7 ms·

This is part of the real reason why California is imposing the new gas tax in the name of infrastructure. Part of the reason why even reasonable people do not

by tn135 10y ago

This is part of the real reason why California is imposing the new gas tax in the name of infrastructure. Part of the reason why even reasonable people do not take left's claims of "tax to protect environment" seriously because this is all the money that they can see going to the pockets of politicians and government employees.

Ericson2314 10y ago
Whatever you think of pentions, the politicians are a minuscule portion of the government payroll.
- cassieramen 10y ago
  From the article: "In Los Angeles and other cities, [retirement benefits] account for 20% or more of general fund spending." That is certainly not a minuscule portion.
  - allannienhuis 10y ago
    surely that figure is for all employees, not the politicians?
    - cassieramen 10y ago
      I think I confused the question. Politicians' salaries aren't the 20%, yes that is all salary. But part of the article is discussing the corruption going on here where state employees endorse politicians who end up pushing for legislation that pays them lavishly in retirement.
  - vkou 10y ago
    And what percentage of general fund spending goes to salaries, and salaries of contractors? The other 80%? Pensions are part of employee salaries. Not budgeting for them is like buying a house, and not budgeting for anything past the first mortgage payment. Why are we talking about defaulting, or haircutting pensions, instead of defaulting... On any of the other people or companies that the state owes money to?
    - cassieramen 10y ago
      I think the big focus of the article is the "California Rule" that prevents changes to pension commits that have yet to be earned. It's like buying a house and having the real estate market crash. You can renegotiate your property taxes (lowered home value). You can refinance your mortgage.
      - vkou 10y ago
        Changing future pension payment rules is entirely reasonable, as long as your prior work results in pro-rated payouts. Changing 'future' pension payment rules, where a pension kicks in after 20 years of employment, when you are on year 19, should not fly.
        shouldbworking 10y ago
        Social security pushes back retirement ages continually. Not an extra year at year 19 of 20, but tacking on 5-10% to everyone's remaining time is reasonable and the govt does it all the time for other entitlements. I fail to see how social security, which is a national program for all citizens, is any less holy than pensions. Pensions are usually backed by city and state govt which have much shallower pockets. What I'm saying is if the federal government can cut back social security benefits there's no reason we shouldn't cut future pension benefits
        vkou 10y ago
        > Social security pushes back retirement ages continually. SS is a welfare program. This is fundamentally different from a salary. Welfare programs can, and do change just before, or just after, you become eligible for them. This is fine. This is social programs are supposed to work. (Although, generally, their accounts should not be plundered to fund illegal wars.) There was no contract that you signed when you started paying into SS. It's a tax, which funds a welfare program. Salaries, on the other hand, are sacred. Pensions aren't social programs. They are deferred salaries. Cutting pensions is a salary clawback. If you're going to stop paying the pensions you're obligated to, you damn better have declared bankruptcy, and let your creditors - including the pensioners - pick over your carcass.
- tn135 10y ago
  "New projections show the state's annual bill for retirement obligations is expected to reach $11 billion by the time Brown leaves office in January 2019—nearly double what it was eight years earlier." That's the state's "annual bill," i.e., the direct costs taken from the general-fund budget. That number doesn't even include those "unfunded" pension liabilities that according to some estimates top $1 trillion. [1] That's more than double the $5.2 billion a year the Brown administration hopes to raise from a plan that would boost gas taxes by 12 cents a gallon, raise the vehicle-license fee by $25 to $175 a year (depending on the value of the vehicle), impose a $100 annual fee on electric cars because they don't currently pay gas taxes and include a large hike on diesel fuel. Money is fungible, so if the state overspends on pensions, it has to make it up somewhere else. [2] [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/04/jerry-browns-pension-reforms-have-done-little-to-rein-in-costs/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/04/jerry-browns-pension-r... [2] http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/07/california-road-tax-hike-is-really-a-new http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/07/california-road-tax-hike-i...
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    I'm saying the total number of government employees vastly exceeds the number of politicians.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> This is part of the real reason why California is imposing the new gas tax in the name of infrastructure. > Part of the reason why even reasonable people do not take left's claims of "tax to protect environment" seriously because this is all the money that they can see going to the pockets of politicians and government employees. "Hey, I want to be able to rob government employees of the compensation they were contractually promised when they did their jobs." Color your argument however you want, in whatever political flavor you like, that is essentially what you suggest. I'm really not going to feel guilty if the government taxes you to pay average Americans the pay they agreed too. Sorry, I'm genuinely not interested in your politics of envy. Personally, as far as I can tell, for the same job the government would pay me less than I make now. So...I'm really not worried Government employees are being overcompensated.
- kamaal 10y ago
  >>"Hey, I want to be able to rob government employees of the compensation they were contractually promised when they did their jobs." Government departments promised each other outrageous compensation and somebody who is coming 30 years and wasn't even present back then is supposed to be skinned to the bone so that grand pa can swing his golf club in Scotland? [Source:http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-el-monte-pensions/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-el-monte-pensions/] Who is the one doing the 'robbing' here? There is limit up to how much you can abuse these things until the next generations call it quits and leave you with nothing.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    > Government departments promised each other outrageous compensation and somebody who is coming 30 years and wasn't even present back then is supposed to be skinned to the bone so that grand pa can swing his golf club in Scotland? Okay, so question, why aren't you working as a Government employee due to the outrageous compensation that dwarfs all alternatives?
    - kamaal 10y ago
      I don't understand your question. Did I state the compensation for government employees is more than every other job out there? My point is you can't award your self a unreasonable pay package and then expect somebody who didn't even sign up to pay for it, pay for it.

by tn135 10y ago

Ericson2314 10y ago

Whatever you think of pentions, the politicians are a minuscule portion of the government payroll.

cassieramen 10y ago
From the article: "In Los Angeles and other cities, [retirement benefits] account for 20% or more of general fund spending." That is certainly not a minuscule portion.
- allannienhuis 10y ago
  surely that figure is for all employees, not the politicians?
  - cassieramen 10y ago
    I think I confused the question. Politicians' salaries aren't the 20%, yes that is all salary. But part of the article is discussing the corruption going on here where state employees endorse politicians who end up pushing for legislation that pays them lavishly in retirement.
- vkou 10y ago
  And what percentage of general fund spending goes to salaries, and salaries of contractors? The other 80%? Pensions are part of employee salaries. Not budgeting for them is like buying a house, and not budgeting for anything past the first mortgage payment. Why are we talking about defaulting, or haircutting pensions, instead of defaulting... On any of the other people or companies that the state owes money to?
  - cassieramen 10y ago
    I think the big focus of the article is the "California Rule" that prevents changes to pension commits that have yet to be earned. It's like buying a house and having the real estate market crash. You can renegotiate your property taxes (lowered home value). You can refinance your mortgage.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Changing future pension payment rules is entirely reasonable, as long as your prior work results in pro-rated payouts. Changing 'future' pension payment rules, where a pension kicks in after 20 years of employment, when you are on year 19, should not fly.
      - shouldbworking 10y ago
        Social security pushes back retirement ages continually. Not an extra year at year 19 of 20, but tacking on 5-10% to everyone's remaining time is reasonable and the govt does it all the time for other entitlements. I fail to see how social security, which is a national program for all citizens, is any less holy than pensions. Pensions are usually backed by city and state govt which have much shallower pockets. What I'm saying is if the federal government can cut back social security benefits there's no reason we shouldn't cut future pension benefits
        vkou 10y ago
        > Social security pushes back retirement ages continually. SS is a welfare program. This is fundamentally different from a salary. Welfare programs can, and do change just before, or just after, you become eligible for them. This is fine. This is social programs are supposed to work. (Although, generally, their accounts should not be plundered to fund illegal wars.) There was no contract that you signed when you started paying into SS. It's a tax, which funds a welfare program. Salaries, on the other hand, are sacred. Pensions aren't social programs. They are deferred salaries. Cutting pensions is a salary clawback. If you're going to stop paying the pensions you're obligated to, you damn better have declared bankruptcy, and let your creditors - including the pensioners - pick over your carcass.
tn135 10y ago
"New projections show the state's annual bill for retirement obligations is expected to reach $11 billion by the time Brown leaves office in January 2019—nearly double what it was eight years earlier." That's the state's "annual bill," i.e., the direct costs taken from the general-fund budget. That number doesn't even include those "unfunded" pension liabilities that according to some estimates top $1 trillion. [1] That's more than double the $5.2 billion a year the Brown administration hopes to raise from a plan that would boost gas taxes by 12 cents a gallon, raise the vehicle-license fee by $25 to $175 a year (depending on the value of the vehicle), impose a $100 annual fee on electric cars because they don't currently pay gas taxes and include a large hike on diesel fuel. Money is fungible, so if the state overspends on pensions, it has to make it up somewhere else. [2] [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/04/jerry-browns-pension-reforms-have-done-little-to-rein-in-costs/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/04/jerry-browns-pension-r... [2] http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/07/california-road-tax-hike-is-really-a-new http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/07/california-road-tax-hike-i...
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  I'm saying the total number of government employees vastly exceeds the number of politicians.

fictioncircle 10y ago

> This is part of the real reason why California is imposing the new gas tax in the name of infrastructure. > Part of the reason why even reasonable people do not take left's claims of "tax to protect environment" seriously because this is all the money that they can see going to the pockets of politicians and government employees. "Hey, I want to be able to rob government employees of the compensation they were contractually promised when they did their jobs." Color your argument however you want, in whatever political flavor you like, that is essentially what you suggest. I'm really not going to feel guilty if the government taxes you to pay average Americans the pay they agreed too. Sorry, I'm genuinely not interested in your politics of envy. Personally, as far as I can tell, for the same job the government would pay me less than I make now. So...I'm really not worried Government employees are being overcompensated.

kamaal 10y ago
>>"Hey, I want to be able to rob government employees of the compensation they were contractually promised when they did their jobs." Government departments promised each other outrageous compensation and somebody who is coming 30 years and wasn't even present back then is supposed to be skinned to the bone so that grand pa can swing his golf club in Scotland? [Source:http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-el-monte-pensions/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-el-monte-pensions/] Who is the one doing the 'robbing' here? There is limit up to how much you can abuse these things until the next generations call it quits and leave you with nothing.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > Government departments promised each other outrageous compensation and somebody who is coming 30 years and wasn't even present back then is supposed to be skinned to the bone so that grand pa can swing his golf club in Scotland? Okay, so question, why aren't you working as a Government employee due to the outrageous compensation that dwarfs all alternatives?
  - kamaal 10y ago
    I don't understand your question. Did I state the compensation for government employees is more than every other job out there? My point is you can't award your self a unreasonable pay package and then expect somebody who didn't even sign up to pay for it, pay for it.