off our $16 Trillion National Debt?
NOBODY... Not a single politician
Restless28
01-06-2013, 08:21
Not true. A true Defined Benefit Pension plan can be a sound way to design retirement benefits and has been used for many many decades by companies to pay retirement benefits to employees. Most are economically sound.
PUBLIC Pensions (ie Government Pensions promised to Government Employees--teachers, firemen, police, Postal Workers etc) are not subject to the funding rules surrounding privately sponsored defined benefit plans. The polticians simply write a new law promising more benefits to get more public sector workers to vote for them but they have no intention of ever funding those promises. They also deliberately underfund those programs as in the CALPERS example above by making unrealistic returns assumptions. This allows them to spend more tax dollars now than they would otherwise be required to set aside to fund all those pensions. FWIW many Unions also have successfully lobbied for different funding rules for Union Pensions and guess what--many Union sponsored pension plans are going broke as well.
The reason Pension Plans and Social Security is going broke is because people are living too long. 30 years ago the average life expectancy for a man was age 68 and 73 for a woman. So it was no big deal for fund a pension that would no last more than 10 years, But today, people are living 20 and 30 years into retirement and that makes funding a sound pension for these folks VERY expensive. WHich is why only 15% of the Fortune 500 companies still offer Defined Benefit Pension plans when 20 years ago 85% of those companies offered pensions.
The real problem is if you add up all the unfunded liabilities for this nations between state, local and federal governments--including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Federal pensions, State Pensions, Military Pensions etc etc...we have over $160 TRILLION IN unfunded liabilities...$80 Trillion is SS and Medicare/Medicaid alone..
There quite literally is not that much wealth on the entire planet. We couldn't tax everyone 100% of all income and assets and pay for it. Historically what has happened when governments get into this kind of pickle? They default on their debt and don't pay their obligations. Think that's BS? Who in Washington is seriously making proposals for paying off our $16 Trillion National Debt?
NOBODY... Not a single politician
Great post.
As far as the debt and threat of default, I believe it's a part of a intentional push towards world government. Globalization is coming.
engineer151515
01-06-2013, 08:25
Great post.
As far as the debt and threat of default, I believe it's a part of a intentional push towards world government. Globalization is coming.
+1 on both. Great initial post. Globalization of currency. Will add devaluation of everybody's savings. The exchange will not be 1:1. You dollar, your savings, you pension, your 401K will be instantly worth 1/10 of current value.
I would expect nothing less from a President and political party that made a mantra out of how unfair America has been to the world in the past.
Restless28
01-06-2013, 08:37
I will also add, much to the chagrin of many, that we have a 1 party political system with 2 divisions. There are exceptions, but, for the most part, there are very little differences between the 2.
These politicians are elected before we vote for them. The invisible hand really had the fix in with Romney and Obama. They couldn't lose.
Why do you think that Sarah Palin was destroyed by the media and most politicians?
She was a populist. She was a threat to the puppetmasters of the world. In their eyes, a populist would be the barrier to the assimilation of the U.S. into the world government.
The New World Order is on the horizon. The signs are everywhere, if you choose to see them.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 08:43
This shows you are just selfish.
You think that the people losing their jobs because of the govt contracts being cancelled think the contracts are "cancelled without repercussions." You shouldn't be a cop; you seem to be less than truthful. Why do I say this? There are the same type of repercussion on people when any contract is cancelled you just dont care because there are no repercussions FOR YOU if they are cancelled. That is all you care about Paul. Why Paul? Because you sure dont mind taking from Peter.
Maybe you should read my post in the full context of what it was responding to.
So do you, or do you not, agree that new administrations can cut funding for existing projects/contracts/budgets?
Patchman
01-06-2013, 08:53
You'll get everything they promise. Just not in the form you expected. You'll be paid in highly devalued US dollars (or, worse yet, State issued IOU's) and be told to stand in the Obamacare line for your healthcare.
The State will declare the "promise" was upheld.
All I'm looking for is what I was promised 16 years ago.
For the past several years we've deferred from visiting Europe because the Euro was so expensive. Do I wish I could demand my job pay me in Euros or Chinese RMBs instead of dollars? Absolutely.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 09:04
As far as the debt and threat of default, I believe it's a part of a intentional push towards world government. Globalization is coming.
No, it's not.
Europe has a single currency, and even they can't put together a supra-national government. When the cracks started to appear in the single currency people were talking about bailing out, not combining governments. We're a long way from it.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 09:07
Great initial post. Globalization of currency.
Not gonna happen.
Will add devaluation of everybody's savings.
Every currency on the face of the planet already faces inflation; you don't need a single currency to devalue everyone's savings.
The exchange will not be 1:1. You dollar, your savings, you pension, your 401K will be instantly worth 1/10 of current value.
Again, not going to happen. That's not how currency devaluation works. In countries where this does/has happened (I was in Romania when they launched the new lei) prices are also adjusted by the same factor.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 09:10
I will also add, much to the chagrin of many, that we have a 1 party political system with 2 divisions. There are exceptions, but, for the most part, there are very little differences between the 2.
This is very true. Both parties in the US are quite centrist, that's why they seek out wedge issues to differentiate themselves.
These politicians are elected before we vote for them. The invisible hand really had the fix in with Romney and Obama.
Nope. The only "fix" was in the fact that the Republican party ran such terrible candidates in the primary.
Why do you think that Sarah Palin was destroyed by the media and most politicians?
Because she had little executive experience, isn't all that intelligent or articulate, and is shrill and annoying.
She was a populist. She was a threat to the puppetmasters of the world. In their eyes, a populist would be the barrier to the assimilation of the U.S. into the world government.
The New World Order is on the horizon. The signs are everywhere, if you choose to see them.
:rofl:
If Sarah Palin was our last hope, we might as well give up.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 09:16
For the past several years we've deferred from visiting Europe because the Euro was so expensive.
"The Euro" isn't expensive. That's now how currency conversions work. Yes, 1 euro is worth a bit more than 1 dollar, but that's irrelevant. 1 dollar is worth about 90 yen. The number itself doesn't matter. Japan is one of the most expensive countries in the world.
It's the prices that matter, and there are cheap and expensive places you can go that both use Euros. Visit Paris and you'll be paying a lot. Visit Slovenia and you'll be paying a lot fewer of the same Euros for everything.
Do I wish I could demand my job pay me in Euros or Chinese RMBs instead of dollars? Absolutely.
Why would you possibly want that? The RMB was pegged against the USD for most of its history, and only recently has the Chinese government been cautiously allowing it to float. The Euro has fluctuated wildly with the economic crisis of the last few years.
Besides, if you live in the US and get paid in Euros, you have to convert them before you can buy anything. That's kind of the reason why currency conversion exists, and why so many trade flows are denominated in dollars--because the US still makes a lot of what the world wants to buy.
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 09:43
"I'm guessing you participate in a public pension too since you jumped back in to wave the stupid flag."
The stupid flag? I used to think you had at least a little class.
Yeah, the stupid flag. That post was full of it.
[QUOTE=Patchman;19827159]Maybe you should read my post in the full context of what it was responding to.
So do you, or do you not, agree that new administrations can cut funding for existing projects/contracts/budgets?[/QUOTE
I agrees they can cut projects/contracts/budgets right along with public pensions. These are noting but contracts. They are not a right. Sometimes crap happens. You just think YOU should be immune and everyone else shouldnt be immune and pony up to pay more so that YOUR portion isnt cut which at any time can be cut.
All I'm looking for is what I was promised 16 years ago.
For the past several years we've deferred from visiting Europe because the Euro was so expensive. Do I wish I could demand my job pay me in Euros or Chinese RMBs instead of dollars? Absolutely.
Lets make this a little more your speed.
I PROMISE my child to pay them an allowance. I lose my job and have no income. Do you think my promise get amended.
And by the way, there is no"promise". You seem to think that. Show me where you have this promise in writing.
prom·ise
[prom-is], verb, prom·ised, prom·is·ing.
noun
1.a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.
2.an express assurance on which expectation is to be based:
What you probably have is a civil contract, which are broken all the time, which probably has many clauses in it as to how the pension can be terminated.
But make me out to be a "moron." Show us your contract that shows you will get paid a certain amount and there are no stipulations or termination clauses in it. In the may contracts I have negotiated, I have never seen one without a termination clause.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 09:58
Why would you possibly want that? The RMB was pegged against the USD for most of its history, and only recently has the Chinese government been cautiously allowing it to float. The Euro has fluctuated wildly with the economic crisis of the last few years.
Besides, if you live in the US and get paid in Euros, you have to convert them before you can buy anything. That's kind of the reason why currency conversion exists, and why so many trade flows are denominated in dollars--because the US still makes a lot of what the world wants to buy.
Fortunately, we don't live off my measly paycheck. So being paid in Euros or RMBs (at a pre-determined rate, of course) would have given us some nice flexibility.
As for RMBs, I actually have several thousand RMBs at home (long story with my child) when the conversion rate was about 8 RMB to the USD. Now I see it's a little above 6 RMBs to the USD. Basically, that little "mistake" turned into a 25-percent return. I don't see RMBs getting weaker.
For the past several years we've deferred from visiting Europe because the Euro was so expensive. Do I wish I could demand my job pay me in Euros or Chinese RMBs instead of dollars? Absolutely.
Awe shucks. Why aren't you paid in Euros (or Swiss Francs)? Do you lack the ability to compete in a global market and demand being paid in the highest currency?
I have been paid in foreign currency for the last 5 years. Why cant you? Lack of ability? Laziness? There must be a reason why you can't.
Fortunately, we don't live off my measly paycheck. So being paid in Euros or RMBs (at a pre-determined rate, of course) would have given us some nice flexibility.
Again, why arent you paid in Euros? If you are worth it, it should be no problem.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 10:14
Lets make this a little more your speed.
I PROMISE my child to pay them an allowance. I lose my job and have no income. Do you think my promise get amended.
And by the way, there is no"promise". You seem to think that. Show me where you have this promise in writing.
prom·ise
[prom-is], verb, prom·ised, prom·is·ing.
noun
1.a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.
2.an express assurance on which expectation is to be based:
What you probably have is a civil contract, which are broken all the time, which probably has many clauses in it as to how the pension can be terminated.
But make me out to be a "moron." Show us your contract that shows you will get paid a certain amount and there are no stipulations or termination clauses in it. In the may contracts I have negotiated, I have never seen one without a termination clause.
Silly you. What you promised your kids, and then refuse them, that your issue.
As for my pension, stay tuned. When I retire, I'll let you know whether I'm getting what was promised me, or not.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 10:25
Awe shucks. Why aren't you paid in Euros (or Swiss Francs)? Do you lack the ability to compete in a global market and demand being paid in the highest currency?
I have been paid in foreign currency for the last 5 years. Why cant you? Lack of ability? Laziness? There must be a reason why you can't.
Again, why arent you paid in Euros? If you are worth it, it should be no problem.
Wow, DanaT. Your true self is showing.
And not only are you in high demand that you can be paid in Euros, you're a humanitarian also, isn't that right?
I mean, you did design that life saving medical devise, right? And you put it out in the public domain, so that all sick people, rich and poor, can benefit from your invention. Correct?
Sick people, both rich and POOR can benefit, right? Not just the RICH sick people, right?
OK, maybe you're not a humanitarian. But at least you're $$$ millions$$$ rich. And can demand to be paid in Euros and/or Swiss Franks. Congratulations. And enjoy.
And keep those promises to your kids. That's advise from me to you... free.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 11:13
As for RMBs, I actually have several thousand RMBs at home (long story with my child) when the conversion rate was about 8 RMB to the USD. Now I see it's a little above 6 RMBs to the USD. Basically, that little "mistake" turned into a 25-percent return.
No, it hasn't. You haven't gotten a "return" yet.
You held a small amount of a foreign currency (in paper notes, I assume) and the exchange rate changed. But if you went back to China to spend it, the same amount of paper currency would buy roughly the same amount of stuff.
You haven't earned a "return" until you convert your RMB holdings back into USD. If for whatever reason you can't convert your RMB to USD, you've earned a -100% return. You can't count something as earning you a return unless you can convert it into something you can spend, and you can't spend RMB here in the US.
I used to get paid in USD, CHF and Euros all at the same time. The exchange rates between the three fluctated, but I didn't care. You know why? Because I used my Euro paycheck to buy Euro-denominated stuff, my Swiss Francs paycheck to buy CHF-denominated stuff, and my USD paycheck to buy USD-denominated stuff. When the Euro increases 10% against the USD... my US mortgage payment doesn't change. I still get paid the same number of US dollars, and I write a check to the mortgage company for the same number of US dollars. If I converted my Euro paycheck into USD to get "more" dollars... then how would I pay my bills that are in Euros, like my French car insurance payment?
Look, if you want to be a currency investor go for it. There's no reason why you'd need to be paid in RMB in order to do so. If you think that Euros or RMB are going to strengthen, go buy some--you don't need your employer to convert your paycheck for you.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 11:16
I mean, you did design that life saving medical devise, right? And you put it out in the public domain, so that all sick people, rich and poor, can benefit from your invention. Correct?
Sick people, both rich and POOR can benefit, right? Not just the RICH sick people, right?
Even if the IP was in the public domain, how do you expect poor people to be able to afford to build medical devices?
Patchman
01-06-2013, 11:50
Even if the IP was in the public domain, how do you expect poor people to be able to afford to build medical devices?
As to your previous post, you're right. I have no reason to visit China, so the cash RMBs will at some point be converted to USDs. As for getting paid in Euros or RMBs, it would have to be on a pre-set rate. Yes, I can get my paycheck, run to the bank, and ask them to buy RMBs or Euros at whatever the rate of that day.
If the life saving medical devise is in the public domain, any and all medical devise companies can manufacturer it, and put it out on the market (FDA approval, of course, etc...). Kind of like, but better than, a prescription for a... generic medication.
Or did I miss something about costs for a medical device that's patented, vs. same device in the public domain?
The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.
The official unemployment numbers for Las Vegas are hovering around 10%. The "real" unemployment of people who are unemployed or underemployed is more around 20-25%. I don't know about you, but when I want to make more money or don't like my job (or don't have one), I apply for everything and anything.
I also know a few people who work in HR at the casinos. They're getting about 50-100 applications per opening minimum. Why would government employment be any different?
I mean, you did design that life saving medical devise, right? And you put it out in the public domain, so that all sick people, rich and poor, can benefit from your invention. Correct?
Sick people, both rich and POOR can benefit, right? Not just the RICH sick people, right?
Why don you come work for free for me?
I have a contract that could change at any time based upon market conditions. You think you should be immune to the economy because your work is paid for by taking societies money.
PS. If you can not afford a device you think you need, that is not my problem. I guess you dont need it bad enough if you cant pay for it.
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:11
The official unemployment numbers for Las Vegas are hovering around 10%. The "real" unemployment of people who are unemployed or underemployed is more around 20-25%. I don't know about you, but when I want to make more money or don't like my job (or don't have one), I apply for everything and anything.
I also know a few people who work in HR at the casinos. They're getting about 50-100 applications per opening minimum. Why would government employment be any different?
It shouldn't. That's why the government should respect the market and use the opportunity to cut wages and benefits to save the taxpayers some money.
I have no interest in how a casino manages its labor costs.
Or did I miss something about costs for a medical device that's patented, vs. same device in the public domain?
You missed a more than a lot. It also shows why you have so little regard for other peoples money. You have no clue what it takes to generate wealth.
But, I will make the offer to you. If you have $3M to invest, there is a good opportunity to make money, or if you are such a humanitarian you can donate all your profits.
Whenever someone has to default on a contract, there are losers.
The problem you seem to have with this concept, is that you think the tax payers should be the losers and not the public employees. In the world of provate companies, the party who is owed money is typically the loser.
When money is gone, someone is going to feel pain. Now it is just a discussion of WHO should feel the pain.
As CACop said, under the law the only way out of paying pensions is bankruptcy. That said....
When a business goes bankrupt, who gets paid first, employees or the owners?
If a business is strapped for cash, who is expected to pay the bills, the employees or the owners?
If a business submits a reorganization plan, do they not have to show an ability to repay debts and/or pay for continuing operations and future liabilities?
When a business goes bankrupt, what's the order of repayment? Where do employees fall in that order?
Who "owns" the government? Who pays government's bills? If taxpayers are expected to pay every other bill, why would employee pensions be any different?
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:23
As CACop said, under the law the only way out of paying pensions is bankruptcy. That said....
When a business goes bankrupt, who gets paid first, employees or the owners?
If a business is strapped for cash, who is expected to pay the bills, the employees or the owners?
If a business submits a reorganization plan, do they not have to show an ability to repay debts and/or pay for continuing operations and future liabilities?
When a business goes bankrupt, what's the order of repayment? Where do employees fall in that order?
Who "owns" the government? Who pays government's bills? If taxpayers are expected to pay every other bill, why would employee pensions be any different?
CACOP was wrong and it was demonstrated to him 12 different ways.
The court cannot force the legislative to appropriate money.
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:25
As CACop said, under the law the only way out of paying pensions is bankruptcy. That said....
When a business goes bankrupt, who gets paid first, employees or the owners?
If a business is strapped for cash, who is expected to pay the bills, the employees or the owners?
If a business submits a reorganization plan, do they not have to show an ability to repay debts and/or pay for continuing operations and future liabilities?
When a business goes bankrupt, what's the order of repayment? Where do employees fall in that order?
Who "owns" the government? Who pays government's bills? If taxpayers are expected to pay every other bill, why would employee pensions be any different?
And when a business goes bankrupt the shareholders are protected. That is the whole point of incorporation.
If you buy shares of xyz corp and it fails, you don't pay a dime.
As CACop said, under the law the only way out of paying pensions is bankruptcy. That said....
What you people refuse to see, the laws can be easily changed. A few days ago, inheritance tax was 35% today it is 40%.
When a business goes bankrupt, who gets paid first, employees or the owners?
Well, by definition it is bankrupt. Creditor order of pay is determined in the bankruptcy hearings. Some creditors have higher standing than others. That said, they still only get what assets are left, even the employees. If there is nothing, no-one gets anythings.
If a business is strapped for cash, who is expected to pay the bills, the employees or the owners?
It depends. Are you talking a corporation or sole proprietorship?
If a business submits a reorganization plan, do they not have to show an ability to repay debts and/or pay for continuing operations and future liabilities?
No, they have to show a good faith effort to be able to repay if they simply want to re-org. But there are different types of bankruptcy and you are mixing these.
When a business goes bankrupt, what's the order of repayment? Where do employees fall in that order?
It depends how creditors are secured and what the priority of security is.
You are trying to get me to say employees first which is sometimes the case and sometime not. However, if there is no money left, no-one gets anything.
Who "owns" the government? Who pays government's bills? If taxpayers are expected to pay every other bill, why would employee pensions be any different?
I hear all the time how these people dont work for me. So obviously I dont it their job and by your logic, since they remind us all the time they dont work for me, I shouldnt have to pay them a dime, nickel or penny.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 12:32
PS. If you can not afford a device you think you need, that is not my problem. I guess you dont need it bad enough if you cant pay for it.
Great. I guess that's why First Responder tasks are assigned to pubic service. Because if police/fire/EMS went privatized, their motto would be... "you don't need it bad enough if you can't pay for it. Will that be Cash, Credit or Debit?"
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 12:36
Great. I guess that's why First Responder tasks are assigned to pubic service. Because if police/fire/EMS went privatized, their motto would be... "you don't need it bad enough if you can't pay for it. Will that be Cash, Credit or Debit?"
Which first responders?
Great. I guess that's why First Responder tasks are assigned to pubic service. Because if police/fire/EMS went privatized, their motto would be... "you don't need it bad enough if you can't pay for it. Will that be Cash, Credit or Debit?"
This is the reason I donate heavily to FOP and IAFF golf tournaments and charity events, I am willing to pay extra for a little extra care.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 12:47
You missed a more than a lot. It also shows why you have so little regard for other peoples money. You have no clue what it takes to generate wealth.
But, I will make the offer to you. If you have $3M to invest, there is a good opportunity to make money, or if you are such a humanitarian you can donate all your profits.
Yeah, that's the problem. I work for a business where generating personal wealth creatively is a dirty word. Go figure, right!
Yes, my focus in life was never to generate wealth for myself. My family (both my sister and brother are lawyers) tells me I would have earned multi-millions by now if I went patent law. But that was 1995, and since then, I've never had any regrets doing what I do now.
Unfortunately, I don't have $3 Million. I'm a poor working stiff. But thanks for your offer.
devildog2067
01-06-2013, 12:48
Great. I guess that's why First Responder tasks are assigned to pubic service.
"Pubic" service? EMTs in your neighborhood must do something different than they do around here.
In any case--yes, you're right. The few things that we, as a nation, choose to pay for as public infrastructure rather than through the free market are things that we, collectively, "feel" that people should have access to even if they can't afford to pay for them.
That doesn't mean they're free. Police and fire services certainly are not free. What it means is, those who can pay pay their share AND subsidize the shares of those who cannot pay.
Whether you think it's right or wrong, at least be honest about it. If someone can't afford to pay for something, and wants it anyway, that means that someone else must pay for them.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 12:48
Which first responders?
Whoever gets there first after you dial 9-1-1. Could be your neighbors for all I know. :dunno:
Yeah, that's the problem. I work for a business where generating personal wealth creatively is a dirty word. Go figure, right!
"confiscating" money is not generating wealth. You dont really get what generating wealth means.
Whether you think it's right or wrong, at least be honest about it. If someone can't afford to pay for something, and wants it anyway, that means that someone else must pay for them.
Honesty about where money comes from for the publci sector employees seems to be something they have a hard time "honestly" acknowledging.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 13:03
"Pubic" service? EMTs in your neighborhood must do something different than they do around here.
In any case--yes, you're right. The few things that we, as a nation, choose to pay for as public infrastructure rather than through the free market are things that we, collectively, "feel" that people should have access to even if they can't afford to pay for them.
That doesn't mean they're free. Police and fire services certainly are not free. What it means is, those who can pay pay their share AND subsidize the shares of those who cannot pay.
Whether you think it's right or wrong, at least be honest about it. If someone can't afford to pay for something, and wants it anyway, that means that someone else must pay for them.
Absolutely that "somebody" has to pay for it.
In one of my previous post, I mention local/county/state medical center that is also a level I trauma center. You may never need to be a patient at a level I trauma center, but if you (or your family ever did), how much are you willing to pay for that service?
So now, lets think "generating money." Governments aren't in it to make a profit, like private industries are. But if the only local Level I trauma center is owned/operated by the local/county/state, shouldn't that place be allowed to charge the going rate for what a private (ie 'for profit') facility would charge?
I mean, if a private business figured they can provide Level I care and make a profit, they'd jump in, right?
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 13:12
Whoever gets there first after you dial 9-1-1. Could be your neighbors for all I know. :dunno:
Some have arrest power. Some don't. Some are private here. Some WERE volunteer until they took grant money, hired a bunch of employees and the union moved in and bankrupted it.
No worries. They came to the voters asking for a renewal and an increase to pay for all these new union firefighters.
We gave them the renewal. Declined the increase. 30 new unionized firefighters just got canned.
Who will the sheriff arrest?
So now, lets think "generating money." Governments aren't in it to make a profit, like private industries are.
Ahh...your true knowledge is showing. You equate generating revenue to generating wealth. You should learn the difference. A good place to start is by reading An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
That is all you care about Paul. Why Paul? Because you sure dont mind taking from Peter.
It's ironic you use this comparison in your debate. That is exactly why a lot of the state gov's are in trouble - robbing Peter to pay Paul.
All of the municipal gov pensions in my area that put in the gov agreed % over the years are around 80-90% funded.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 13:15
"confiscating" money is not generating wealth. You dont really get what generating wealth means.
You acknowledge that I'm in a business where generating wealth creatively is a dirty word, yet you mock me for not knowing how to generate wealth.
OK. All I know is how to serve the public, including the poor. If that's not to your Teutonic taste, sorry.
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 13:19
You acknowledge that I'm in a business where generating wealth creatively is a dirty word, yet you mock me for not knowing how to generate wealth.
OK. All I know is how to serve the public, including the poor. If that's not to your Teutonic taste, sorry.
You aren't in a business and you aren't generating wealth. You aren't even a net taxpayer.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 13:20
Some have arrest power. Some don't. Some are private here. Some WERE volunteer until they took grant money, hired a bunch of employees and the union moved in and bankrupted it.
No worries. They came to the voters asking for a renewal and an increase to pay for all these new union firefighters.
We gave them the renewal. Declined the increase. 30 new unionized firefighters just got canned.
Who will the sheriff arrest?
The sheriff arrests? Couldn't care less.
Just hope your house don't catch on fire until the new FD crew learn the ropes. Good luck. Remember no open flames.
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 13:27
The sheriff arrests? Couldn't care less.
Just hope your house don't catch on fire until the new FD crew learn the ropes. Good luck. Remember no open flames.
Ask CACOP. He said the sheriff could arrest the legislature for not appropriating money.
If my house catches fire I'm insured. No prob. Yeah my insurance is going to get more expensive but I'd rather pay it than get held hostage by a public union.
Patchman
01-06-2013, 13:29
You aren't in a business and you aren't generating wealth. You aren't even a net taxpayer.
Yeah, but I hang around and eat doughnuts until you and your wife/family calls 9-1-1 and want us to show up. Or, sure, you and your your family can call 9-1-1 and get a busy signal...
Oh yeah, what with me and my neighbor paying the same tax rate, and my neighbor earns the same as I do??? I'm paying myself to be at work?
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 13:34
Yeah, but I hang around and eat doughnuts until you and your wife/family calls 9-1-1 and want us to show up. Or, sure, you and your your family can call 9-1-1 and get a busy signal...
Oh yeah, what with me and my neighbor paying the same tax rate, and my neighbor earns the same as I do??? I'm paying myself to be at work?
Yes essentially you're paying yourself to work.
Private EMS service.
certifiedfunds
01-06-2013, 13:36
We had the vollies to supplement but the union ruined that.
No worries. We're working on returning it to vollie status.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.