California’s economic situation!

The League of California Cities reported this month that most members expect pension costs to jump by at least 50 percent by 2024-25.

Pension payments – now about 11 percent of general fund budgets on average – will eat up about 16 percent by then. That doesn’t include increases in retiree health care costs and other benefits. In extreme cases, the pension burden could lead to more bankruptcy filings like Stockton’s and San Bernardino’s.

In response, the league is advising cities to consider local tax measures and to negotiate with labor unions to get employees to pay more into their own pensions. That’s easier said than done, of course, especially since local unions are often powerful, well-funded political players.

In Sacramento, for instance, City Hall is negotiating now with the firefighters union on a new contract. The union bankrolled the campaign for Measure U, the half-cent sales tax that voters approved in 2012 to restore public safety services, and likely will also support an expected campaign to renew the tax in November. Mayor Darrell Steinberg is also floating a possible additional half-cent sales tax to create a fund for economic development, affordable housing and the arts. The additional revenue from those sales taxes could be eaten up by the projected increase in the city’s pension costs. The city estimates that pension payments will rise from $67 million in the general fund this year to $129 million in 2022-23.

If voters see the sales taxes as a way to prop up pensions, approval will be an even tougher sell.

For Sacramento and cities across the state, the best hope may be a court ruling that allows them to cut pensions.

Gov. Jerry Brown is urging the state Supreme Court to end the “California rule,” which prevents the state and local governments from reducing pension benefits for current workers without additional compensation. Unions and retirees will fight any attempt to cut benefits tooth and nail. But it’s difficult for many taxpayers to have too much sympathy when they hear about outrages, such as a Los Angeles program that pays older police officers and firefighters almost double their salaries to stay on the job while also allowing them to take lengthy injury leaves.

The pension crisis goes back to then-Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature, which in 1999 handed out far too generous pensions, particularly to police officers and firefighters. Senate Bill 400 caused a spike in pension costs that the state and local governments have been digging out from ever since.

In 2012, Brown pushed through a reform package that lowered pension formulas and required employees to pay more into their retirement accounts. Most changes only apply to workers hired on or after Jan. 1, 2013, so significant savings won’t kick in for 20 years or more. And unions are suing to overturn parts of the law.

Then in December 2016, the CalPERS board lowered its expected investment return to a more realistic figure – a move that requires higher contributions from cities, phased in through 2024. (Of California’s 482 cities, 451 are part of CalPERS.) That is compounding the higher pension costs that cities have put on themselves through labor contracts. Many cities had to slash services to residents. In the next downturn, pension obligations will make balancing budgets even tougher. And local taxpayers will pay for it, one way or another.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article199693069.html
 
LV426 said:
What I am contending is that you are using propaganda from people with a vested interest in attacking public sector employees because ooga booga Conservatism. That propaganda paints a picture using ink from 2009-2011 that shows a massive unfunded liability gap due to declined revenues. What you posted just now was that CALPers isn't seeing the returns on its investments in the market to reduce whatever liability (still undefined) might exist.

So this is less an indictment of the pension system and more of an indictment of the markets that aren't delivering on their promises of growth; promises made in order to attract pension fund investment.

Now why should public employees bear the consequences of the market not delivering on its promises? Shouldn't it be the other way around?!?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Money isn't free, it doesn't grow in trees. Politicians promise workers higher returns than can be achieved and you want to blame the markets? Doesn't work that way
 
Sirthinksalot said:
Do they contribute more than they take in government handouts?
Click to expand...

Illegal immigrants can't get most government benefits. The people taking the handouts are poor white trash that live in Appalachia and the South. And the corporations who take handouts. Like the most recent tax cut handout that was supposed to create all this growth and investment, but has only created debt.


Sirthinksalot said:
Wanting to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into your country makes someone racist? You should tell that to the people of every other country in the world, especially Mexico.
Click to expand...

??? I don't know what you're trying to say here. We should be welcoming anyone who wants to live here. Otherwise, we're hypocrites.
 
TTQ64 said:


And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate extreme racist right wing solution.
Click to expand...

LOL, the option to not spend as much is now extreme as well as racist? Alright then.

You going to show us the lie in my previous statement?
 
LV426 said:
At this point, we all know "illegal" is a stand-in dogwhistle for "Hispanic".
Click to expand...

I know nothing of the sort.

"Hispanic" isn't a race, is it?

The Census Bureau defines race as a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups. An individual can report as White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or some
other race.

How do you know that Sirthinksalot isn't Latino?

LV426 said:
Depends who you ask. According to the Harvard Kennedy School, as much as $11B.
Click to expand...

I asked you.

It seems you don't know, beyond citing an estimate which may or many not be anywhere near accurate.

LV426 said:
Not if you're a Conservative, apparently, and the illegality is perpetrated by white Christians and their enablers in the business community.
Click to expand...

Are all employers of illegals white Christians?

LV426 said:
I'm an American.
Click to expand...

Then your president is Donald John Trump.
 
LV426 said:
Then we should increase funding for education to hire and train more teachers.
Click to expand...

Always the answer with libtards. Don't reform the system, just throw more money at it.

Here's the thing; to reduce class size, you have to hire teachers. And if you hire teachers, you're also committing to a pension for those teachers you hire.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that bit of wisdom Captain Obvious.

So your argument is kind of circular; you say the pension problem is exacerbating larger class sizes, the solution to which is to hire more teachers. But doing so would result in more pensions for those teachers you hired. So you only have two solutions; educate fewer children or raise taxes to better fund education.
Click to expand...

Wow, your reasoning here is very... unimpressive. Here's a few more solutions. Make teachers kick in more money for their health insurance and pensions, just like everyone else does. Or better yet, do away with the defined benefit pensions for all future teachers hired. Defined benefit pensions for public employees need to be done away with as they were in the private sector long ago.

And another thing. If education is so important, why can't some money currently being spent on other things be re-prioritized to go to education? Why do taxes need to be raised even more in one of the highest taxed states?
 
Legion said:
The League of California Cities reported this month that most members expect pension costs to jump by at least 50 percent by 2024-25.

Pension payments – now about 11 percent of general fund budgets on average – will eat up about 16 percent by then. That doesn’t include increases in retiree health care costs and other benefits. In extreme cases, the pension burden could lead to more bankruptcy filings like Stockton’s and San Bernardino’s.

In response, the league is advising cities to consider local tax measures and to negotiate with labor unions to get employees to pay more into their own pensions. That’s easier said than done, of course, especially since local unions are often powerful, well-funded political players.

In Sacramento, for instance, City Hall is negotiating now with the firefighters union on a new contract. The union bankrolled the campaign for Measure U, the half-cent sales tax that voters approved in 2012 to restore public safety services, and likely will also support an expected campaign to renew the tax in November. Mayor Darrell Steinberg is also floating a possible additional half-cent sales tax to create a fund for economic development, affordable housing and the arts. The additional revenue from those sales taxes could be eaten up by the projected increase in the city’s pension costs. The city estimates that pension payments will rise from $67 million in the general fund this year to $129 million in 2022-23.

If voters see the sales taxes as a way to prop up pensions, approval will be an even tougher sell.

For Sacramento and cities across the state, the best hope may be a court ruling that allows them to cut pensions.

Gov. Jerry Brown is urging the state Supreme Court to end the “California rule,” which prevents the state and local governments from reducing pension benefits for current workers without additional compensation. Unions and retirees will fight any attempt to cut benefits tooth and nail. But it’s difficult for many taxpayers to have too much sympathy when they hear about outrages, such as a Los Angeles program that pays older police officers and firefighters almost double their salaries to stay on the job while also allowing them to take lengthy injury leaves.

The pension crisis goes back to then-Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature, which in 1999 handed out far too generous pensions, particularly to police officers and firefighters. Senate Bill 400 caused a spike in pension costs that the state and local governments have been digging out from ever since.

In 2012, Brown pushed through a reform package that lowered pension formulas and required employees to pay more into their retirement accounts. Most changes only apply to workers hired on or after Jan. 1, 2013, so significant savings won’t kick in for 20 years or more. And unions are suing to overturn parts of the law.

Then in December 2016, the CalPERS board lowered its expected investment return to a more realistic figure – a move that requires higher contributions from cities, phased in through 2024. (Of California’s 482 cities, 451 are part of CalPERS.) That is compounding the higher pension costs that cities have put on themselves through labor contracts. Many cities had to slash services to residents. In the next downturn, pension obligations will make balancing budgets even tougher. And local taxpayers will pay for it, one way or another.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article199693069.html
Click to expand...

OK, but all of that there is just talking about how CALPERS has to pay out more over the next decade. What it doesn't say is that it can't.
 
LV426 said:
Good luck attracting talent to the teaching profession by cutting benefits and pensions.
Click to expand...

Local school districts can choose to pay teachers more if they so desire. I'm not stopping them. That doesn't change the numbers that I wrote previously
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top