Comments on: CalPERS numbers attract fresh scrutiny

By: Donkey

Donkey — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:38:03 +0000

In reply to S Moderation Douglas. Stay in your fantasy RAGWUS world S&Md as the infrastructure crumbles around you. :)

By: S Moderation Douglas

S Moderation Douglas — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 23:53:33 +0000

Actually I said they paid less 20 years ago than ten years ago. It hasn’t been a straight line increase as Hondo implied. About 1999 to 2003, most pension systems were at or near 100%, so reduced the employer contributions…. temporarily.

And the glass is, as you know, still half full.

By: Donkey

Donkey — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 22:10:08 +0000

In reply to S Moderation Douglas.

S&Md would like us to believe that 20 years ago the actual cost of pensions was more than what is being sucked out of the taxpayers pockets and put into government finance departments to pay for the costs of RAGWUS feeders of today. S&Md is daft!!

Capitan wrote: “Vallejo’s cost for public safety pension benefits, prior to SB400 and according to CalPERS, was about 12% of payroll. Post SB400 the 3@50 pension plan cost Vallejo about 16% of payroll (the taxpayer portion). Because the benefit was made retroactive it cost Vallejo/taxpayers about 27% of payroll. In the current fiscal year Vallejo is paying 47.4 of payroll toward pension benefits according to CalPERS. Next year (FY 2014/15 beginning July1) Vallejo will be paying 52% of payroll toward pension benefits.

In other words, for every 100k of payroll Vallejo sends 52K to CalPERS to cover the pension cost. Because the average safety employee earns about 120K in pensionable salary (which doesn‘t include the entire salary: overtime pay, medical benefits, insurance costs, or the cost of retiree medical benefits (average safety employee cost is over 225K), Vallejo/taxpayers will contribute on average, $62,400 dollars to each employees retirement account. Police Captains earnings 200K per year will have OVER 100K contributed to their CalPERS fund beginning July 1st 2014.” In short, 20 years ago we were paying a lot less into the black-hole of the RAGWUS pension scheme, which makes S&Md’s original point false. 🙂

By: S Moderation Douglas

S Moderation Douglas — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:51:26 +0000

Actually,20 years ago pension costs were much higher than they were ten years ago 2000 to 2004 were very low cost years for most pension systems.

By: Hondo

Hondo — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:08:24 +0000

Donkey is right. These are real numbers from LA. 10 years ago, LA spent only 3% of its budget on pensions. Now it is 18%. I’m guessing 20 years ago LA spent 1% or less on its pensions. By their own numbers LA is looking at 25% to 30% in 5 to 10 years. And those numbers are based on a ‘good’ economy. LA hasn’t created a net job in the private sector in 20 years. Their taxes are among the highest in the country. There is no way to fund these increases without massive budget cuts in services to the citizens.
No Democrat has put forth a rational plan to lower the % of pensions from the budget. At best they hope to slow the rate of increase.
Ten years ago LA treated their employees just fine with 3% going to pensions. There is no reason they can’t go back to that number without raising taxes.
Hondo…..

By: T Mind of Ted Your God

T Mind of Ted Your God — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:29:38 +0000

In reply to bob. Are you ok Bo Bo?

By: S Moderation Douglas

S Moderation Douglas — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:28:44 +0000

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Socrates. 400BC

The glass is still half full, at least

By: Lansing

Lansing — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 03:07:47 +0000

When I was young I went to Sunday School at Hollywood Presbyterian and Hollywood YMCA.They told us that we had three parts to us, body-mind-spirit, a lot more people attended church in the 1950’s and were thankful for what they had once a week, they exercised the spiritual part of us.
My grandfather White developed Magnolia Park and parts of Burbank after 1910 and attended church at Encino Presbyterian and was instrumental in the Burbank YMCA. After the 60’s we threw God out of the picture, we now only exercise two parts of us, hedonism and compulsive materialism now and nothing is ever enough.
When is enough, enough?
I remember when President Kennedy was alive and said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”!
Volunteerism used to be alive when I was young, Boys clubs, YMCA’s, Assistance Leagues, Women’s clubs. Now all we seem to want to do is be more of a millionaire than someone else, and 600 channels on TV are not enough.
America has been on a downhill slide for decades, it’s not only
the problems of the political parties, it’s the problems of us
as Americans, Lansing

By: bob

bob — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 07:34:57 +0000

In reply to T Mind of Ted Your God. Geez Teddy, you must not be paying attention. Your billiance, the brilliance of Douglass has won me over just as you have won over Desmond. But you two continue your hostility. Talk about sore winners.

By: Donkey

Donkey — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 07:00:37 +0000

In reply to SeeSaw. SeeSaw, the cities have no choice, in a few short years many cities will be spending 25% to 50% of their budgets on pensions and healthcare. As the RAGWUS demands more from the private sector and the state carbon taxes eat up even more disposable income the private sector will continue to shrink. Simple math tells the rational mind the end will come in a short amount of time. :)