As a liberal person, I won’t As a liberal person, I won’t support the tax increase because I believe that the city needs some tough love, spending wise.
I don’t buy much anyway so it won’t really affect me.
Amazon Prime is pretty cool. I get to buy things for cheap and it’s delivered right to my door, tax free.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
August 5, 2010 @
1:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:As a liberal [quote=briansd1]As a liberal person, I won’t support the tax increase because I believe that the city needs some tough love, spending wise.
I don’t buy much anyway so it won’t really affect me.
Amazon Prime is pretty cool. I get to buy things for cheap and it’s delivered right to my door, tax free.[/quote]
Unless you are a tax dodge, you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
“California residents are also required to pay a tax when they purchase tangible property that will be used, consumed, or stored in California. California law requires tax on in-state purchases, and also requires tax on items purchased out-of-state for use in California. Tax collected by the retailer here in California is called sales tax, and the retailer is responsible for reporting and paying the tax. When an out-of-state or online retailer doesn’t collect the tax for an item delivered to California, the purchaser may owe “use tax,” which is simply a tax on the use, storage, or consumption of personal property in California. Items that are exempt from sales tax are exempt from use tax as well. Use tax liabilities are often created by Internet or mail order purchases with out-of-state retailers not required to collect the tax. If you are purchasing from an online auction seller you may have a Use Tax responsibility. Be sure to review your receipts for Internet and other out-of-state purchases to determine if tax was charged. For more information, go to the California Board of Equalization website at http://www.boe.ca.gov. “
briansd1
August 5, 2010 @
1:06 PM
FormerSanDiegan wrote:you [quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
Law abiding citizens who care about our state budget.
briansd1
August 5, 2010 @
1:14 PM
FormerSanDiegan [quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
Law abiding citizens who care about our state budget.[/quote]
You make a good point. It’s a sales and USE tax.
UCGal
August 5, 2010 @
1:20 PM
from the link in the from the link in the OP
Opposition to taxation is so strong in San Diego, and career-conscious politicians so reluctant to challenge it, that the half-cent boost would go into effect only if certain conditions are met: a vigorous out-sourcing plan instituted, a lower pension plan for new firefighters approved, and city employees agreeing to further reductions in pensions and health benefits.
I don’t see any of this happening… so it’s moot.
I’m also not sure if outsourcing is the budget fix… But that’s a different debate.
EmilyHicks
August 9, 2010 @
8:46 AM
LOL, who pays tax for online LOL, who pays tax for online purchases?
I am really proud of myself because over 90% of my purchases this year were from online stores, especially Amazon. I pay no taxes and most are shipped free. Heck, I rather pay shipping fees than paying taxes to feed the teachers/police/firefighters union leeches.
And no, there was never a shortage of police, teachers, or firefighters even during the boom time. It was all fairy tales manufactured by the unions. I remember a bunch of my friends graduated from their firefighting training in Santa Ana college and none of them found a job.
[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
You are suppose to pay taxes You are suppose to pay taxes on out of state purchases when you do your taxes. The state is trying to fix that loophole because only a very small percent of people do.
meadandale
August 5, 2010 @
2:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:As a liberal [quote=briansd1]As a liberal person, I won’t support the tax increase because I believe that the city needs some tough love, spending wise.
I don’t buy much anyway so it won’t really affect me.
Amazon Prime is pretty cool. I get to buy things for cheap and it’s delivered right to my door, tax free.[/quote]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
I find it funny one would say that the city needs tough love and at the same time be a cheerleader for the out of control federal spending.
briansd1
August 5, 2010 @
2:37 PM
meadandale wrote:
You know [quote=meadandale]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
[/quote]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[quote=meadandale]
I find it funny one would say that the city needs tough love and at the same time be a cheerleader for the out of control federal spending.[/quote]
I don’t support out of control Federal spending. I support Federal spending, during the recession, in order to stabilize the economy.
I’m all for cutting the Pentagon’s budget and laying off military personnel.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
August 5, 2010 @
4:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I’ll pay use [quote=briansd1]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
Excellent point. Both are misunderstood and improperly treated in the vast majority of cases.
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
Excellent point. Both are misunderstood and improperly treated in the vast majority of cases.[/quote]
Excellent point, just like I was always taught.
wrong + wrong = right[/quote]
I didn’t say it was right, just misunderstood.
jimmyle
August 6, 2010 @
9:18 AM
I also buy almost everything I also buy almost everything online now (except groceries and household items like soap, detergent). I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.
briansd1
August 6, 2010 @
11:04 AM
jimmyle wrote:I also buy [quote=jimmyle]I also buy almost everything online now (except groceries and household items like soap, detergent).
[/quote]
If you buy certain items on sale on Amazon, it’s cheaper than going to the store.
[quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system.
I have more sympathy for the American child of unauthorized immigrants who gets a free lunch at school.
bearishgurl
August 6, 2010 @
11:40 AM
briansd1 wrote:jimmyle [quote=briansd1][quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system . . . [/quote]
brian, I was going to post this law-enforcement disability issue earlier but I disagree that these workers-in-the-trenches are “gaming the system.”
Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant]
jficquette
August 6, 2010 @
12:29 PM
bearishgurl wrote:briansd1 [quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1][quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system . . . [/quote]
brian, I was going to post this law-enforcement disability issue earlier but I disagree that these workers-in-the-trenches are “gaming the system.”
Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant][/quote]
I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old.
These people will collect their pensions longer than they spent on the job.
Enough of this public sector rip off.
John
briansd1
August 6, 2010 @
12:38 PM
The situation in the city of The situation in the city of Bell is a good case for all public employees’ salaries to be listed online.
Maybe the names of the lower level employees should be redacted, but all employees salaries should be listed one by one by position held.
Same goes with pension payments.
bearishgurl
August 6, 2010 @
1:18 PM
jficquette wrote:I would love [quote=jficquette]I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old . . . John[/quote]
John, are you aware that many former tenured law-enforcement personnel DO NOT EVEN LIVE ten years beyond their retirement dates due to injuries sustained while on duty?
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?
briansd1
August 6, 2010 @
1:34 PM
bearishgurl wrote:
And have [quote=bearishgurl]
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
I think it’s a social way of life rather than an occupational hazard.
Cops remind of Tea Party activist mentality. “Keep the govmint’ hand off of my public pension. But, by all means, kick American children out of school and repeal the 14th Amendment.”
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
I think it’s a social way of life rather than an occupational hazard.
Cops remind of Tea Party activist mentality. “Keep the govmint’ hand off of my public pension. But, by all means, kick American children out of school and repeal the 14th Amendment.”[/quote]
Brian,
You’re talking out of your hindquarters again. You clearly have no idea what these people have to deal with on a daily basis.
briansd1
August 6, 2010 @
4:35 PM
The City of San Diego should The City of San Diego should post salaries before they demand more taxes from the citizens.
bearishgurl wrote:jficquette [quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old . . . John[/quote]
John, are you aware that many former tenured law-enforcement personnel DO NOT EVEN LIVE ten years beyond their retirement dates due to injuries sustained while on duty?
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
I heard that excuse before. Doesn’t matter.
no_such_reality
August 6, 2010 @
8:43 PM
CalPers doesn’t agree with CalPers doesn’t agree with you.
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old . . . John[/quote]
John, are you aware that many former tenured law-enforcement personnel DO NOT EVEN LIVE ten years beyond their retirement dates due to injuries sustained while on duty?
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
At retirement age, the life expectancy of a safety workers is 81.4 years of age ‘no material differences’ from non-safety workers (although MISC tilt in at 80.1 years.
PAge 36 is the operative page. In duty deaths are lower than expected too.
Nobody forced anyone into the private sector. As a matter of fact, fire and police departments had a difficult time trying to find recruits during the boom years.
————-
The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.
In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.
It’s funny that these employees suddenly become “over-compensated” when the SHTF.
Nothing’s stopping anyone from joining their ranks. Go for it!
briansd1
August 6, 2010 @
4:41 PM
CA renter wrote:
Nothing’s [quote=CA renter]
Nothing’s stopping anyone from joining their ranks. Go for it![/quote]
I’m sorry, taxpayers pay the bills.
If the public employees don’t like it, they can go to the public sector to make more, as they claim they could.
Opps, I’ve just become conservative. 😉
CA renter
August 6, 2010 @
4:48 PM
Brian,
Look at Mexico (and Brian,
Look at Mexico (and certain parts of the U.S. as well) to see what happens when your police officers are not compensated well. They are the first line of defense against systemic corruption, and it’s extremely important that we have the highest standards for our recruits.
It’s imperative that seasoned officers and firefighters be kept in the ranks. It’s not the kind of sector that can handle a lot of turnover. Experience plays a crucial role in these jobs, and that’s why the pensions and healthcare benefits are required to retain experienced personnel during all the ups and downs of the economy.
CA renter
August 6, 2010 @
4:56 PM
One more thing…
While I One more thing…
While I have always supported union workers and their benefits, I’ve stated before that the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis is a problem, as is the unbelievably optimistic return assumptions used by the pension funds.
FWIW, I think the public employers are working on a solution to the pension problem by off-loading the contribution requirements from the employer to the employee. After this is done, I believe the pension funds will change their calculations (particularly their projections for investment returns), and the employees will be on the hook for the new contribution requirements which (IMHO) may take up to 25-30% of their pay. This is totally MHO, and I have not heard anything official or unofficial, but it’s what I see coming, based on the facts.
briansd1
August 6, 2010 @
5:26 PM
CA renter wrote:Brian,
Look [quote=CA renter]Brian,
Look at Mexico [/quote]
Look at America. For much our history firefighters were volunteers.
People would be more careful and not build in fire prone areas if firefighter were volunteers.
I have no problem with police officers being well compensated.
But I think that there’s something wrong when a security officer at LAX makes more than a new pilot. There’s also something wrong when a janitor makes more than a flight attendant.
Public compensation has grown too much in relation to the economy and in relation to the services that actually reach the citizens. It would rather the money goes to public housing and assistance to the poor. That’s what public service is all about.
Why build a library when we don’t even have a homeless shelter?
CA renter
August 6, 2010 @
10:19 PM
Brian,
You need to read up on Brian,
You need to read up on the history of volunteer (and private — operated by the insurance companies) fire departments and why they went to public departments.
How long do you think it would take for someone to reach you with volunteer firefighters when you called 911 (not that 911 would exist in that “voluntary” world of yours)? Who is supposed to show up at accident scenes and provide timely, life-saving services?
A volunteer department might work in a very rural area with a sparse population, but it won’t work in an urban or suburban situation. BTW, how much do you want to bet that most of the people in those rural areas would love to have a full-time fire dept, but just can’t afford it?
I hate this argument. I really do. It is a stupid ‘neener neener’ argument and in my opinion belittles the quite smart people using it.
First off, every tax paying voting american has a right to his or her opinion about the levels of services they want and the costs they are willing to pay for it. You are not allowed to vote with your feet, ie buy same product somewhere else, like you can in private buisness because this is government. So you vote with your, well, vote. and if someone doesnt agree with the pay structure or levels of compensation, then they have every right to object to it without fear of a ‘neener neener’. As Brian said, (oh god I am quoting brian! :-0 ) taxpayer pay the bills, they have a voice in this.
Second, last time I checked the fire departments in CA were having no trouble recruiting people. I have a friend who spent years, YEARS, after college trying to get a job with the fire department. The problem wasnt that they wernt hiring, just that they had too many people already on the list. I would think the wait is even longer now with this economy. The ‘we cant get enough people argument’ doesnt hold here. Maybe cops, but not firefighters who we seem to lump together all the time.
Third, I have heard both of the posters using this bad argument RAIL against the banks and their handouts/pilliging/bad managment. What is stopping you form being a banker? Go get yours! Hell I would think this would be even easier as bankers dont have formal age and health limits to join. Why fight them when you can join them?
Not a very good argument against corruption is it?
Why is it ok when one group of peopel, often called a special interest, rapes the taxpayers with lies, fear mongering and vote buying, but not others? Bankers provide very useful services that our economy couldnt do without. Why should we have any say on what they make? Heck, you can just vote with your feet with the banks. Dont like it, go bank with a foreign bank, or a credit union, or pay everything in cash. You dont HAVE to work with the banks who are the problem, you do with the governemnt workers. Which one is worse?
Finally, the assertations that the unions are working on fixing the pension crisis on thier own ranks right up there with the idea they are working on ‘managed competition’ too. BULL.
I hate this argument. I really do. It is a stupid ‘neener neener’ argument and in my opinion belittles the quite smart people using it.
First off, every tax paying voting american has a right to his or her opinion about the levels of services they want and the costs they are willing to pay for it. You are not allowed to vote with your feet, ie buy same product somewhere else, like you can in private buisness because this is government. So you vote with your, well, vote. and if someone doesnt agree with the pay structure or levels of compensation, then they have every right to object to it without fear of a ‘neener neener’. As Brian said, (oh god I am quoting brian! :-0 ) taxpayer pay the bills, they have a voice in this.
Second, last time I checked the fire departments in CA were having no trouble recruiting people. I have a friend who spent years, YEARS, after college trying to get a job with the fire department. The problem wasnt that they wernt hiring, just that they had too many people already on the list. I would think the wait is even longer now with this economy. The ‘we cant get enough people argument’ doesnt hold here. Maybe cops, but not firefighters who we seem to lump together all the time.
Third, I have heard both of the posters using this bad argument RAIL against the banks and their handouts/pilliging/bad managment. What is stopping you form being a banker? Go get yours! Hell I would think this would be even easier as bankers dont have formal age and health limits to join. Why fight them when you can join them?
Not a very good argument against corruption is it?
Why is it ok when one group of peopel, often called a special interest, rapes the taxpayers with lies, fear mongering and vote buying, but not others? Bankers provide very useful services that our economy couldnt do without. Why should we have any say on what they make? Heck, you can just vote with your feet with the banks. Dont like it, go bank with a foreign bank, or a credit union, or pay everything in cash. You dont HAVE to work with the banks who are the problem, you do with the governemnt workers. Which one is worse?
Finally, the assertations that the unions are working on fixing the pension crisis on thier own ranks right up there with the idea they are working on ‘managed competition’ too. BULL.[/quote]
DWCAP,
I know for a *fact* that fire departments were having a hard time finding qualified recruits during the boom. No offense to your friend, but he/she might not have been the most qualified (there are a number of tests and requirements, and any one of these might have disqualified him/her). They were offering signing bonuses for new firefighters, too. Yes, there are some hiring situations where you hear of “thousands” of applicants, but that’s usually in the larger departments, like L.A. City, when they have openings with almost no requirements (just HS diploma, no experience, etc.). These recruitment drives are due to the fact that they need a department that is “representative” of the areas they serve — affirmative action.
Most of the departments around here require paramedic certification as well as the completion of the fire academy/State Firefighter I certification (or one year experience in another department or volunteer/junior FF position) before they even apply.
BTW, I do agree that cops ought to be paid more, but that’s another topic.
————-
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.
jficquette
August 7, 2010 @
8:04 PM
[/quote]
FWIW, Arraya (and I) [/quote]
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.[/quote]
Why pay public employees for life after retirment when private sector employees don’t get that?
You have to double their salary since they will likely collect it longer than they worked.
Why not pay them what it takes to get people to do the job and let them build their own 401k like everyone else??
CA renter
August 7, 2010 @
8:28 PM
jficquette wrote:CA renter [quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter]
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.[/quote]
Why pay public employees for life after retirment when private sector employees don’t get that?
You have to double their salary since they will likely collect it longer than they worked.
Why not pay them what it takes to get people to do the job and let them build their own 401k like everyone else??[/quote]
Good question.
Though I know there are differing opinions about this, I believe the private sector employees dropped the ball when they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking unions were somehow “bad” for U.S. workers. Who do you think benefitted from that mindset? The workers who actually produce something, or the corporations (with their much higher margins and obscene executive pay)?
The truth is, all workers benefit from the existence of unions because non-union workers’ employers have to compete with union employers. Private sector workers have been able to ride the coattails of the (mostly public) union workers because of this. The private sector still offers a fairly competitve wage and benefits package because the employees could just jump into the public sector if the private employers weren’t competitve enough. The private sector employers had to retain their private sector workers in this more competitive (for employers) environment.
The demise of the unions in the private sector has meant the demise of defined benefit pension plans, employer-provided healthcare, ~40-hour workweeks, etc. Historically speaking, the private sector always did pay more than the public sector, but with the private sector unions faltering, the private sector workers have slipped behind.
Instead of trying to bring the public sector workers down with the private sector workers, why not leverage the work the public sector has done and begin bringing private sector workers back UP to where they belong?
As of today, the U.S. consumer (and worker) is still the powerhouse of the world. We still have some leverage because of this, but we will soon lose that leverage if we continue to allow corporations to define how business is done in this country.
Unions can back off from their special interest lobbying just as soon as corporations back off from their lobbying. Until then, be glad for these unions if you are one of the “working people.” They are all that stands between your lifestyle and the lifestyle of those in third-world countries.
bearishgurl
August 7, 2010 @
8:58 PM
Great post, CAR! Great post, CAR!
DWCAP
August 10, 2010 @
3:47 PM
CA renter wrote:
I know for a [quote=CA renter]
I know for a *fact* that fire departments were having a hard time finding qualified recruits during the boom. No offense to your friend, but he/she might not have been the most qualified (there are a number of tests and requirements, and any one of these might have disqualified him/her). They were offering signing bonuses for new firefighters, too. Yes, there are some hiring situations where you hear of “thousands” of applicants, but that’s usually in the larger departments, like L.A. City, when they have openings with almost no requirements (just HS diploma, no experience, etc.). These recruitment drives are due to the fact that they need a department that is “representative” of the areas they serve — affirmative action.
Most of the departments around here require paramedic certification as well as the completion of the fire academy/State Firefighter I certification (or one year experience in another department or volunteer/junior FF position) before they even apply.
BTW, I do agree that cops ought to be paid more, but that’s another topic.
————-
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.[/quote]
Well, considering he is now a firefighter, I guess he met those tough qualifications. No, it wasnt here in San Diego, it was in a simlar CA city, just one that is even more expensive. And I dont know where your facts come from, but here is the City of San Diegos view:
“Firefighter Recruit is one of the most popular entry level job classifications in the City of San Diego. In recent years, when the Basic Fire Academy asks for applications, the number of applicants far exceeds the number who can be accepted. Because of the immense interest in the position, the City of San Diego does not widely advertise Fire Recruit openings. Be aware the Fire Recruit position opens infrequently and the resulting eligibility list lasts one year.” http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/recruit.shtml
CA renter
August 10, 2010 @
6:35 PM
DWCAP wrote:
Well, [quote=DWCAP]
Well, considering he is now a firefighter, I guess he met those tough qualifications. No, it wasnt here in San Diego, it was in a simlar CA city, just one that is even more expensive. And I dont know where your facts come from, but here is the City of San Diegos view:
“Firefighter Recruit is one of the most popular entry level job classifications in the City of San Diego. In recent years, when the Basic Fire Academy asks for applications, the number of applicants far exceeds the number who can be accepted. Because of the immense interest in the position, the City of San Diego does not widely advertise Fire Recruit openings. Be aware the Fire Recruit position opens infrequently and the resulting eligibility list lasts one year.” http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/recruit.shtml%5B/quote%5D
DWCAP,
From your link:
Examples of Fire Recruit Duties
Attends a 14 week paid Fire Academy which includes course work and practice in fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical training and State and local laws
Minimum Qualifications of Fire Recruit
Possession of a current valid Emergency Medical Technician Certificate issued by the State of California or by a EMT certifying agency approved by the State of California; County of San Diego EMT System ID Card; Certificate for Basic Life Support for the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Provider.
A valid California Class C Driver’s License
—————–
This is the type of opening I mentioned above, the ones designed to pull in as many minorities as possible. Most of the local departments do not have paid academies, the applicants have to attend an academy on their own time and with their own money. They also require *paramedic* certification which is very different from EMT certification.
Yes, lots of people will apply for the openings you’ve linked to above because there are basically no requirements other than EMT certification and a driver’s license; but the openings in departments that required already certified (paramedic and Firefighter I) and qualified applicants did not have long lines of *qualified* people applying.
Mind you, it’s not just having these classes/certificates that makes someone qualified. Applicants then have to go through a rigorous application process where they are tested for physical, mental, and emotional fitness. Prior experience (volunteer, junior FF, or paid FF experience) also plays a major role. The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.
DWCAP
August 10, 2010 @
7:19 PM
CA renter wrote:DWCAP [quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP]
Well, considering he is now a firefighter, I guess he met those tough qualifications. No, it wasnt here in San Diego, it was in a simlar CA city, just one that is even more expensive. And I dont know where your facts come from, but here is the City of San Diegos view:
“Firefighter Recruit is one of the most popular entry level job classifications in the City of San Diego. In recent years, when the Basic Fire Academy asks for applications, the number of applicants far exceeds the number who can be accepted. Because of the immense interest in the position, the City of San Diego does not widely advertise Fire Recruit openings. Be aware the Fire Recruit position opens infrequently and the resulting eligibility list lasts one year.” http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/recruit.shtml%5B/quote%5D
DWCAP,
From your link:
Examples of Fire Recruit Duties
Attends a 14 week paid Fire Academy which includes course work and practice in fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical training and State and local laws
Minimum Qualifications of Fire Recruit
Possession of a current valid Emergency Medical Technician Certificate issued by the State of California or by a EMT certifying agency approved by the State of California; County of San Diego EMT System ID Card; Certificate for Basic Life Support for the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Provider.
A valid California Class C Driver’s License
—————–
This is the type of opening I mentioned above, the ones designed to pull in as many minorities as possible. Most of the local departments do not have paid academies, the applicants have to attend an academy on their own time and with their own money. They also require *paramedic* certification which is very different from EMT certification.
Yes, lots of people will apply for the openings you’ve linked to above because there are basically no requirements other than EMT certification and a driver’s license; but the openings in departments that required already certified (paramedic and Firefighter I) and qualified applicants did not have long lines of *qualified* people applying.
Mind you, it’s not just having these classes/certificates that makes someone qualified. Applicants then have to go through a rigorous application process where they are tested for physical, mental, and emotional fitness. Prior experience (volunteer, junior FF, or paid FF experience) also plays a major role. The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.[/quote]
So your argument is that they get so many canadates who meet the basic qualifications, that they can be picky and choose ‘ideal’ canadates who are already trained and invested?
And this is the reason they have to pay premium salaries, sign on bonus’s, and better than anyone else (but cops) pensions/health care?
CA renter
August 10, 2010 @
10:35 PM
DWCAP wrote:
So your argument [quote=DWCAP]
So your argument is that they get so many canadates who meet the basic qualifications, that they can be picky and choose ‘ideal’ canadates who are already trained and invested?
And this is the reason they have to pay premium salaries, sign on bonus’s, and better than anyone else (but cops) pensions/health care?[/quote]
If you open up positions for jobs that require no education, experience, etc., and offer free education/training *while being paid* to be on the job, how many people do you think would show up?
You have no idea how expensive the hiring process and training is for these jobs. It’s why most departments cannot afford to have these types of recruit positions — you’ll only see them in the big departments that have much larger budgets. With these positions, you also get higher turnover rates as recruits are dropped from the program and others are hired on. It is prohibitively expensive. When you have higher standards and entry requirements, you have less turnover, and much lower recruitment and training costs.
With all due respect, I think you guys are really naive about what these jobs entail.
Another reason for the high standards is the liability involved in the public sector. Litigious people are always looking for ways to sue the government because of the perception of “deep pockets.” That’s why the standards for public employees are actually much higher than for equivalent positions in the private sector. One slight misstep, and the public employer is on the hook. They cannot afford to have inept people in these very responsible positions. These positions are literally involved in life-or-death situations on a regular (often daily) basis. Contrary to popular belief, public sector employees are scrutinized in ways private sector employees could never imagine.
While people tend to think about the disgruntled DMV worker when discussing public sector workers, most public sector workers perform their jobs with the utmost integrity and professionalism. FWIW, you’ll hear very positive remarks from almost everyone who’s actually had encounters with firefighters.
briansd1
August 10, 2010 @
7:22 PM
CA renter wrote: The [quote=CA renter] The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.[/quote]
I’m refudiating that argument.
I’m perfectly fine with loosening the standards to save money.
Like I said before, taxpayers’ money should be directed to the citizens who need it most, not so support a whole class of employees and functionaries.
We don’t need government paid firefighters or clerks with college education.
CA renter
August 10, 2010 @
10:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA renter [quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.[/quote]
I’m refudiating that argument.
I’m perfectly fine with loosening the standards to save money.
Like I said before, taxpayers’ money should be directed to the citizens who need it most, not so support a whole class of employees and functionaries.
We don’t need government paid firefighters or clerks with college education.[/quote]
And I’m “refudiating” your claim that we should have less qualified people. 😉
Seriously, you won’t be saying that when you’re bleeding to death in a car accident, nor when you have a loved one in a hostage situation, nor if you have a child in a public school.
You believe that Americans (who are now in serious financial trouble) should allow every Third World resident to move here so we can provide free housing, healthcare, and education for them and their children. I would rather take care of our own first (and work on reversing the damage done to us by our “capitalist” system), and restore the health and wealth of the American middle class. These two conditions cannot exist together, so it’s unlikely our beliefs will ever meet.
I don’t like my tax money to be used to pay for unjustifiable wars around the world. I don’t want to pay for bankers/capitalists to make billions of dollars in profits because of bailouts, tax credits, or various loopholes designed by them. I don’t want to pay for all the world’s poor to come here and “work the system” for free education, healthcare, housing, etc. (not because I don’t feel for these people, but because we can’t sustain them without causing ourselves harm in the process — I’d rather see us help them in their own countries by eliminating corruption and assisting them with infrastructure as much as possible). The problem is that no matter what our politicians do with our tax money, somebody is going to be unhappy with the results. If there is one central theme around which my beliefs revolve, it’s that I want to see a healthy, sustainable middle class in the U.S. That would mean shrinking corporate margins, much less pay for our executive “talent,” and greater pay for the people who do the actual work (and support all the demand for these goods and services).
I support fair trade (trading only with other countries who have the same labor and environmental protections that we have) because it is OUR citizens who are the powerhouse behind all the demand. Without decent wages, we’ll have a much bigger problem with surplus capacity and dwindling demand. How do you propose that’s a good thing?
joec
August 10, 2010 @
10:24 PM
It looks like the loopholes It looks like the loopholes are popping up in the sales tax proposal…
”
Critics of the ballot measure point to a line that was removed from the sales tax ordinance before council adoption. The line reads: “None of the (reform) conditions may be excused for any reason including, but not limited to, inability to meet the condition due to legal restrictions or unforeseen circumstances.”
By removing the line, Faulconer said the council gave itself an out to avoid compliance with any of the conditions.
”
Who seriously thinks they will pass any reform here? If they were confident that they would, they would have left the line in.
Please vote no on giving more of your money to folks who won’t spend it wisely, but just to enrich themselves.
CA renter
August 7, 2010 @
5:41 PM
DWCAP wrote:
Third, I have [quote=DWCAP]
Third, I have heard both of the posters using this bad argument RAIL against the banks and their handouts/pilliging/bad managment. What is stopping you form being a banker? Go get yours! Hell I would think this would be even easier as bankers dont have formal age and health limits to join. Why fight them when you can join them?
Not a very good argument against corruption is it?
[/quote]
Firstly, you have to have social/political connections to get those jobs at the banks/financial institutions. For the govt jobs, everyone who qualifies can join up! The govt takes great pains to make sure the job applicants are treated fairly, even having their own “affirmative action” requirements for women and minorities. It is specifically designed to be open to everyone who wants the job, and can qualify for it.
Conversely, it seems I (someone with NO banking experience, whatsoever) would have been more qualified for the bankers’ positions, as I certainly saw what was coming years before the “financial crisis” that apparently “nobody saw coming.” Either they are evil liars (which I believe), or they are exceptionally stupid and unqualified to do their jobs. In the meantime, we were told repeatedly during the fall 2008 period that these bailouts were necessary, and the bankers had to be paid handsomely, and not held accountable for their actions, because we had to retain their “talent” which has cost taxpayers far more than the unfunded obligations due the public service workers *who actually do something productive and useful for society.*
briansd1
August 7, 2010 @
7:06 PM
I believe that government I believe that government employees should always be paid less than in the private sector.
There’s something un-American about a class of functionaries that govern us and are paid more to live in comfort.
The City of Bell is an example of the the government ripping off the citizens.
However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have social equity and protection for the poor.
Coronita
August 6, 2010 @
1:00 PM
bearishgurl wrote:briansd1 [quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1][quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system . . . [/quote]
brian, I was going to post this law-enforcement disability issue earlier but I disagree that these workers-in-the-trenches are “gaming the system.”
Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant][/quote]
Not exactly true… A portion of disability is taxable a portion is not.
Short term disability paid by the state is not taxable. Any supplemental paid by your company IS taxable.
Long term disability taxability depends on how it’s characterized.
jpinpb
August 11, 2010 @
10:37 AM
bearishgurl wrote:Law [quote=bearishgurl]Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant][/quote]
X2 – I’m sick of hearing how much money cops and firemen get. Their job sucks. Do a ride-along w/a cop for a night. Breathe some smoke for 10 hours at the next brush fire. Maybe if you manage to be captain, you’re set. Everyone else pays a price. Seriously. Anyone who thinks they are banking dough for doing nothing, stop bitching about it and go apply. And good luck. Especially having a life.
meadandale
August 5, 2010 @
8:08 PM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale [quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
[/quote]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
So, you’ll start complying with THE LAW when other people stop doing something that is currently legal? You decide to comply with those laws you agree with and disregard those you don’t?
I think I’ll take this approach with the health care law and everything else that has been passed by Obama/Pelosi/Reid, et al. I’m sure I’ll have your blessing.
I just love having stuff delivered to my door without me taking to effort to go out and buy it.
I never need anything right away so I’m perfectly happy to wait for the delivery.
ocrenter, I know that you don’t eat junk food, but Amazon also sells it on subscription basis to be shipped every so often.
ocrenter
August 5, 2010 @
9:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I just love [quote=briansd1]
I just love having stuff delivered to my door without me taking to effort to go out and buy it.
I never need anything right away so I’m perfectly happy to wait for the delivery.
[/quote]
online shopping allows quick and easy comparison as well as reading of reviews. save on gas and miles too.
and I actually do eat junk food. limited and infrequently. kinda like how I approach alcohol.
briansd1
August 5, 2010 @
8:40 PM
meadandale wrote:briansd1 [quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
[/quote]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
So, you’ll start complying with THE LAW when other people stop doing something that is currently legal? You decide to comply with those laws you agree with and disregard those you don’t?
I think I’ll take this approach with the health care law and everything else that has been passed by Obama/Pelosi/Reid, et al. I’m sure I’ll have your blessing.[/quote]
As FSD posted, Mello Roos deductability and use taxes on mail-order, out-of-state purchases are highly misunderstood.
Hobie
August 5, 2010 @
9:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:… use taxes [quote=briansd1]… use taxes on mail-order, out-of-state purchases are highly misunderstood.[/quote]
Not true. It relys on self reporting. Business does it as they have large transactions and will be depreciating new assets, expensing and are easily audited. Personal purchases just ignore the use tax law.
However keep a sharp eye on the new proposed provision for any sales over $600 to report on a 10-99 form. This is the first step in the IRS/States tracking these purchases and enforcing the tax collection.
Internet sales tax is a golden goose of untapped wealth to the government.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
August 6, 2010 @
8:38 AM
Hobie wrote:briansd1 [quote=Hobie][quote=briansd1]… use taxes on mail-order, out-of-state purchases are highly misunderstood.[/quote]
Not true. It relys on self reporting. Business does it as they have large transactions and will be depreciating new assets, expensing and are easily audited. Personal purchases just ignore the use tax law.
However keep a sharp eye on the new proposed provision for any sales over $600 to report on a 10-99 form. This is the first step in the IRS/States tracking these purchases and enforcing the tax collection.
Internet sales tax is a golden goose of untapped wealth to the government.[/quote]
I duisagree with your opinion that it is not highly misunderstood.
I think the vast majority of people confuse the Internet Tax Freedom Act with the lack of sales taxes on internet purchases.
Also, with mello-roos … they are misunderstood because they are identical to property tax in many ways, they act just like a property tax, they smell like a property tax, but in the end, they are not a property tax and are not deductible. Again, broadly misunderstood and mis-reported.
Waiting to feel the magic
August 5, 2010 @
12:52 PM
No. And the thing that the No. And the thing that the powers that be should be really concerned about is that I almost always vote democrat, have never voted for a republican for president, and generally have voted for tax increases, school bonds, etc.
They have enough money. I’m not increasing my taxes because everyone else can’t handle their money.
SK in CV
August 5, 2010 @
1:02 PM
I’m reasonably sure San Diego I’m reasonably sure San Diego doesn’t have the authority to drop the sales tax rate to .5%. The statewide rate (I think) is currently 8.25%, with cities and counties adding up to 1.5% on top of that. City finances would collapse even worse than they already are with a .5% sales tax.
On the other hand, it sure would be a great thing for car dealers in the city.
desmond
August 5, 2010 @
1:38 PM
I voted yes, San Diegan’s I voted yes, San Diegan’s need to pay for the services that the city provides and if that means paying higher sales tax, by all means. I would vote to raise it even more.
Hobie
August 5, 2010 @
2:18 PM
Talk to any business owner Talk to any business owner and you will hear a story where they underbid a job. Do you think their client is going to cough up the difference? Not much different in this case.
ybitz
August 5, 2010 @
2:29 PM
San Diego’s sales tax is San Diego’s sales tax is lower than LA, and we have no utility tax too. That’s one reason why San Diego is broke.
Eugene
August 5, 2010 @
3:18 PM
I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.
(former)FormerSanDiegan
August 5, 2010 @
4:41 PM
Eugene wrote:I voted yes. A [quote=Eugene]I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.[/quote]
I voted yes also, but would favor a 1% increase to bring it up to the same level that we suffer here in LA.
enron_by_the_sea
August 5, 2010 @
4:54 PM
I vote NO by default on any I vote NO by default on any prop. For me a bar to vote YES is high.
On this, I would reluctantly vote for temporary sales tax increase if I am convinced that it will fix the dysfunctional system of governance and rights the wrongs done in the late-90s in San Diego. However I am not convinced that this measure will achieve that, although this attempts it.
Several points:
[1] I read somewhere that courts might strike this down anyway because one prop can be only about one issue and that tax increase can not be contingent on something else happening.
[2] They are saying that tax increase will only happen if certain things happen, for example there are concessions in pensions. What does that mean. Is $1 concession good enough? or $1k? $1mm? $100mm? It seems like we can be fooled once again.
[3] Will this tax be truly temporary? Many opponents claim that the way this measure is written, this won’t be temporary.
I agree with the tough love philosophy and I’m looking forward to this fall when our city leaders actually start discussing issues facing our city (Seriously, what have they been doing all this time? They had many years to do something and this had boiled down to a hastily written prop cobbled together on one weekend!)
I’m afraid that the labor laws are so protective of union benefits that the only realistic way to obtain any meaningful concessions from unions is under bankrupcy (or a threat thereof).
In other words, as of July 1, 2011, minus any local sales-tax increases, San Diegans will be paying 7.75 cents to the dollar. Should the so-called “Reform Before Revenue” ballot measure pass, we’ll be paying 8.25 cents to the dollar—less than what we’re paying right now.
So while SD taxes may be going up, our total State taxes will be going down. They’ll just be going down less.
enron_by_the_sea
August 5, 2010 @
5:12 PM
can someone explain the can someone explain the following about the city that I don’t understand.
[1] How is it that they can find money to build downtown library but no money for staffing fire stations, fixing roads or paying their share of pensions? I know that General fund pays for one and some other fund pays for other. But who gets to decide which money gets where? And why is it that money can not be transferred from one fund to another when the idea does not make sense?
[2] Why is that library not put up for public vote but city hall needs public vote?
Rich Toscano
August 5, 2010 @
5:24 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:can [quote=enron_by_the_sea]can someone explain the following about the city that I don’t understand.
[1] How is it that they can find money to build downtown library but no money for staffing fire stations, fixing roads or paying their share of pensions? I know that General fund pays for one and some other fund pays for other. But who gets to decide which money gets where? And why is it that money can not be transferred from one fund to another when the idea does not make sense?
[2] Why is that library not put up for public vote but city hall needs public vote?[/quote]
The library will allegedly be funded entirely by private donors. The problem is that they are not waiting to get all the funding before they start the building…
Maybe that answer #2 as well.
briansd1
August 5, 2010 @
8:07 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:
The [quote=Rich Toscano]
The library will allegedly be funded entirely by private donors. The problem is that they are not waiting to get all the funding before they start the building…
Maybe that answer #2 as well.[/quote]
The $185 million library is not entirely funded by private donors.
Public funding includes $80 million in downtown redevelopment property taxes, $20 million in state bond funds and $20 million from San Diego Unified School District bond funds to cover a 20-year lease for a charter high school within the library.
School board President Richard Barrera said at the ground breaking that the two-floor school will enroll about 400 students, who will likely take classes not only in the library but at nearby City College and participate in internships with downtown businesses.
The school board earlier this month voted an additional $10 million from redevelopment property taxes it receives to cover tenant improvements for the library school — a figure not included in the $185 million library building budget.
Public funding includes $80 million in downtown redevelopment property taxes, $20 million in state bond funds and $20 million from San Diego Unified School District bond funds to cover a 20-year lease for a charter high school within the library.
[/quote]
I think downtown looks good enough already.Maybe it is good time to wind down CCDC and use that money for some useful things other than shiny empty buildings and white elephants! VOSD today ran a piece on that today…
briansd1 wrote:Rich Toscano [quote=briansd1][quote=Rich Toscano]
The library will allegedly be funded entirely by private donors. The problem is that they are not waiting to get all the funding before they start the building…
Maybe that answer #2 as well.[/quote]
The $185 million library is not entirely funded by private donors.
Public funding includes $80 million in downtown redevelopment property taxes, $20 million in state bond funds and $20 million from San Diego Unified School District bond funds to cover a 20-year lease for a charter high school within the library.
School board President Richard Barrera said at the ground breaking that the two-floor school will enroll about 400 students, who will likely take classes not only in the library but at nearby City College and participate in internships with downtown businesses.
The school board earlier this month voted an additional $10 million from redevelopment property taxes it receives to cover tenant improvements for the library school — a figure not included in the $185 million library building budget.
Brian’s post highlights exactly what I’ve seen in the public sector. The workers are NOT the problem. So much money is wasted in ways that are entirely unproductive and are usually the result of some political payment. We need to eliminate this before we can talk about harming the workers who actually perform the services that are supposed to be provided by the govt.
scaredyclassic
August 6, 2010 @
12:02 AM
higher taxes on all higher taxes on all consumption, yes.
no_such_reality
August 6, 2010 @
7:09 AM
Eugene wrote:I voted yes. A [quote=Eugene]I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.[/quote]
Bankruptcies are just what the cities need. How did Vallejo turn out?
Many of the cities are bankrupt and keep trying to kick the can down the road with higher and higher taxes and fees.
all
August 6, 2010 @
8:09 AM
no_such_reality wrote:Eugene [quote=no_such_reality][quote=Eugene]I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.[/quote]
Bankruptcies are just what the cities need. How did Vallejo turn out?
Many of the cities are bankrupt and keep trying to kick the can down the road with higher and higher taxes and fees.[/quote]
What happens when a city goes bankrupt?
Anonymous
August 13, 2010 @
3:22 PM
captcha wrote:
What happens [quote=captcha]
What happens when a city goes bankrupt?[/quote]
They can abrogate the contracts that were strangling the citizens and return salaries to a normal level.
In the case of Vallejo, 90% of the city budget was paying police and fire salaries and pensions.
Firefighters making 300K per year. It was lunacy. Complicit politicians seeking the endorsement of the firefighters union signed a contract promising Vallejo firemen that they would always have the second highest salaries in the state.
Don’t try and convince me these community college graduates are worth that.
The fact that they get 3000 applicants for each opening speaks volumes.
If a city is bankrupt, the responsible thing to do is declare bankruptcy and restructure.
Reality
August 5, 2010 @
7:06 PM
I’m assuming you mean an I’m assuming you mean an increase of .5% and voted No, only because HELL NO was not an option.
I think there’s much waste in San Diego government that needs to be cleaned up. No more taxes. Being a La Mesa resident I won’t get a real vote, but plan on voting with my feet and never shopping in San Diego should it pass.
LAAFTERHOURS
August 5, 2010 @
7:30 PM
Increase tax on tobacco, Increase tax on tobacco, booze, and lastly plastic surgery. Maybe not tobacco but the other two are doing well in cali.
joec
August 5, 2010 @
8:41 PM
LAAFTERHOURS wrote:Increase [quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Increase tax on tobacco, booze, and lastly plastic surgery. Maybe not tobacco but the other two are doing well in cali.[/quote]
Aren’t they going to tax tanning salons?
jficquette
August 6, 2010 @
9:47 AM
Raise taxes my ass. Time to Raise taxes my ass. Time to cut pensions and pay for San Diego government workers.
Retiring at nearly full pay is ridiculous and has to be stopped. It’s a total rip off of the lower class private sector employee.
John
Waiting to feel the magic
August 6, 2010 @
1:12 PM
“Raise taxes my ass. Time to “Raise taxes my ass. Time to cut pensions and pay for San Diego government workers.
Retiring at nearly full pay is ridiculous and has to be stopped. It’s a total rip off of the lower class private sector employee.”
I’ve worked for the government early in my career and since then in private industry. I had the choice of government’s lower salary but a killer retirement package or higher salaries in private industry but a less secure retirement. I chose the later, but given how pensions and even 401K matching is a thing of the past, I don’t know that I made the right choice.
I hear lots of griping about government employee’s fat pensions, but I don’t hear anyone lining up for their salaries.
GH
August 6, 2010 @
7:03 PM
Give the City of San Diego Give the City of San Diego MORE money and they will IMMEDIATELY increase pensions and salaries of senior administrative staff – many by 30 – 50%. At the same time they will lay off policemen, and GASP!!! firefighters. Besides it will not make any difference. Sales will just slow even more and they will get more of an even smaller pie. SORRY but those pensions??? They are illegal and they must go. Bankruptcy is San Diego’s only hope at a future as a viable city!!!
THE ILLEGAL PENSIONS MUST BE STOPPED!!! They were not funded which is a violation of State and Federal law. The criminals who dusted our city by approving these should be immediately arrested and charged!!!
poorgradstudent
August 6, 2010 @
11:32 PM
No.
Sales taxes are No.
Sales taxes are regressive. Cali already has a ridiculous sales tax. Raise property taxes, keep jacking up taxes on hotel rooms, cut spending, anything but a sales tax increase.
briansd1
August 7, 2010 @
11:20 AM
poorgradstudent [quote=poorgradstudent]No.
Sales taxes are regressive. [/quote]
I agree.
Sales taxes are regressive. That’s why I’m against them. Sales taxes hit the poor the most.
I personally don’t see any fire or police problem in San Diego.
I think the the city should declare bankruptcy, wipe out all the contracts and start fresh.
PCinSD
August 7, 2010 @
1:17 PM
I wonder how things would be I wonder how things would be now, had Shea won the election in 2004 and convinced SD to file BK back then:
I wonder what would happen if I wonder what would happen if a county/city or state became less dependent on debt like consumers and “saved” money for city projects?
It sounds the main downside of BK is limited bond options down the line. Debt is the issue for most companies so depending less on debt/bonds can’t be a bad thing I’d imagine.
Then again, I doubt we really can trust government to tax us for a city project and actually leave it in a “locked box” for said project. 🙂
Amazing that the pension issue was the main problem back then and is the big problem now as well…
UCGal
August 7, 2010 @
5:02 PM
pabloesqobar wrote:I wonder [quote=pabloesqobar]I wonder how things would be now, had Shea won the election in 2004 and convinced SD to file BK back then:
Enough is enough, no increase Enough is enough, no increase in sales tax. The more they have, the more they will find to spend it on, and will be back later for more. Increasing taxes has always been the easy way out for politicians, for it allows them to avoid the really tough decisions that need to be made.
enron_by_the_sea
August 7, 2010 @
10:24 PM
Sorry!
Unions speak for Sorry!
Unions speak for benefit of union members and union members only not for anyone else’s.
Businesses speak for the benefit of business only and not for anyone else’s
If you are a taxpayer/consumer who does not belong to these two groups, then no one of them is speaking/acting for your benefit.
Unionization = paying more product/service than demand/supply dictates.
excess corporate profits = paying more product/service than demand/supply dictates.
CA renter
August 7, 2010 @
10:36 PM
enron,
You’re missing the enron,
You’re missing the link between that demand and the pay of U.S. workers. Where do you think the demand comes from?
Anonymous
August 8, 2010 @
7:25 AM
I would vote “No” and I would vote “No” and encourage everyone to vote no to any tax increase unless the city takes aggressive steps to cut spending and radically reduce city pensions. I don’t see this happening.
Voting for taxes to support a city that has made such reckless fiscal decisions is madness. I mean, what’s the definition of insanity? Doing more of the same while expecting a different result. Giving the same set of idiots who caused the problem more money after they’ve proved themselves incapable of making wise fiscal decisions seems to fit the definition well.
The best course of action by concerned citizens would be to defund the existing system until the necessary spending cuts and austerity actions are forced on the city. Don’t be sheep when it comes to taxes. Take effective action that goes beyond your vote, as the votes are manipulated and the voter’s easily duped.
I write this from Nevada, where I moved both myself and my business from San Diego last November because of California’s worsening business and tax environment. Voting with one’s feet is sometimes the most effective way to send a message…the extra $50,000 I’ve saved on my cost of living doesn’t hurt either.
Sandi Egan
August 8, 2010 @
1:30 PM
There are must-have expenses, There are must-have expenses, and then there are various “projects” aimed at guaranteeing self reelection and other political paybacks. I challenge any supporter of the tax to prove mathematically that current San Diego tax revenue is not enough to pay for quality services like police, FF, etc.
CA renter
August 8, 2010 @
2:25 PM
Exactly, Sandi Egan.
People Exactly, Sandi Egan.
People don’t realize how much money is spent for political reasons that have nothing to do with the basic services that should be provided by the govt.
DWCAP
August 10, 2010 @
3:26 PM
I disagree CAR. High american I disagree CAR. High american pay comes from the fact that americans are still the most productive workers in the world. Higher productivity allows for higher profits and wages. Unproductive workers can demand and strike and bitch all they want, no one will employ them unless the money is there to pay them. If their productivity is below their costs, then economies either sustain high unemployment, or just shut down.
The private sector unions, as a generalization, drove their employers into the ground, it wasnt some kinda brain washing from Republicans. The pay, benifit, and work rules they demanded were not competitive in the world market, and it was deadly. The surviving employers saw it coming and got out, but all too many didnt. Just think of the Auto companies if you want an example. Ford survived by the hair of it chinny chin chin after smart managment saw the writing on the wall. GM and Chrysler survived by public decree only.
The public sector can’t really go under. I guess they could go bankrupt, but they cant really die and be replaced. Consequently it was in the best interests of the officals running the show to not rock the boat, as the unions were able to mobalize lots and lots of votes and money. They did this for their own benifit, and not anyone elses. Infact, alot of it has been done to the detrment of the taxpaying non-union public. We may or may not have realized it, but the underfunding of the public pensions in the past was the same as overspending of tax reciepts. Now the money has been spent, the bills due, and no one wants to pay. We will pay in either higher taxes or lower services, all for services that have already been rendered or negotiated. This was not done for the benifit of anyone but those in the unions. And private employees dont benifit from this kinda rules because private employers are under the rules of economics. If costs are too high, buisness relocate or downsize. If public expenses are too high, they just demand more money.
CA renter
August 10, 2010 @
11:00 PM
DWCAP wrote:I disagree CAR. [quote=DWCAP]I disagree CAR. High american pay comes from the fact that americans are still the most productive workers in the world. Higher productivity allows for higher profits and wages. Unproductive workers can demand and strike and bitch all they want, no one will employ them unless the money is there to pay them. If their productivity is below their costs, then economies either sustain high unemployment, or just shut down.
The private sector unions, as a generalization, drove their employers into the ground, it wasnt some kinda brain washing from Republicans. The pay, benifit, and work rules they demanded were not competitive in the world market, and it was deadly. The surviving employers saw it coming and got out, but all too many didnt. Just think of the Auto companies if you want an example. Ford survived by the hair of it chinny chin chin after smart managment saw the writing on the wall. GM and Chrysler survived by public decree only.
The public sector can’t really go under. I guess they could go bankrupt, but they cant really die and be replaced. Consequently it was in the best interests of the officals running the show to not rock the boat, as the unions were able to mobalize lots and lots of votes and money. They did this for their own benifit, and not anyone elses. Infact, alot of it has been done to the detrment of the taxpaying non-union public. We may or may not have realized it, but the underfunding of the public pensions in the past was the same as overspending of tax reciepts. Now the money has been spent, the bills due, and no one wants to pay. We will pay in either higher taxes or lower services, all for services that have already been rendered or negotiated. This was not done for the benifit of anyone but those in the unions. And private employees dont benifit from this kinda rules because private employers are under the rules of economics. If costs are too high, buisness relocate or downsize. If public expenses are too high, they just demand more money.[/quote]
The history is long and convoluted, but I believe our higher pay is due to the fact that we bombed our (manufacturing) competition into the ground and made our currency the world’s reserve currency.
While we’re certainly productive, there are plenty of productive people out there who are willing to work for far less. However, the fact that we were so well paid helped pave the way for the demand that sustained our (and the world’s) economy for so long. As time passed, and our competitors rebuilt, we shifted from being higher wage earners to taking on unbelievably large debt loads. This sustained our consumption for the past few decades, most notably the blowoff top during this past decade.
In the meantime, while U.S. workers were seeing stagnant/declining wages, our access to credit forced prices of everything sky high — stocks, bonds, housing, commercial real estate, cars, etc. At the same time, corporate margins reached peak levels, and the wealth became ever more concentrated at the top (where I believe all the policies that led to the credit bubble and diminished wages/outsourcing originated).
“Although before-tax profits rose 8.7% per year during the 1990s, household disposable income increased only 5.2%, while consumption of goods and services rose only 5.7%.
Continued acceleration of corporate profits defied commonsense.
Why should profits continue to increase faster than household income and spending?”
“This New York Times graph illustrates that while corporate profits are at the highest share of the G.D.P. since the 1960s, the take home pay of the typical worker is actually the lowest on record as a share of the same G.D.P.”
So…we disagree about the reason for the demise of private sector unions. The sheeple were brainwashed into thinking collective bargaining was not in their best interests so that the corporations, investors, and exectives (and all the businesses and politicians who rode this wave) could maximize their wealth at the expense of U.S. workers.
I do not for a moment believe that workers are the cause of our problems. The root of our problems is greed…at the very top.
briansd1
August 10, 2010 @
11:20 PM
CA renter wrote:
In the [quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, while U.S. workers were seeing stagnant/declining wages, our access to credit forced prices of everything sky high — stocks, bonds, housing, commercial real estate, cars, etc. At the same time, corporate margins reached peak levels, and the wealth became ever more concentrated at the top (where I believe all the policies that led to the credit bubble and diminished wages/outsourcing originated).[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you.
But if US workers’ wages are stagnant and declining, government workers should proportionately share the economic pain.
Is there no good argument to tax people whose wages are declining to pay increasing government salaries. Seems totally out of the realm of reason to me.
A speeding ticket in CA is now about $450. In other states it’s about $80. We all know that tickets are all about revenue.
Something is way out of whack with California finances. (And unauthorized immigrants are not the problem. That’s just scapegoating.)
CA renter
August 10, 2010 @
11:29 PM
Brian,
I’ve stated before Brian,
I’ve stated before what needs to be done to fix the pension problem, and firmly believe we will see some major changes there — and I support these changes.
Also, while I strongly support unions and decent wages for ALL (legal) U.S. workers, some unions have admittedly gone beyond what I think is reasonable.
That being said, we have to draw the line on lower wages/benefits somewhere. As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.
BTW, do you realize that we could be working with perhaps ~75% of our current public workforce if we didn’t have an illegal immigration problem? Prisons, education, and healthcare…the biggest drain on our taxes in California, and where the burden of illegal immigration is most strongly felt. We cannot afford to pay for the world’s poor. It’s simply a matter of economics. We are broke.
Sandi Egan
August 11, 2010 @
10:23 AM
CA renter wrote:As long as [quote=CA renter]As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.[/quote]
How’s that related? Why don’t unions try to squeeze money from the super rich and leave the taxpayers alone?
briansd1
August 11, 2010 @
10:32 AM
Sandi Egan wrote:CA renter [quote=Sandi Egan][quote=CA renter]As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.[/quote]
How’s that related? Why don’t unions try to squeeze money from the super rich and leave the taxpayers alone?[/quote]
I agree Sandi Egan. I don’t see any effort to squeeze money from the super rich.
The little people are paying more and more in sales taxes, parcel taxes, fees, fines, etc… (all regressive taxes).
CA renter
August 11, 2010 @
3:20 PM
briansd1 wrote:Sandi Egan [quote=briansd1][quote=Sandi Egan][quote=CA renter]As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.[/quote]
How’s that related? Why don’t unions try to squeeze money from the super rich and leave the taxpayers alone?[/quote]
I agree Sandi Egan. I don’t see any effort to squeeze money from the super rich.
The little people are paying more and more in sales taxes, parcel taxes, fees, fines, etc… (all regressive taxes).[/quote]
I absolutely favor a steeply progressive income tax, and would tax passive income at the same rates (or higher!) than earned income. I’m very opposed to regressive taxes, including sales taxes, VAT taxes, and the much-vaunted (by supply-siders) flat tax.
briansd1
August 11, 2010 @
8:27 PM
CA renter wrote:
I absolutely [quote=CA renter]
I absolutely favor a steeply progressive income tax, and would tax passive income at the same rates (or higher!) than earned income. I’m very opposed to regressive taxes, including sales taxes, VAT taxes, and the much-vaunted (by supply-siders) flat tax.[/quote]
Good. Let’s vote NO to this proposed sales tax increase.
jpinpb
August 12, 2010 @
8:39 AM
joec – City Attorney is the joec – City Attorney is the main guy so I would compare him to the main guy in a private law firm. I’d like to compare apples to apples. If you want to look at the salary of a non-partner at a law firm, then look at the salary of a Deputy City Attorney.
joec
August 12, 2010 @
8:38 PM
jpinpb – Oh well, I guess we jpinpb – Oh well, I guess we would just have to disagree with this comparison and analogy. Does that mean the major of San Diego should make 17 million because Paul Jacobs, CEO of Qualcomm made that last year and he’s in San Diego?
Or the president of the US should get a few billion because Warren Buffett had a good year and gained back 5 bil or whatever last year? Apples to apples right?
Puleeze…
Private corporations and employees in the private sector should not be treated the same as public officials, public employees. It’s as simple as that IMO and I suppose we’ll just have to disagree here.
Maybe that’s why we’re in this mess to begin with. Every public sector worker thinks that just because Goldman Sachs (which is ripping us off, I know) has a few mil for each partner, they all deserve their share as a city/county employee and it’s ok to rip everyone else off to get it.
I suppose I agree a little with flu on an earlier post on compensation for certain jobs/positions. If you want to work in the public sector and get elected, paid and supported by your constituents, that’s one thing, but your job is to serve the public, not to maximize your own pay as high as you can.
If you don’t like that, work in the private sector then.
jpinpb
August 12, 2010 @
8:52 PM
joe – Why would you try to joe – Why would you try to compare Warren Buffett’s job to that of the President of the US. That is the very reason I said to compare apples to apples.
I tried to make it easy and thought the job of an attorney might be a good example. I don’t work in the public sector. I could not deal w/the political BS. I wish I could. I was offered a job 25 years ago and I’d be retired by now.
no_such_reality
August 13, 2010 @
4:28 PM
CA renter wrote:I absolutely [quote=CA renter]I absolutely favor a steeply progressive income tax, and would tax passive income at the same rates (or higher!) than earned income. I’m very opposed to regressive taxes, including sales taxes, VAT taxes, and the much-vaunted (by supply-siders) flat tax.[/quote]
And at what rate and level do you think these should happen?
In California, if you have $1 million in income, you get 10.3% marginal rate.
Fed rate adds, 35%, likely to return to 39.6% on expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That’s a 45% hit on each extra dollar.
CA renter
August 13, 2010 @
4:43 PM
Rolling back the Bush tax Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would be the first step in the right direction.
no_such_reality
August 13, 2010 @
8:33 PM
That didn’t answer the That didn’t answer the question.
What’s the reality behind the rhetoric lately?
CA renter
August 13, 2010 @
10:02 PM
If I posted what I really If I posted what I really thought about tax rates and income levels, I’d never hear the end of it. Suffice it to say, the wealthiest 1-5% of our population would be up in arms.
no_such_reality
August 14, 2010 @
8:27 PM
Are you afraid those 1-5% you Are you afraid those 1-5% you want to tax would be up in arms, or anybody aspiring to succeed would be up in arms?
[quote=CA renter]If I posted what I really thought about tax rates and income levels, I’d never hear the end of it. Suffice it to say, the wealthiest 1-5% of our population would be up in arms.[/quote]
CA renter
August 14, 2010 @
9:26 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Are you [quote=no_such_reality]Are you afraid those 1-5% you want to tax would be up in arms, or anybody aspiring to succeed would be up in arms?
[quote=CA renter]If I posted what I really thought about tax rates and income levels, I’d never hear the end of it. Suffice it to say, the wealthiest 1-5% of our population would be up in arms.[/quote][/quote]
No, just the 1-5%. I think more people are beginning to grasp the fact that “hard work” is not going to make them “successful.” We’ve been sold down the river by the top 1-5% who are mostly managerial types, middlemen, and “dealmakers”/capitalists/gamblers (whichever you want to call them) whose sole purpose in life is to make more money…at everyone else’s expense. The very top are not at all productive. They are parasites who suck the blood of consumers and workers all around the world.
The unfortunate thing is that they also hold all the power in the world…at least until the wokers/consumers unite against them. That’s why we’re hearing all the “anti-union” rhetoric. Who do you think controls the MSM, and what do you think is the driving force behind the redirection of our anger against the bankers/capitalists to the union workers?
enron_by_the_sea
August 14, 2010 @
10:23 PM
The universal truth is that The universal truth is that everyone claims that everyone else, but them, gets a better deal out of our tax system.
To me, this observation points to a strong possibility that our current taxation system is very close to optimal… I must be the only person in the USA who thinks that 😉
jpinpb
August 11, 2010 @
10:49 AM
CA renter wrote:I do not for [quote=CA renter]I do not for a moment believe that workers are the cause of our problems. The root of our problems is greed…at the very top.[/quote]
X2
pjwal
August 11, 2010 @
12:01 PM
Two things to consider Two things to consider regarding the pay of public sector employees.
2) As much as we all appreciate the services they provide, I don’t believe wealth should be a motivation for these careers as it is now (especially with firefighters). Public service employees are now earning more than their private sector counter-parts. So much for a “higher calling.”
jpinpb
August 11, 2010 @
12:04 PM
The blanket statements bother The blanket statements bother me. This is something that comes to mind when talking about public sector versus private sector. Take, for example, the City Attorney. I’m pretty sure the City Attorney makes far less than an attorney in the private sector generally. As mentioned somewhat in other posts, public jobs usually paid less than private, but then get other benefits like healthcare and pension. That’s the incentive. This allows the private sector to receive a higher salary and plan their own retirement how they see fit.
joec
August 11, 2010 @
7:28 PM
jpinpb wrote:The blanket [quote=jpinpb]The blanket statements bother me. This is something that comes to mind when talking about public sector versus private sector. Take, for example, the City Attorney. I’m pretty sure the City Attorney makes far less than an attorney in the private sector generally. As mentioned somewhat in other posts, public jobs usually paid less than private, but then get other benefits like healthcare and pension. That’s the incentive. This allows the private sector to receive a higher salary and plan their own retirement how they see fit.[/quote]
In the past, public jobs paid less, but in every recent study, public jobs actually paid more with better benefits (more vacation, holidays, sick leave, better retirement options, more perks).
In regards to private attorneys, they don’t make anywhere near as much as people think, especially in San Diego. This is from personal experience. Perhaps in San Fran when you make EQUITY partner, but for most folks, I’m sure billing hours for a salary at a mid/small firm is no where near what the city attorney makes.
To back up that with data, I did a quick google search and here’s some high salary’s popping up…
Escondido city attorney got 206k back in 2006/07. A few other city attorneys got 190k.
I think there are some attorneys here. What do you see at your firms?
The old belief that “I am doing public service for lower pay, more stability, better benefits” is way off now.
The new public employee has higher pay, better benefits, more job security and more perks than their private counterpart. For profit business tends to cut pay, layoffs, etc when times are tough, in the public sector, the sh*t can be hitting the fan, but they still vote to give themselves raises.
jameswenn
August 11, 2010 @
1:43 PM
Maybe the issues stem from Maybe the issues stem from the large military population buying on base and not paying sales taxes.
edna_mode
August 12, 2010 @
9:51 PM
I for one think there’s an I for one think there’s an opportunity to seek new revenue sources. And tie together two threads 🙂
“Proposition 233, a new law requiring all couples who seek a marriage license, regardless of their sexuality, to submit a detailed plan for returning California to fiscal solvency”
August 5, 2010 @ 12:23 PM
http://articles.latimes.com/2
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/04/local/la-me-sdpension-20100804
August 5, 2010 @ 12:25 PM
I don’t care.
I don’t care.
August 5, 2010 @ 12:35 PM
As a liberal person, I won’t
As a liberal person, I won’t support the tax increase because I believe that the city needs some tough love, spending wise.
I don’t buy much anyway so it won’t really affect me.
Amazon Prime is pretty cool. I get to buy things for cheap and it’s delivered right to my door, tax free.
August 5, 2010 @ 1:02 PM
briansd1 wrote:As a liberal
[quote=briansd1]As a liberal person, I won’t support the tax increase because I believe that the city needs some tough love, spending wise.
I don’t buy much anyway so it won’t really affect me.
Amazon Prime is pretty cool. I get to buy things for cheap and it’s delivered right to my door, tax free.[/quote]
Unless you are a tax dodge, you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3730.shtml
“California residents are also required to pay a tax when they purchase tangible property that will be used, consumed, or stored in California. California law requires tax on in-state purchases, and also requires tax on items purchased out-of-state for use in California. Tax collected by the retailer here in California is called sales tax, and the retailer is responsible for reporting and paying the tax. When an out-of-state or online retailer doesn’t collect the tax for an item delivered to California, the purchaser may owe “use tax,” which is simply a tax on the use, storage, or consumption of personal property in California. Items that are exempt from sales tax are exempt from use tax as well. Use tax liabilities are often created by Internet or mail order purchases with out-of-state retailers not required to collect the tax. If you are purchasing from an online auction seller you may have a Use Tax responsibility. Be sure to review your receipts for Internet and other out-of-state purchases to determine if tax was charged. For more information, go to the California Board of Equalization website at http://www.boe.ca.gov. “
August 5, 2010 @ 1:06 PM
FormerSanDiegan wrote:you
[quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3730.shtml
[/quote]
That’s true…. but who does that?
August 5, 2010 @ 1:07 PM
briansd1
[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3730.shtml
[/quote]
That’s true…. but who does that?[/quote]
Law abiding citizens who care about our state budget.
August 5, 2010 @ 1:14 PM
FormerSanDiegan
[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3730.shtml
[/quote]
That’s true…. but who does that?[/quote]
Law abiding citizens who care about our state budget.[/quote]
You make a good point. It’s a sales and USE tax.
August 5, 2010 @ 1:20 PM
from the link in the
from the link in the OP
I don’t see any of this happening… so it’s moot.
I’m also not sure if outsourcing is the budget fix… But that’s a different debate.
August 9, 2010 @ 8:46 AM
LOL, who pays tax for online
LOL, who pays tax for online purchases?
I am really proud of myself because over 90% of my purchases this year were from online stores, especially Amazon. I pay no taxes and most are shipped free. Heck, I rather pay shipping fees than paying taxes to feed the teachers/police/firefighters union leeches.
And no, there was never a shortage of police, teachers, or firefighters even during the boom time. It was all fairy tales manufactured by the unions. I remember a bunch of my friends graduated from their firefighting training in Santa Ana college and none of them found a job.
[quote=briansd1][quote=FormerSanDiegan]you should be paying the taxes you owe to the state of CA for those purchases.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3730.shtml
[/quote]
That’s true…. but who does that?[/quote]
August 5, 2010 @ 2:14 PM
You are suppose to pay taxes
You are suppose to pay taxes on out of state purchases when you do your taxes. The state is trying to fix that loophole because only a very small percent of people do.
August 5, 2010 @ 2:28 PM
briansd1 wrote:As a liberal
[quote=briansd1]As a liberal person, I won’t support the tax increase because I believe that the city needs some tough love, spending wise.
I don’t buy much anyway so it won’t really affect me.
Amazon Prime is pretty cool. I get to buy things for cheap and it’s delivered right to my door, tax free.[/quote]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
I find it funny one would say that the city needs tough love and at the same time be a cheerleader for the out of control federal spending.
August 5, 2010 @ 2:37 PM
meadandale wrote:
You know
[quote=meadandale]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
[/quote]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[quote=meadandale]
I find it funny one would say that the city needs tough love and at the same time be a cheerleader for the out of control federal spending.[/quote]
I don’t support out of control Federal spending. I support Federal spending, during the recession, in order to stabilize the economy.
I’m all for cutting the Pentagon’s budget and laying off military personnel.
August 5, 2010 @ 4:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I’ll pay use
[quote=briansd1]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
Excellent point. Both are misunderstood and improperly treated in the vast majority of cases.
August 5, 2010 @ 9:41 PM
FormerSanDiegan
[quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=briansd1]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
Excellent point. Both are misunderstood and improperly treated in the vast majority of cases.[/quote]
Excellent point, just like I was always taught.
wrong + wrong = right
August 6, 2010 @ 8:39 AM
sdrealtor
[quote=sdrealtor][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=briansd1]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
Excellent point. Both are misunderstood and improperly treated in the vast majority of cases.[/quote]
Excellent point, just like I was always taught.
wrong + wrong = right[/quote]
I didn’t say it was right, just misunderstood.
August 6, 2010 @ 9:18 AM
I also buy almost everything
I also buy almost everything online now (except groceries and household items like soap, detergent). I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.
August 6, 2010 @ 11:04 AM
jimmyle wrote:I also buy
[quote=jimmyle]I also buy almost everything online now (except groceries and household items like soap, detergent).
[/quote]
If you buy certain items on sale on Amazon, it’s cheaper than going to the store.
[quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system.
I have more sympathy for the American child of unauthorized immigrants who gets a free lunch at school.
August 6, 2010 @ 11:40 AM
briansd1 wrote:jimmyle
[quote=briansd1][quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system . . . [/quote]
brian, I was going to post this law-enforcement disability issue earlier but I disagree that these workers-in-the-trenches are “gaming the system.”
Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant]
August 6, 2010 @ 12:29 PM
bearishgurl wrote:briansd1
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1][quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system . . . [/quote]
brian, I was going to post this law-enforcement disability issue earlier but I disagree that these workers-in-the-trenches are “gaming the system.”
Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant][/quote]
I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old.
These people will collect their pensions longer than they spent on the job.
Enough of this public sector rip off.
John
August 6, 2010 @ 12:38 PM
The situation in the city of
The situation in the city of Bell is a good case for all public employees’ salaries to be listed online.
Maybe the names of the lower level employees should be redacted, but all employees salaries should be listed one by one by position held.
Same goes with pension payments.
August 6, 2010 @ 1:18 PM
jficquette wrote:I would love
[quote=jficquette]I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old . . . John[/quote]
John, are you aware that many former tenured law-enforcement personnel DO NOT EVEN LIVE ten years beyond their retirement dates due to injuries sustained while on duty?
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?
August 6, 2010 @ 1:34 PM
bearishgurl wrote:
And have
[quote=bearishgurl]
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
I think it’s a social way of life rather than an occupational hazard.
Cops remind of Tea Party activist mentality. “Keep the govmint’ hand off of my public pension. But, by all means, kick American children out of school and repeal the 14th Amendment.”
August 6, 2010 @ 4:27 PM
briansd1 wrote:bearishgurl
[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
I think it’s a social way of life rather than an occupational hazard.
Cops remind of Tea Party activist mentality. “Keep the govmint’ hand off of my public pension. But, by all means, kick American children out of school and repeal the 14th Amendment.”[/quote]
Brian,
You’re talking out of your hindquarters again. You clearly have no idea what these people have to deal with on a daily basis.
August 6, 2010 @ 4:35 PM
The City of San Diego should
The City of San Diego should post salaries before they demand more taxes from the citizens.
LA employees are fairly well paid it seems.
BTW, those LA salaries don’t include fringe benefits (medical/pension/vacation, etc..)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/la-city-employee-salaries-posted-online.html
August 6, 2010 @ 3:58 PM
bearishgurl wrote:jficquette
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old . . . John[/quote]
John, are you aware that many former tenured law-enforcement personnel DO NOT EVEN LIVE ten years beyond their retirement dates due to injuries sustained while on duty?
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
I heard that excuse before. Doesn’t matter.
August 6, 2010 @ 8:43 PM
CalPers doesn’t agree with
CalPers doesn’t agree with you.
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=jficquette]I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old . . . John[/quote]
John, are you aware that many former tenured law-enforcement personnel DO NOT EVEN LIVE ten years beyond their retirement dates due to injuries sustained while on duty?
And have you investigated the (multiple) divorce and suicide rates for this group?[/quote]
At retirement age, the life expectancy of a safety workers is 81.4 years of age ‘no material differences’ from non-safety workers (although MISC tilt in at 80.1 years.
PAge 36 is the operative page. In duty deaths are lower than expected too.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/board-cal-agenda/agendas/bpac/201004/item03b-01.pdf
PAge 28 is the work related deaths… 54 in the study perod.
August 6, 2010 @ 4:11 PM
jficquette wrote:
I would
[quote=jficquette]
I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old.
[/quote]
How to Apply to the Police Academy in California
Read more: How to Apply to the Police Academy in California | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_4424989_apply-police-academy-california.html#ixzz0vs52Rgts
What’s stopping you…
August 6, 2010 @ 4:23 PM
Thanks, Arraya.
That’s
Thanks, Arraya.
That’s exactly what I was going to ask him.
Nobody forced anyone into the private sector. As a matter of fact, fire and police departments had a difficult time trying to find recruits during the boom years.
————-
The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.
In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/local/me-recruit2
—————-
It’s funny that these employees suddenly become “over-compensated” when the SHTF.
Nothing’s stopping anyone from joining their ranks. Go for it!
August 6, 2010 @ 4:41 PM
CA renter wrote:
Nothing’s
[quote=CA renter]
Nothing’s stopping anyone from joining their ranks. Go for it![/quote]
I’m sorry, taxpayers pay the bills.
If the public employees don’t like it, they can go to the public sector to make more, as they claim they could.
Opps, I’ve just become conservative. 😉
August 6, 2010 @ 4:48 PM
Brian,
Look at Mexico (and
Brian,
Look at Mexico (and certain parts of the U.S. as well) to see what happens when your police officers are not compensated well. They are the first line of defense against systemic corruption, and it’s extremely important that we have the highest standards for our recruits.
It’s imperative that seasoned officers and firefighters be kept in the ranks. It’s not the kind of sector that can handle a lot of turnover. Experience plays a crucial role in these jobs, and that’s why the pensions and healthcare benefits are required to retain experienced personnel during all the ups and downs of the economy.
August 6, 2010 @ 4:56 PM
One more thing…
While I
One more thing…
While I have always supported union workers and their benefits, I’ve stated before that the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis is a problem, as is the unbelievably optimistic return assumptions used by the pension funds.
FWIW, I think the public employers are working on a solution to the pension problem by off-loading the contribution requirements from the employer to the employee. After this is done, I believe the pension funds will change their calculations (particularly their projections for investment returns), and the employees will be on the hook for the new contribution requirements which (IMHO) may take up to 25-30% of their pay. This is totally MHO, and I have not heard anything official or unofficial, but it’s what I see coming, based on the facts.
August 6, 2010 @ 5:26 PM
CA renter wrote:Brian,
Look
[quote=CA renter]Brian,
Look at Mexico [/quote]
Look at America. For much our history firefighters were volunteers.
People would be more careful and not build in fire prone areas if firefighter were volunteers.
I have no problem with police officers being well compensated.
But I think that there’s something wrong when a security officer at LAX makes more than a new pilot. There’s also something wrong when a janitor makes more than a flight attendant.
Public compensation has grown too much in relation to the economy and in relation to the services that actually reach the citizens. It would rather the money goes to public housing and assistance to the poor. That’s what public service is all about.
Why build a library when we don’t even have a homeless shelter?
August 6, 2010 @ 10:19 PM
Brian,
You need to read up on
Brian,
You need to read up on the history of volunteer (and private — operated by the insurance companies) fire departments and why they went to public departments.
How long do you think it would take for someone to reach you with volunteer firefighters when you called 911 (not that 911 would exist in that “voluntary” world of yours)? Who is supposed to show up at accident scenes and provide timely, life-saving services?
A volunteer department might work in a very rural area with a sparse population, but it won’t work in an urban or suburban situation. BTW, how much do you want to bet that most of the people in those rural areas would love to have a full-time fire dept, but just can’t afford it?
August 7, 2010 @ 10:29 AM
Arraya wrote:jficquette
[quote=Arraya][quote=jficquette]
I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old.
[/quote]
How to Apply to the Police Academy in California
Read more: How to Apply to the Police Academy in California | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_4424989_apply-police-academy-california.html#ixzz0vs52Rgts
What’s stopping you…[/quote]
I hate this argument. I really do. It is a stupid ‘neener neener’ argument and in my opinion belittles the quite smart people using it.
First off, every tax paying voting american has a right to his or her opinion about the levels of services they want and the costs they are willing to pay for it. You are not allowed to vote with your feet, ie buy same product somewhere else, like you can in private buisness because this is government. So you vote with your, well, vote. and if someone doesnt agree with the pay structure or levels of compensation, then they have every right to object to it without fear of a ‘neener neener’. As Brian said, (oh god I am quoting brian! :-0 ) taxpayer pay the bills, they have a voice in this.
Second, last time I checked the fire departments in CA were having no trouble recruiting people. I have a friend who spent years, YEARS, after college trying to get a job with the fire department. The problem wasnt that they wernt hiring, just that they had too many people already on the list. I would think the wait is even longer now with this economy. The ‘we cant get enough people argument’ doesnt hold here. Maybe cops, but not firefighters who we seem to lump together all the time.
Third, I have heard both of the posters using this bad argument RAIL against the banks and their handouts/pilliging/bad managment. What is stopping you form being a banker? Go get yours! Hell I would think this would be even easier as bankers dont have formal age and health limits to join. Why fight them when you can join them?
Not a very good argument against corruption is it?
Why is it ok when one group of peopel, often called a special interest, rapes the taxpayers with lies, fear mongering and vote buying, but not others? Bankers provide very useful services that our economy couldnt do without. Why should we have any say on what they make? Heck, you can just vote with your feet with the banks. Dont like it, go bank with a foreign bank, or a credit union, or pay everything in cash. You dont HAVE to work with the banks who are the problem, you do with the governemnt workers. Which one is worse?
Finally, the assertations that the unions are working on fixing the pension crisis on thier own ranks right up there with the idea they are working on ‘managed competition’ too. BULL.
August 7, 2010 @ 5:15 PM
DWCAP wrote:Arraya
[quote=DWCAP][quote=Arraya][quote=jficquette]
I would love a job where I retired at 50-55 with $90k a year pension that I would collect until I am 90 years old.
[/quote]
How to Apply to the Police Academy in California
Read more: How to Apply to the Police Academy in California | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_4424989_apply-police-academy-california.html#ixzz0vs52Rgts
What’s stopping you…[/quote]
I hate this argument. I really do. It is a stupid ‘neener neener’ argument and in my opinion belittles the quite smart people using it.
First off, every tax paying voting american has a right to his or her opinion about the levels of services they want and the costs they are willing to pay for it. You are not allowed to vote with your feet, ie buy same product somewhere else, like you can in private buisness because this is government. So you vote with your, well, vote. and if someone doesnt agree with the pay structure or levels of compensation, then they have every right to object to it without fear of a ‘neener neener’. As Brian said, (oh god I am quoting brian! :-0 ) taxpayer pay the bills, they have a voice in this.
Second, last time I checked the fire departments in CA were having no trouble recruiting people. I have a friend who spent years, YEARS, after college trying to get a job with the fire department. The problem wasnt that they wernt hiring, just that they had too many people already on the list. I would think the wait is even longer now with this economy. The ‘we cant get enough people argument’ doesnt hold here. Maybe cops, but not firefighters who we seem to lump together all the time.
Third, I have heard both of the posters using this bad argument RAIL against the banks and their handouts/pilliging/bad managment. What is stopping you form being a banker? Go get yours! Hell I would think this would be even easier as bankers dont have formal age and health limits to join. Why fight them when you can join them?
Not a very good argument against corruption is it?
Why is it ok when one group of peopel, often called a special interest, rapes the taxpayers with lies, fear mongering and vote buying, but not others? Bankers provide very useful services that our economy couldnt do without. Why should we have any say on what they make? Heck, you can just vote with your feet with the banks. Dont like it, go bank with a foreign bank, or a credit union, or pay everything in cash. You dont HAVE to work with the banks who are the problem, you do with the governemnt workers. Which one is worse?
Finally, the assertations that the unions are working on fixing the pension crisis on thier own ranks right up there with the idea they are working on ‘managed competition’ too. BULL.[/quote]
DWCAP,
I know for a *fact* that fire departments were having a hard time finding qualified recruits during the boom. No offense to your friend, but he/she might not have been the most qualified (there are a number of tests and requirements, and any one of these might have disqualified him/her). They were offering signing bonuses for new firefighters, too. Yes, there are some hiring situations where you hear of “thousands” of applicants, but that’s usually in the larger departments, like L.A. City, when they have openings with almost no requirements (just HS diploma, no experience, etc.). These recruitment drives are due to the fact that they need a department that is “representative” of the areas they serve — affirmative action.
Most of the departments around here require paramedic certification as well as the completion of the fire academy/State Firefighter I certification (or one year experience in another department or volunteer/junior FF position) before they even apply.
BTW, I do agree that cops ought to be paid more, but that’s another topic.
————-
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.
August 7, 2010 @ 8:04 PM
[/quote]
FWIW, Arraya (and I)
[/quote]
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.[/quote]
Why pay public employees for life after retirment when private sector employees don’t get that?
You have to double their salary since they will likely collect it longer than they worked.
Why not pay them what it takes to get people to do the job and let them build their own 401k like everyone else??
August 7, 2010 @ 8:28 PM
jficquette wrote:CA renter
[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter]
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.[/quote]
Why pay public employees for life after retirment when private sector employees don’t get that?
You have to double their salary since they will likely collect it longer than they worked.
Why not pay them what it takes to get people to do the job and let them build their own 401k like everyone else??[/quote]
Good question.
Though I know there are differing opinions about this, I believe the private sector employees dropped the ball when they allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking unions were somehow “bad” for U.S. workers. Who do you think benefitted from that mindset? The workers who actually produce something, or the corporations (with their much higher margins and obscene executive pay)?
The truth is, all workers benefit from the existence of unions because non-union workers’ employers have to compete with union employers. Private sector workers have been able to ride the coattails of the (mostly public) union workers because of this. The private sector still offers a fairly competitve wage and benefits package because the employees could just jump into the public sector if the private employers weren’t competitve enough. The private sector employers had to retain their private sector workers in this more competitive (for employers) environment.
The demise of the unions in the private sector has meant the demise of defined benefit pension plans, employer-provided healthcare, ~40-hour workweeks, etc. Historically speaking, the private sector always did pay more than the public sector, but with the private sector unions faltering, the private sector workers have slipped behind.
Instead of trying to bring the public sector workers down with the private sector workers, why not leverage the work the public sector has done and begin bringing private sector workers back UP to where they belong?
As of today, the U.S. consumer (and worker) is still the powerhouse of the world. We still have some leverage because of this, but we will soon lose that leverage if we continue to allow corporations to define how business is done in this country.
Unions can back off from their special interest lobbying just as soon as corporations back off from their lobbying. Until then, be glad for these unions if you are one of the “working people.” They are all that stands between your lifestyle and the lifestyle of those in third-world countries.
August 7, 2010 @ 8:58 PM
Great post, CAR!
Great post, CAR!
August 10, 2010 @ 3:47 PM
CA renter wrote:
I know for a
[quote=CA renter]
I know for a *fact* that fire departments were having a hard time finding qualified recruits during the boom. No offense to your friend, but he/she might not have been the most qualified (there are a number of tests and requirements, and any one of these might have disqualified him/her). They were offering signing bonuses for new firefighters, too. Yes, there are some hiring situations where you hear of “thousands” of applicants, but that’s usually in the larger departments, like L.A. City, when they have openings with almost no requirements (just HS diploma, no experience, etc.). These recruitment drives are due to the fact that they need a department that is “representative” of the areas they serve — affirmative action.
Most of the departments around here require paramedic certification as well as the completion of the fire academy/State Firefighter I certification (or one year experience in another department or volunteer/junior FF position) before they even apply.
BTW, I do agree that cops ought to be paid more, but that’s another topic.
————-
FWIW, Arraya (and I) were responding to Jficquette’s assertion that he would love to have a job with these benefits. Our responses were perfectly appropriate.[/quote]
Well, considering he is now a firefighter, I guess he met those tough qualifications. No, it wasnt here in San Diego, it was in a simlar CA city, just one that is even more expensive. And I dont know where your facts come from, but here is the City of San Diegos view:
“Firefighter Recruit is one of the most popular entry level job classifications in the City of San Diego. In recent years, when the Basic Fire Academy asks for applications, the number of applicants far exceeds the number who can be accepted. Because of the immense interest in the position, the City of San Diego does not widely advertise Fire Recruit openings. Be aware the Fire Recruit position opens infrequently and the resulting eligibility list lasts one year.”
http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/recruit.shtml
August 10, 2010 @ 6:35 PM
DWCAP wrote:
Well,
[quote=DWCAP]
Well, considering he is now a firefighter, I guess he met those tough qualifications. No, it wasnt here in San Diego, it was in a simlar CA city, just one that is even more expensive. And I dont know where your facts come from, but here is the City of San Diegos view:
“Firefighter Recruit is one of the most popular entry level job classifications in the City of San Diego. In recent years, when the Basic Fire Academy asks for applications, the number of applicants far exceeds the number who can be accepted. Because of the immense interest in the position, the City of San Diego does not widely advertise Fire Recruit openings. Be aware the Fire Recruit position opens infrequently and the resulting eligibility list lasts one year.”
http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/recruit.shtml%5B/quote%5D
DWCAP,
From your link:
Examples of Fire Recruit Duties
Attends a 14 week paid Fire Academy which includes course work and practice in fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical training and State and local laws
Minimum Qualifications of Fire Recruit
Possession of a current valid Emergency Medical Technician Certificate issued by the State of California or by a EMT certifying agency approved by the State of California; County of San Diego EMT System ID Card; Certificate for Basic Life Support for the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Provider.
A valid California Class C Driver’s License
—————–
This is the type of opening I mentioned above, the ones designed to pull in as many minorities as possible. Most of the local departments do not have paid academies, the applicants have to attend an academy on their own time and with their own money. They also require *paramedic* certification which is very different from EMT certification.
Yes, lots of people will apply for the openings you’ve linked to above because there are basically no requirements other than EMT certification and a driver’s license; but the openings in departments that required already certified (paramedic and Firefighter I) and qualified applicants did not have long lines of *qualified* people applying.
Mind you, it’s not just having these classes/certificates that makes someone qualified. Applicants then have to go through a rigorous application process where they are tested for physical, mental, and emotional fitness. Prior experience (volunteer, junior FF, or paid FF experience) also plays a major role. The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.
August 10, 2010 @ 7:19 PM
CA renter wrote:DWCAP
[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP]
Well, considering he is now a firefighter, I guess he met those tough qualifications. No, it wasnt here in San Diego, it was in a simlar CA city, just one that is even more expensive. And I dont know where your facts come from, but here is the City of San Diegos view:
“Firefighter Recruit is one of the most popular entry level job classifications in the City of San Diego. In recent years, when the Basic Fire Academy asks for applications, the number of applicants far exceeds the number who can be accepted. Because of the immense interest in the position, the City of San Diego does not widely advertise Fire Recruit openings. Be aware the Fire Recruit position opens infrequently and the resulting eligibility list lasts one year.”
http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/recruit.shtml%5B/quote%5D
DWCAP,
From your link:
Examples of Fire Recruit Duties
Attends a 14 week paid Fire Academy which includes course work and practice in fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical training and State and local laws
Minimum Qualifications of Fire Recruit
Possession of a current valid Emergency Medical Technician Certificate issued by the State of California or by a EMT certifying agency approved by the State of California; County of San Diego EMT System ID Card; Certificate for Basic Life Support for the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Provider.
A valid California Class C Driver’s License
—————–
This is the type of opening I mentioned above, the ones designed to pull in as many minorities as possible. Most of the local departments do not have paid academies, the applicants have to attend an academy on their own time and with their own money. They also require *paramedic* certification which is very different from EMT certification.
Yes, lots of people will apply for the openings you’ve linked to above because there are basically no requirements other than EMT certification and a driver’s license; but the openings in departments that required already certified (paramedic and Firefighter I) and qualified applicants did not have long lines of *qualified* people applying.
Mind you, it’s not just having these classes/certificates that makes someone qualified. Applicants then have to go through a rigorous application process where they are tested for physical, mental, and emotional fitness. Prior experience (volunteer, junior FF, or paid FF experience) also plays a major role. The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.[/quote]
So your argument is that they get so many canadates who meet the basic qualifications, that they can be picky and choose ‘ideal’ canadates who are already trained and invested?
And this is the reason they have to pay premium salaries, sign on bonus’s, and better than anyone else (but cops) pensions/health care?
August 10, 2010 @ 10:35 PM
DWCAP wrote:
So your argument
[quote=DWCAP]
So your argument is that they get so many canadates who meet the basic qualifications, that they can be picky and choose ‘ideal’ canadates who are already trained and invested?
And this is the reason they have to pay premium salaries, sign on bonus’s, and better than anyone else (but cops) pensions/health care?[/quote]
If you open up positions for jobs that require no education, experience, etc., and offer free education/training *while being paid* to be on the job, how many people do you think would show up?
You have no idea how expensive the hiring process and training is for these jobs. It’s why most departments cannot afford to have these types of recruit positions — you’ll only see them in the big departments that have much larger budgets. With these positions, you also get higher turnover rates as recruits are dropped from the program and others are hired on. It is prohibitively expensive. When you have higher standards and entry requirements, you have less turnover, and much lower recruitment and training costs.
With all due respect, I think you guys are really naive about what these jobs entail.
Another reason for the high standards is the liability involved in the public sector. Litigious people are always looking for ways to sue the government because of the perception of “deep pockets.” That’s why the standards for public employees are actually much higher than for equivalent positions in the private sector. One slight misstep, and the public employer is on the hook. They cannot afford to have inept people in these very responsible positions. These positions are literally involved in life-or-death situations on a regular (often daily) basis. Contrary to popular belief, public sector employees are scrutinized in ways private sector employees could never imagine.
While people tend to think about the disgruntled DMV worker when discussing public sector workers, most public sector workers perform their jobs with the utmost integrity and professionalism. FWIW, you’ll hear very positive remarks from almost everyone who’s actually had encounters with firefighters.
August 10, 2010 @ 7:22 PM
CA renter wrote: The
[quote=CA renter] The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.[/quote]
I’m refudiating that argument.
I’m perfectly fine with loosening the standards to save money.
Like I said before, taxpayers’ money should be directed to the citizens who need it most, not so support a whole class of employees and functionaries.
We don’t need government paid firefighters or clerks with college education.
August 10, 2010 @ 10:12 PM
briansd1 wrote:CA renter
[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter] The standards are very high for these positions, as they should be.[/quote]
I’m refudiating that argument.
I’m perfectly fine with loosening the standards to save money.
Like I said before, taxpayers’ money should be directed to the citizens who need it most, not so support a whole class of employees and functionaries.
We don’t need government paid firefighters or clerks with college education.[/quote]
And I’m “refudiating” your claim that we should have less qualified people. 😉
Seriously, you won’t be saying that when you’re bleeding to death in a car accident, nor when you have a loved one in a hostage situation, nor if you have a child in a public school.
You believe that Americans (who are now in serious financial trouble) should allow every Third World resident to move here so we can provide free housing, healthcare, and education for them and their children. I would rather take care of our own first (and work on reversing the damage done to us by our “capitalist” system), and restore the health and wealth of the American middle class. These two conditions cannot exist together, so it’s unlikely our beliefs will ever meet.
I don’t like my tax money to be used to pay for unjustifiable wars around the world. I don’t want to pay for bankers/capitalists to make billions of dollars in profits because of bailouts, tax credits, or various loopholes designed by them. I don’t want to pay for all the world’s poor to come here and “work the system” for free education, healthcare, housing, etc. (not because I don’t feel for these people, but because we can’t sustain them without causing ourselves harm in the process — I’d rather see us help them in their own countries by eliminating corruption and assisting them with infrastructure as much as possible). The problem is that no matter what our politicians do with our tax money, somebody is going to be unhappy with the results. If there is one central theme around which my beliefs revolve, it’s that I want to see a healthy, sustainable middle class in the U.S. That would mean shrinking corporate margins, much less pay for our executive “talent,” and greater pay for the people who do the actual work (and support all the demand for these goods and services).
I support fair trade (trading only with other countries who have the same labor and environmental protections that we have) because it is OUR citizens who are the powerhouse behind all the demand. Without decent wages, we’ll have a much bigger problem with surplus capacity and dwindling demand. How do you propose that’s a good thing?
August 10, 2010 @ 10:24 PM
It looks like the loopholes
It looks like the loopholes are popping up in the sales tax proposal…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/10/questions-raised-on-language-in-sales-tax-hike/
”
Critics of the ballot measure point to a line that was removed from the sales tax ordinance before council adoption. The line reads: “None of the (reform) conditions may be excused for any reason including, but not limited to, inability to meet the condition due to legal restrictions or unforeseen circumstances.”
By removing the line, Faulconer said the council gave itself an out to avoid compliance with any of the conditions.
”
Who seriously thinks they will pass any reform here? If they were confident that they would, they would have left the line in.
Please vote no on giving more of your money to folks who won’t spend it wisely, but just to enrich themselves.
August 7, 2010 @ 5:41 PM
DWCAP wrote:
Third, I have
[quote=DWCAP]
Third, I have heard both of the posters using this bad argument RAIL against the banks and their handouts/pilliging/bad managment. What is stopping you form being a banker? Go get yours! Hell I would think this would be even easier as bankers dont have formal age and health limits to join. Why fight them when you can join them?
Not a very good argument against corruption is it?
[/quote]
Firstly, you have to have social/political connections to get those jobs at the banks/financial institutions. For the govt jobs, everyone who qualifies can join up! The govt takes great pains to make sure the job applicants are treated fairly, even having their own “affirmative action” requirements for women and minorities. It is specifically designed to be open to everyone who wants the job, and can qualify for it.
Conversely, it seems I (someone with NO banking experience, whatsoever) would have been more qualified for the bankers’ positions, as I certainly saw what was coming years before the “financial crisis” that apparently “nobody saw coming.” Either they are evil liars (which I believe), or they are exceptionally stupid and unqualified to do their jobs. In the meantime, we were told repeatedly during the fall 2008 period that these bailouts were necessary, and the bankers had to be paid handsomely, and not held accountable for their actions, because we had to retain their “talent” which has cost taxpayers far more than the unfunded obligations due the public service workers *who actually do something productive and useful for society.*
August 7, 2010 @ 7:06 PM
I believe that government
I believe that government employees should always be paid less than in the private sector.
There’s something un-American about a class of functionaries that govern us and are paid more to live in comfort.
The City of Bell is an example of the the government ripping off the citizens.
However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have social equity and protection for the poor.
August 6, 2010 @ 1:00 PM
bearishgurl wrote:briansd1
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1][quote=jimmyle]
I am not going to pay any more sales tax so the police and firefighters get to retire at around 50-55.[/quote]
They mostly retire on disability to avoid paying taxes (disability is not taxable).
Talk about gaming the system . . . [/quote]
brian, I was going to post this law-enforcement disability issue earlier but I disagree that these workers-in-the-trenches are “gaming the system.”
Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant][/quote]
Not exactly true… A portion of disability is taxable a portion is not.
Short term disability paid by the state is not taxable. Any supplemental paid by your company IS taxable.
Long term disability taxability depends on how it’s characterized.
August 11, 2010 @ 10:37 AM
bearishgurl wrote:Law
[quote=bearishgurl]Law enforcement/fire personnel in ALL jurisdictions have ALWAYS been under a different retirement system than run-of-the-mill government workers for this reason. By virtue of their job duties, they see and deal with traumatic and awful events daily (which eventually rent or own space in their brains) that you and me don’t come into contact with. Disability retirements (many for mental disability due to PTSD) for these workers are MORE COMMON than regular retirements and their retirement systems and biweekly contributions to it are set up for this.
Cut these men and women a break. Their jobs are no picnic. You might occasionally see a cop on a bicycle in shorts “having fun” on his/her beat in OB or MB but THIS IS NOT HOW the bulk of their “careers” are spent. I would venture that the vast majority of Piggs here would not care to touch their duties with a ten-foot pole. [end of rant][/quote]
X2 – I’m sick of hearing how much money cops and firemen get. Their job sucks. Do a ride-along w/a cop for a night. Breathe some smoke for 10 hours at the next brush fire. Maybe if you manage to be captain, you’re set. Everyone else pays a price. Seriously. Anyone who thinks they are banking dough for doing nothing, stop bitching about it and go apply. And good luck. Especially having a life.
August 5, 2010 @ 8:08 PM
briansd1 wrote:meadandale
[quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
[/quote]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
So, you’ll start complying with THE LAW when other people stop doing something that is currently legal? You decide to comply with those laws you agree with and disregard those you don’t?
I think I’ll take this approach with the health care law and everything else that has been passed by Obama/Pelosi/Reid, et al. I’m sure I’ll have your blessing.
August 5, 2010 @ 8:22 PM
tax away! I’ve stopped buying
tax away! I’ve stopped buying stuff locally years ago.
online shopping rules!
August 5, 2010 @ 8:45 PM
ocrenter wrote:tax away! I’ve
[quote=ocrenter]tax away! I’ve stopped buying stuff locally years ago.
online shopping rules![/quote]
That’s what I think.
I just love having stuff delivered to my door without me taking to effort to go out and buy it.
I never need anything right away so I’m perfectly happy to wait for the delivery.
ocrenter, I know that you don’t eat junk food, but Amazon also sells it on subscription basis to be shipped every so often.
August 5, 2010 @ 9:32 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I just love
[quote=briansd1]
I just love having stuff delivered to my door without me taking to effort to go out and buy it.
I never need anything right away so I’m perfectly happy to wait for the delivery.
[/quote]
online shopping allows quick and easy comparison as well as reading of reviews. save on gas and miles too.
and I actually do eat junk food. limited and infrequently. kinda like how I approach alcohol.
August 5, 2010 @ 8:40 PM
meadandale wrote:briansd1
[quote=meadandale][quote=briansd1][quote=meadandale]
You know that you’re supposed to report those tax free purchases to the FTB, right?
[/quote]
I’ll pay use taxes on my out of state purchases when homeowners stop deducting Mello Roos.
[/quote]
So, you’ll start complying with THE LAW when other people stop doing something that is currently legal? You decide to comply with those laws you agree with and disregard those you don’t?
I think I’ll take this approach with the health care law and everything else that has been passed by Obama/Pelosi/Reid, et al. I’m sure I’ll have your blessing.[/quote]
Mello Roos is mostly not deductible.
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/faq/net/909.shtml
As FSD posted, Mello Roos deductability and use taxes on mail-order, out-of-state purchases are highly misunderstood.
August 5, 2010 @ 9:52 PM
briansd1 wrote:… use taxes
[quote=briansd1]… use taxes on mail-order, out-of-state purchases are highly misunderstood.[/quote]
Not true. It relys on self reporting. Business does it as they have large transactions and will be depreciating new assets, expensing and are easily audited. Personal purchases just ignore the use tax law.
However keep a sharp eye on the new proposed provision for any sales over $600 to report on a 10-99 form. This is the first step in the IRS/States tracking these purchases and enforcing the tax collection.
Internet sales tax is a golden goose of untapped wealth to the government.
August 6, 2010 @ 8:38 AM
Hobie wrote:briansd1
[quote=Hobie][quote=briansd1]… use taxes on mail-order, out-of-state purchases are highly misunderstood.[/quote]
Not true. It relys on self reporting. Business does it as they have large transactions and will be depreciating new assets, expensing and are easily audited. Personal purchases just ignore the use tax law.
However keep a sharp eye on the new proposed provision for any sales over $600 to report on a 10-99 form. This is the first step in the IRS/States tracking these purchases and enforcing the tax collection.
Internet sales tax is a golden goose of untapped wealth to the government.[/quote]
I duisagree with your opinion that it is not highly misunderstood.
I think the vast majority of people confuse the Internet Tax Freedom Act with the lack of sales taxes on internet purchases.
Also, with mello-roos … they are misunderstood because they are identical to property tax in many ways, they act just like a property tax, they smell like a property tax, but in the end, they are not a property tax and are not deductible. Again, broadly misunderstood and mis-reported.
August 5, 2010 @ 12:52 PM
No. And the thing that the
No. And the thing that the powers that be should be really concerned about is that I almost always vote democrat, have never voted for a republican for president, and generally have voted for tax increases, school bonds, etc.
They have enough money. I’m not increasing my taxes because everyone else can’t handle their money.
August 5, 2010 @ 1:02 PM
I’m reasonably sure San Diego
I’m reasonably sure San Diego doesn’t have the authority to drop the sales tax rate to .5%. The statewide rate (I think) is currently 8.25%, with cities and counties adding up to 1.5% on top of that. City finances would collapse even worse than they already are with a .5% sales tax.
On the other hand, it sure would be a great thing for car dealers in the city.
August 5, 2010 @ 1:38 PM
I voted yes, San Diegan’s
I voted yes, San Diegan’s need to pay for the services that the city provides and if that means paying higher sales tax, by all means. I would vote to raise it even more.
August 5, 2010 @ 2:18 PM
Talk to any business owner
Talk to any business owner and you will hear a story where they underbid a job. Do you think their client is going to cough up the difference? Not much different in this case.
August 5, 2010 @ 2:29 PM
San Diego’s sales tax is
San Diego’s sales tax is lower than LA, and we have no utility tax too. That’s one reason why San Diego is broke.
August 5, 2010 @ 3:18 PM
I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike
I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.
August 5, 2010 @ 4:41 PM
Eugene wrote:I voted yes. A
[quote=Eugene]I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.[/quote]
I voted yes also, but would favor a 1% increase to bring it up to the same level that we suffer here in LA.
August 5, 2010 @ 4:54 PM
I vote NO by default on any
I vote NO by default on any prop. For me a bar to vote YES is high.
On this, I would reluctantly vote for temporary sales tax increase if I am convinced that it will fix the dysfunctional system of governance and rights the wrongs done in the late-90s in San Diego. However I am not convinced that this measure will achieve that, although this attempts it.
Several points:
[1] I read somewhere that courts might strike this down anyway because one prop can be only about one issue and that tax increase can not be contingent on something else happening.
[2] They are saying that tax increase will only happen if certain things happen, for example there are concessions in pensions. What does that mean. Is $1 concession good enough? or $1k? $1mm? $100mm? It seems like we can be fooled once again.
[3] Will this tax be truly temporary? Many opponents claim that the way this measure is written, this won’t be temporary.
I agree with the tough love philosophy and I’m looking forward to this fall when our city leaders actually start discussing issues facing our city (Seriously, what have they been doing all this time? They had many years to do something and this had boiled down to a hastily written prop cobbled together on one weekend!)
I’m afraid that the labor laws are so protective of union benefits that the only realistic way to obtain any meaningful concessions from unions is under bankrupcy (or a threat thereof).
August 5, 2010 @ 5:05 PM
California Facing A Sales Tax
California Facing A Sales Tax Decrease
So while SD taxes may be going up, our total State taxes will be going down. They’ll just be going down less.
August 5, 2010 @ 5:12 PM
can someone explain the
can someone explain the following about the city that I don’t understand.
[1] How is it that they can find money to build downtown library but no money for staffing fire stations, fixing roads or paying their share of pensions? I know that General fund pays for one and some other fund pays for other. But who gets to decide which money gets where? And why is it that money can not be transferred from one fund to another when the idea does not make sense?
[2] Why is that library not put up for public vote but city hall needs public vote?
August 5, 2010 @ 5:24 PM
enron_by_the_sea wrote:can
[quote=enron_by_the_sea]can someone explain the following about the city that I don’t understand.
[1] How is it that they can find money to build downtown library but no money for staffing fire stations, fixing roads or paying their share of pensions? I know that General fund pays for one and some other fund pays for other. But who gets to decide which money gets where? And why is it that money can not be transferred from one fund to another when the idea does not make sense?
[2] Why is that library not put up for public vote but city hall needs public vote?[/quote]
The library will allegedly be funded entirely by private donors. The problem is that they are not waiting to get all the funding before they start the building…
Maybe that answer #2 as well.
August 5, 2010 @ 8:07 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:
The
[quote=Rich Toscano]
The library will allegedly be funded entirely by private donors. The problem is that they are not waiting to get all the funding before they start the building…
Maybe that answer #2 as well.[/quote]
The $185 million library is not entirely funded by private donors.
August 5, 2010 @ 10:06 PM
briansd1 wrote:
Public
[quote=briansd1]
[/quote]
I think downtown looks good enough already.Maybe it is good time to wind down CCDC and use that money for some useful things other than shiny empty buildings and white elephants! VOSD today ran a piece on that today…
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/peoplespost/villagepeople/article_cd1deff6-a0bb-11df-bff0-0017a48e4382.html
August 6, 2010 @ 12:00 AM
briansd1 wrote:Rich Toscano
[quote=briansd1][quote=Rich Toscano]
The library will allegedly be funded entirely by private donors. The problem is that they are not waiting to get all the funding before they start the building…
Maybe that answer #2 as well.[/quote]
The $185 million library is not entirely funded by private donors.
[/quote]
Brian’s post highlights exactly what I’ve seen in the public sector. The workers are NOT the problem. So much money is wasted in ways that are entirely unproductive and are usually the result of some political payment. We need to eliminate this before we can talk about harming the workers who actually perform the services that are supposed to be provided by the govt.
August 6, 2010 @ 12:02 AM
higher taxes on all
higher taxes on all consumption, yes.
August 6, 2010 @ 7:09 AM
Eugene wrote:I voted yes. A
[quote=Eugene]I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.[/quote]
Bankruptcies are just what the cities need. How did Vallejo turn out?
Many of the cities are bankrupt and keep trying to kick the can down the road with higher and higher taxes and fees.
August 6, 2010 @ 8:09 AM
no_such_reality wrote:Eugene
[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Eugene]I voted yes. A 0.5% tax hike sure beats city bankruptcy. Besides, I do most of my shopping outside the city limits anyway.[/quote]
Bankruptcies are just what the cities need. How did Vallejo turn out?
Many of the cities are bankrupt and keep trying to kick the can down the road with higher and higher taxes and fees.[/quote]
What happens when a city goes bankrupt?
August 13, 2010 @ 3:22 PM
captcha wrote:
What happens
[quote=captcha]
What happens when a city goes bankrupt?[/quote]
They can abrogate the contracts that were strangling the citizens and return salaries to a normal level.
In the case of Vallejo, 90% of the city budget was paying police and fire salaries and pensions.
Firefighters making 300K per year. It was lunacy. Complicit politicians seeking the endorsement of the firefighters union signed a contract promising Vallejo firemen that they would always have the second highest salaries in the state.
Don’t try and convince me these community college graduates are worth that.
The fact that they get 3000 applicants for each opening speaks volumes.
If a city is bankrupt, the responsible thing to do is declare bankruptcy and restructure.
August 5, 2010 @ 7:06 PM
I’m assuming you mean an
I’m assuming you mean an increase of .5% and voted No, only because HELL NO was not an option.
I think there’s much waste in San Diego government that needs to be cleaned up. No more taxes. Being a La Mesa resident I won’t get a real vote, but plan on voting with my feet and never shopping in San Diego should it pass.
August 5, 2010 @ 7:30 PM
Increase tax on tobacco,
Increase tax on tobacco, booze, and lastly plastic surgery. Maybe not tobacco but the other two are doing well in cali.
August 5, 2010 @ 8:41 PM
LAAFTERHOURS wrote:Increase
[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]Increase tax on tobacco, booze, and lastly plastic surgery. Maybe not tobacco but the other two are doing well in cali.[/quote]
Aren’t they going to tax tanning salons?
August 6, 2010 @ 9:47 AM
Raise taxes my ass. Time to
Raise taxes my ass. Time to cut pensions and pay for San Diego government workers.
Retiring at nearly full pay is ridiculous and has to be stopped. It’s a total rip off of the lower class private sector employee.
John
August 6, 2010 @ 1:12 PM
“Raise taxes my ass. Time to
“Raise taxes my ass. Time to cut pensions and pay for San Diego government workers.
Retiring at nearly full pay is ridiculous and has to be stopped. It’s a total rip off of the lower class private sector employee.”
I’ve worked for the government early in my career and since then in private industry. I had the choice of government’s lower salary but a killer retirement package or higher salaries in private industry but a less secure retirement. I chose the later, but given how pensions and even 401K matching is a thing of the past, I don’t know that I made the right choice.
I hear lots of griping about government employee’s fat pensions, but I don’t hear anyone lining up for their salaries.
August 6, 2010 @ 7:03 PM
Give the City of San Diego
Give the City of San Diego MORE money and they will IMMEDIATELY increase pensions and salaries of senior administrative staff – many by 30 – 50%. At the same time they will lay off policemen, and GASP!!! firefighters. Besides it will not make any difference. Sales will just slow even more and they will get more of an even smaller pie. SORRY but those pensions??? They are illegal and they must go. Bankruptcy is San Diego’s only hope at a future as a viable city!!!
THE ILLEGAL PENSIONS MUST BE STOPPED!!! They were not funded which is a violation of State and Federal law. The criminals who dusted our city by approving these should be immediately arrested and charged!!!
August 6, 2010 @ 11:32 PM
No.
Sales taxes are
No.
Sales taxes are regressive. Cali already has a ridiculous sales tax. Raise property taxes, keep jacking up taxes on hotel rooms, cut spending, anything but a sales tax increase.
August 7, 2010 @ 11:20 AM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent]No.
Sales taxes are regressive. [/quote]
I agree.
Sales taxes are regressive. That’s why I’m against them. Sales taxes hit the poor the most.
I personally don’t see any fire or police problem in San Diego.
I think the the city should declare bankruptcy, wipe out all the contracts and start fresh.
August 7, 2010 @ 1:17 PM
I wonder how things would be
I wonder how things would be now, had Shea won the election in 2004 and convinced SD to file BK back then:
http://recall.uniontrib.com/news/metro/pension/20060619-9999-1n19bankrupt.html
August 7, 2010 @ 1:56 PM
I wonder what would happen if
I wonder what would happen if a county/city or state became less dependent on debt like consumers and “saved” money for city projects?
It sounds the main downside of BK is limited bond options down the line. Debt is the issue for most companies so depending less on debt/bonds can’t be a bad thing I’d imagine.
Then again, I doubt we really can trust government to tax us for a city project and actually leave it in a “locked box” for said project. 🙂
Amazing that the pension issue was the main problem back then and is the big problem now as well…
August 7, 2010 @ 5:02 PM
pabloesqobar wrote:I wonder
[quote=pabloesqobar]I wonder how things would be now, had Shea won the election in 2004 and convinced SD to file BK back then:
http://recall.uniontrib.com/news/metro/pension/20060619-9999-1n19bankrupt.html%5B/quote%5D
I think Shawn McMillan had the same idea when he ran for mayor a few years back. (He’s a UC local, so there were a lot of candidate signs in my ‘hood.)
August 7, 2010 @ 12:54 AM
Enough is enough, no increase
Enough is enough, no increase in sales tax. The more they have, the more they will find to spend it on, and will be back later for more. Increasing taxes has always been the easy way out for politicians, for it allows them to avoid the really tough decisions that need to be made.
August 7, 2010 @ 10:24 PM
Sorry!
Unions speak for
Sorry!
Unions speak for benefit of union members and union members only not for anyone else’s.
Businesses speak for the benefit of business only and not for anyone else’s
If you are a taxpayer/consumer who does not belong to these two groups, then no one of them is speaking/acting for your benefit.
Unionization = paying more product/service than demand/supply dictates.
excess corporate profits = paying more product/service than demand/supply dictates.
August 7, 2010 @ 10:36 PM
enron,
You’re missing the
enron,
You’re missing the link between that demand and the pay of U.S. workers. Where do you think the demand comes from?
August 8, 2010 @ 7:25 AM
I would vote “No” and
I would vote “No” and encourage everyone to vote no to any tax increase unless the city takes aggressive steps to cut spending and radically reduce city pensions. I don’t see this happening.
Voting for taxes to support a city that has made such reckless fiscal decisions is madness. I mean, what’s the definition of insanity? Doing more of the same while expecting a different result. Giving the same set of idiots who caused the problem more money after they’ve proved themselves incapable of making wise fiscal decisions seems to fit the definition well.
The best course of action by concerned citizens would be to defund the existing system until the necessary spending cuts and austerity actions are forced on the city. Don’t be sheep when it comes to taxes. Take effective action that goes beyond your vote, as the votes are manipulated and the voter’s easily duped.
I write this from Nevada, where I moved both myself and my business from San Diego last November because of California’s worsening business and tax environment. Voting with one’s feet is sometimes the most effective way to send a message…the extra $50,000 I’ve saved on my cost of living doesn’t hurt either.
August 8, 2010 @ 1:30 PM
There are must-have expenses,
There are must-have expenses, and then there are various “projects” aimed at guaranteeing self reelection and other political paybacks. I challenge any supporter of the tax to prove mathematically that current San Diego tax revenue is not enough to pay for quality services like police, FF, etc.
August 8, 2010 @ 2:25 PM
Exactly, Sandi Egan.
People
Exactly, Sandi Egan.
People don’t realize how much money is spent for political reasons that have nothing to do with the basic services that should be provided by the govt.
August 10, 2010 @ 3:26 PM
I disagree CAR. High american
I disagree CAR. High american pay comes from the fact that americans are still the most productive workers in the world. Higher productivity allows for higher profits and wages. Unproductive workers can demand and strike and bitch all they want, no one will employ them unless the money is there to pay them. If their productivity is below their costs, then economies either sustain high unemployment, or just shut down.
The private sector unions, as a generalization, drove their employers into the ground, it wasnt some kinda brain washing from Republicans. The pay, benifit, and work rules they demanded were not competitive in the world market, and it was deadly. The surviving employers saw it coming and got out, but all too many didnt. Just think of the Auto companies if you want an example. Ford survived by the hair of it chinny chin chin after smart managment saw the writing on the wall. GM and Chrysler survived by public decree only.
The public sector can’t really go under. I guess they could go bankrupt, but they cant really die and be replaced. Consequently it was in the best interests of the officals running the show to not rock the boat, as the unions were able to mobalize lots and lots of votes and money. They did this for their own benifit, and not anyone elses. Infact, alot of it has been done to the detrment of the taxpaying non-union public. We may or may not have realized it, but the underfunding of the public pensions in the past was the same as overspending of tax reciepts. Now the money has been spent, the bills due, and no one wants to pay. We will pay in either higher taxes or lower services, all for services that have already been rendered or negotiated. This was not done for the benifit of anyone but those in the unions. And private employees dont benifit from this kinda rules because private employers are under the rules of economics. If costs are too high, buisness relocate or downsize. If public expenses are too high, they just demand more money.
August 10, 2010 @ 11:00 PM
DWCAP wrote:I disagree CAR.
[quote=DWCAP]I disagree CAR. High american pay comes from the fact that americans are still the most productive workers in the world. Higher productivity allows for higher profits and wages. Unproductive workers can demand and strike and bitch all they want, no one will employ them unless the money is there to pay them. If their productivity is below their costs, then economies either sustain high unemployment, or just shut down.
The private sector unions, as a generalization, drove their employers into the ground, it wasnt some kinda brain washing from Republicans. The pay, benifit, and work rules they demanded were not competitive in the world market, and it was deadly. The surviving employers saw it coming and got out, but all too many didnt. Just think of the Auto companies if you want an example. Ford survived by the hair of it chinny chin chin after smart managment saw the writing on the wall. GM and Chrysler survived by public decree only.
The public sector can’t really go under. I guess they could go bankrupt, but they cant really die and be replaced. Consequently it was in the best interests of the officals running the show to not rock the boat, as the unions were able to mobalize lots and lots of votes and money. They did this for their own benifit, and not anyone elses. Infact, alot of it has been done to the detrment of the taxpaying non-union public. We may or may not have realized it, but the underfunding of the public pensions in the past was the same as overspending of tax reciepts. Now the money has been spent, the bills due, and no one wants to pay. We will pay in either higher taxes or lower services, all for services that have already been rendered or negotiated. This was not done for the benifit of anyone but those in the unions. And private employees dont benifit from this kinda rules because private employers are under the rules of economics. If costs are too high, buisness relocate or downsize. If public expenses are too high, they just demand more money.[/quote]
The history is long and convoluted, but I believe our higher pay is due to the fact that we bombed our (manufacturing) competition into the ground and made our currency the world’s reserve currency.
While we’re certainly productive, there are plenty of productive people out there who are willing to work for far less. However, the fact that we were so well paid helped pave the way for the demand that sustained our (and the world’s) economy for so long. As time passed, and our competitors rebuilt, we shifted from being higher wage earners to taking on unbelievably large debt loads. This sustained our consumption for the past few decades, most notably the blowoff top during this past decade.
In the meantime, while U.S. workers were seeing stagnant/declining wages, our access to credit forced prices of everything sky high — stocks, bonds, housing, commercial real estate, cars, etc. At the same time, corporate margins reached peak levels, and the wealth became ever more concentrated at the top (where I believe all the policies that led to the credit bubble and diminished wages/outsourcing originated).
Check out this chart on corporate profits:
“According to BEA data via the St. Louis Fed, after-tax corporate profits reached an all-time record high of $1.369 trillion in the first quarter of 2010 (see chart above).”
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/08/02/chart-of-the-day-record-corporate-profits-in-q1/
—————
“Although before-tax profits rose 8.7% per year during the 1990s, household disposable income increased only 5.2%, while consumption of goods and services rose only 5.7%.
Continued acceleration of corporate profits defied commonsense.
Why should profits continue to increase faster than household income and spending?”
http://www.capital-flow-analysis.com/investment-essays/profits_population2.html
——————
“This New York Times graph illustrates that while corporate profits are at the highest share of the G.D.P. since the 1960s, the take home pay of the typical worker is actually the lowest on record as a share of the same G.D.P.”
http://digg.com/business_finance/Corporate_profit_as_share_of_G_D_P_rising_wage_share_at_new_low_Graph
—————–
So…we disagree about the reason for the demise of private sector unions. The sheeple were brainwashed into thinking collective bargaining was not in their best interests so that the corporations, investors, and exectives (and all the businesses and politicians who rode this wave) could maximize their wealth at the expense of U.S. workers.
I do not for a moment believe that workers are the cause of our problems. The root of our problems is greed…at the very top.
August 10, 2010 @ 11:20 PM
CA renter wrote:
In the
[quote=CA renter]
In the meantime, while U.S. workers were seeing stagnant/declining wages, our access to credit forced prices of everything sky high — stocks, bonds, housing, commercial real estate, cars, etc. At the same time, corporate margins reached peak levels, and the wealth became ever more concentrated at the top (where I believe all the policies that led to the credit bubble and diminished wages/outsourcing originated).[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you.
But if US workers’ wages are stagnant and declining, government workers should proportionately share the economic pain.
Is there no good argument to tax people whose wages are declining to pay increasing government salaries. Seems totally out of the realm of reason to me.
A speeding ticket in CA is now about $450. In other states it’s about $80. We all know that tickets are all about revenue.
Something is way out of whack with California finances. (And unauthorized immigrants are not the problem. That’s just scapegoating.)
August 10, 2010 @ 11:29 PM
Brian,
I’ve stated before
Brian,
I’ve stated before what needs to be done to fix the pension problem, and firmly believe we will see some major changes there — and I support these changes.
Also, while I strongly support unions and decent wages for ALL (legal) U.S. workers, some unions have admittedly gone beyond what I think is reasonable.
That being said, we have to draw the line on lower wages/benefits somewhere. As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.
BTW, do you realize that we could be working with perhaps ~75% of our current public workforce if we didn’t have an illegal immigration problem? Prisons, education, and healthcare…the biggest drain on our taxes in California, and where the burden of illegal immigration is most strongly felt. We cannot afford to pay for the world’s poor. It’s simply a matter of economics. We are broke.
August 11, 2010 @ 10:23 AM
CA renter wrote:As long as
[quote=CA renter]As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.[/quote]
How’s that related? Why don’t unions try to squeeze money from the super rich and leave the taxpayers alone?
August 11, 2010 @ 10:32 AM
Sandi Egan wrote:CA renter
[quote=Sandi Egan][quote=CA renter]As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.[/quote]
How’s that related? Why don’t unions try to squeeze money from the super rich and leave the taxpayers alone?[/quote]
I agree Sandi Egan. I don’t see any effort to squeeze money from the super rich.
The little people are paying more and more in sales taxes, parcel taxes, fees, fines, etc… (all regressive taxes).
August 11, 2010 @ 3:20 PM
briansd1 wrote:Sandi Egan
[quote=briansd1][quote=Sandi Egan][quote=CA renter]As long as the top is getting wealthier, then there is no excuse for cutting the wages and benefits of the working people.[/quote]
How’s that related? Why don’t unions try to squeeze money from the super rich and leave the taxpayers alone?[/quote]
I agree Sandi Egan. I don’t see any effort to squeeze money from the super rich.
The little people are paying more and more in sales taxes, parcel taxes, fees, fines, etc… (all regressive taxes).[/quote]
I absolutely favor a steeply progressive income tax, and would tax passive income at the same rates (or higher!) than earned income. I’m very opposed to regressive taxes, including sales taxes, VAT taxes, and the much-vaunted (by supply-siders) flat tax.
August 11, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
CA renter wrote:
I absolutely
[quote=CA renter]
I absolutely favor a steeply progressive income tax, and would tax passive income at the same rates (or higher!) than earned income. I’m very opposed to regressive taxes, including sales taxes, VAT taxes, and the much-vaunted (by supply-siders) flat tax.[/quote]
Good. Let’s vote NO to this proposed sales tax increase.
August 12, 2010 @ 8:39 AM
joec – City Attorney is the
joec – City Attorney is the main guy so I would compare him to the main guy in a private law firm. I’d like to compare apples to apples. If you want to look at the salary of a non-partner at a law firm, then look at the salary of a Deputy City Attorney.
August 12, 2010 @ 8:38 PM
jpinpb – Oh well, I guess we
jpinpb – Oh well, I guess we would just have to disagree with this comparison and analogy. Does that mean the major of San Diego should make 17 million because Paul Jacobs, CEO of Qualcomm made that last year and he’s in San Diego?
Or the president of the US should get a few billion because Warren Buffett had a good year and gained back 5 bil or whatever last year? Apples to apples right?
Puleeze…
Private corporations and employees in the private sector should not be treated the same as public officials, public employees. It’s as simple as that IMO and I suppose we’ll just have to disagree here.
Maybe that’s why we’re in this mess to begin with. Every public sector worker thinks that just because Goldman Sachs (which is ripping us off, I know) has a few mil for each partner, they all deserve their share as a city/county employee and it’s ok to rip everyone else off to get it.
I suppose I agree a little with flu on an earlier post on compensation for certain jobs/positions. If you want to work in the public sector and get elected, paid and supported by your constituents, that’s one thing, but your job is to serve the public, not to maximize your own pay as high as you can.
If you don’t like that, work in the private sector then.
August 12, 2010 @ 8:52 PM
joe – Why would you try to
joe – Why would you try to compare Warren Buffett’s job to that of the President of the US. That is the very reason I said to compare apples to apples.
I tried to make it easy and thought the job of an attorney might be a good example. I don’t work in the public sector. I could not deal w/the political BS. I wish I could. I was offered a job 25 years ago and I’d be retired by now.
August 13, 2010 @ 4:28 PM
CA renter wrote:I absolutely
[quote=CA renter]I absolutely favor a steeply progressive income tax, and would tax passive income at the same rates (or higher!) than earned income. I’m very opposed to regressive taxes, including sales taxes, VAT taxes, and the much-vaunted (by supply-siders) flat tax.[/quote]
And at what rate and level do you think these should happen?
In California, if you have $1 million in income, you get 10.3% marginal rate.
Fed rate adds, 35%, likely to return to 39.6% on expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That’s a 45% hit on each extra dollar.
August 13, 2010 @ 4:43 PM
Rolling back the Bush tax
Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would be the first step in the right direction.
August 13, 2010 @ 8:33 PM
That didn’t answer the
That didn’t answer the question.
What’s the reality behind the rhetoric lately?
August 13, 2010 @ 10:02 PM
If I posted what I really
If I posted what I really thought about tax rates and income levels, I’d never hear the end of it. Suffice it to say, the wealthiest 1-5% of our population would be up in arms.
August 14, 2010 @ 8:27 PM
Are you afraid those 1-5% you
Are you afraid those 1-5% you want to tax would be up in arms, or anybody aspiring to succeed would be up in arms?
[quote=CA renter]If I posted what I really thought about tax rates and income levels, I’d never hear the end of it. Suffice it to say, the wealthiest 1-5% of our population would be up in arms.[/quote]
August 14, 2010 @ 9:26 PM
no_such_reality wrote:Are you
[quote=no_such_reality]Are you afraid those 1-5% you want to tax would be up in arms, or anybody aspiring to succeed would be up in arms?
[quote=CA renter]If I posted what I really thought about tax rates and income levels, I’d never hear the end of it. Suffice it to say, the wealthiest 1-5% of our population would be up in arms.[/quote][/quote]
No, just the 1-5%. I think more people are beginning to grasp the fact that “hard work” is not going to make them “successful.” We’ve been sold down the river by the top 1-5% who are mostly managerial types, middlemen, and “dealmakers”/capitalists/gamblers (whichever you want to call them) whose sole purpose in life is to make more money…at everyone else’s expense. The very top are not at all productive. They are parasites who suck the blood of consumers and workers all around the world.
The unfortunate thing is that they also hold all the power in the world…at least until the wokers/consumers unite against them. That’s why we’re hearing all the “anti-union” rhetoric. Who do you think controls the MSM, and what do you think is the driving force behind the redirection of our anger against the bankers/capitalists to the union workers?
August 14, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
The universal truth is that
The universal truth is that everyone claims that everyone else, but them, gets a better deal out of our tax system.
To me, this observation points to a strong possibility that our current taxation system is very close to optimal… I must be the only person in the USA who thinks that 😉
August 11, 2010 @ 10:49 AM
CA renter wrote:I do not for
[quote=CA renter]I do not for a moment believe that workers are the cause of our problems. The root of our problems is greed…at the very top.[/quote]
X2
August 11, 2010 @ 12:01 PM
Two things to consider
Two things to consider regarding the pay of public sector employees.
1) The abuse of overtime hours should be intolerable. Is it safe for police/fire personal to work 60+ hour weeks? http://www.ocregister.com/articles/overtime-189762-firefighters-fire.html
2) As much as we all appreciate the services they provide, I don’t believe wealth should be a motivation for these careers as it is now (especially with firefighters). Public service employees are now earning more than their private sector counter-parts. So much for a “higher calling.”
August 11, 2010 @ 12:04 PM
The blanket statements bother
The blanket statements bother me. This is something that comes to mind when talking about public sector versus private sector. Take, for example, the City Attorney. I’m pretty sure the City Attorney makes far less than an attorney in the private sector generally. As mentioned somewhat in other posts, public jobs usually paid less than private, but then get other benefits like healthcare and pension. That’s the incentive. This allows the private sector to receive a higher salary and plan their own retirement how they see fit.
August 11, 2010 @ 7:28 PM
jpinpb wrote:The blanket
[quote=jpinpb]The blanket statements bother me. This is something that comes to mind when talking about public sector versus private sector. Take, for example, the City Attorney. I’m pretty sure the City Attorney makes far less than an attorney in the private sector generally. As mentioned somewhat in other posts, public jobs usually paid less than private, but then get other benefits like healthcare and pension. That’s the incentive. This allows the private sector to receive a higher salary and plan their own retirement how they see fit.[/quote]
In the past, public jobs paid less, but in every recent study, public jobs actually paid more with better benefits (more vacation, holidays, sick leave, better retirement options, more perks).
In regards to private attorneys, they don’t make anywhere near as much as people think, especially in San Diego. This is from personal experience. Perhaps in San Fran when you make EQUITY partner, but for most folks, I’m sure billing hours for a salary at a mid/small firm is no where near what the city attorney makes.
To back up that with data, I did a quick google search and here’s some high salary’s popping up…
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6180942/Highest-paid-public-employees-ranked.html
Escondido city attorney got 206k back in 2006/07. A few other city attorneys got 190k.
I think there are some attorneys here. What do you see at your firms?
The old belief that “I am doing public service for lower pay, more stability, better benefits” is way off now.
The new public employee has higher pay, better benefits, more job security and more perks than their private counterpart. For profit business tends to cut pay, layoffs, etc when times are tough, in the public sector, the sh*t can be hitting the fan, but they still vote to give themselves raises.
August 11, 2010 @ 1:43 PM
Maybe the issues stem from
Maybe the issues stem from the large military population buying on base and not paying sales taxes.
August 12, 2010 @ 9:51 PM
I for one think there’s an
I for one think there’s an opportunity to seek new revenue sources. And tie together two threads 🙂
http://www.theonion.com/articles/proposition-8-overturned,17877/
“Proposition 233, a new law requiring all couples who seek a marriage license, regardless of their sexuality, to submit a detailed plan for returning California to fiscal solvency”