Originally Posted by biosurfer1 (Post 3948528)

My dad was a firefighter for 30 years, retiring last May. I will refrain from personal opinions on this thread but there are some facts that remain lost.

Has anyone brought up the fact that firefighters work an average of 56 hours/week?? It is true that some of those 56 hours are spent sleeping, however at anytime they can get called out to work, for the entire 24 hours if needed. Engine 9 in Stockton, CA had MULTIPLE days over his career with 25+ calls in a 24 hour period...you do the math to how much sleep they got.

56 hours/week is not new, since day 1 of my dad joining, he worked 56 hours/week. Over his 30 year career, that means he worked 18720 more hours than a 40 hour/week job. It also means that $$/hour is also different. For example, that $100k a year is the equilvant of a 40 hour/ week worker getting $70k.

Originally Posted by Moses (Post 3948021)

In California it IS true. That's the point. I work with these guys every day. I don't know anyone who makes less than $100,000/year with overtime. And they get lifetime medical and 90% salary on retirement. It's a matter of public record.

Originally Posted by Jim Sims (Post 3948363)

Declaring something an excessive entitlement and reducing it after it was awarded and agreed upon legally and in good faith is a slippery slope. All fortunes and property of any consequence depend on the civilization and infrastructure in which we exist. The "self made man" is a myth if one is referring to anything of significance - "no man is an island." For example Pelican Parts couldn't exist without the external physical infrastructure we all paid for/subsidized. Therefore, it can be argued that anything can be renegotiated (or effectively confiscated). Nothing really belongs to anyone, if society decides otherwise. It could be decided that the true cost of Moses's medical education was only a fraction of what he paid and therefore he suddenly owes three million more dollars to pay for the full share. There are myriads of other examples from the value of military flight training when one leaves the service to the fortunes made in real estate or the financial markets. It isn't one guy all by his lonesome making the fortune. The argument of reducing retirement benefits due to other income could be extended to all income - why does anyone need more that $50K (or $100K or whatever amount) to live? Why not tax anything above that amount at confiscatory levels. Be careful what you propose for others; it could be applied to you.

Originally Posted by Dottore (Post 3949241)

Great post.

These are precisely the sorts of difficulties you get into when you start to re-negotiate contractual entitlements. What about the guy who inherits big, or wins a lottery? Do you cut his entitlement because he doesn't need it anymore?

Once you go down this road you will get into endless absurd situations where everyone has to fear that someone will make a grab for their fixed income.

Originally Posted by Jim Sims (Post 3948363)

Declaring something an excessive entitlement and reducing it after it was awarded and agreed upon legally and in good faith is a slippery slope. All fortunes and property of any consequence depend on the civilization and infrastructure in which we exist. The "self made man" is a myth if one is referring to anything of significance - "no man is an island." For example Pelican Parts couldn't exist without the external physical infrastructure we all paid for/subsidized. Therefore, it can be argued that anything can be renegotiated (or effectively confiscated). Nothing really belongs to anyone, if society decides otherwise. It could be decided that the true cost of Moses's medical education was only a fraction of what he paid and therefore he suddenly owes three million more dollars to pay for the full share. There are myriads of other examples from the value of military flight training when one leaves the service to the fortunes made in real estate or the financial markets. It isn't one guy all by his lonesome making the fortune. The argument of reducing retirement benefits due to other income could be extended to all income - why does anyone need more that $50K (or $100K or whatever amount) to live? Why not tax anything above that amount at confiscatory levels. Be careful what you propose for others; it could be applied to you.

Originally Posted by Moses (Post 3949252)

I understand the point you and Jim are making and I agree, in principle.

The issue in California is complex. A desperate governor facing recall attempted to secure critically needed support by offering California firefighters a 30% pay raise and a 90% retirement package with medical benefits. Of course the financial burden falls to the cities and counties where the firefighters work. Now several cities are considering bankruptcy because they cannot meet the enormous obligations imposed by the new retirement plan. Keep in mind, the new retirement plan only went into effect in 2006. In terms of financial impact, we are truly looking at the "tip of the iceberg".

So what would you propose? Do we honor the contract and let a few cities go bankrupt leaving firefighters with no retirement at all? Do we renegotiate the retirement package in a way to restore solvency to the cities? Do we increase taxes in California yet again to cover the shortfall?

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 3949314)

Why use state funds for cities anyway? Why should folks in rural CA pay for the fire dept in LA?

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 3949330)

It is all just a bunch of influence-buying. Federal taxes should pay for things that are inherently federal. State taxes for state responsibilities...and cities should tax for their own services.

Originally Posted by milt (Post 3949264)

That's another point as well. His salary and his retirement are based on the cost of living in CA. Now he takes his money and flees to ID displacing or adding to the population off ID. He makes their cost of living higher and they have no way to achieve parity. Don't argue that fact, it's true.

Originally Posted by Moses (Post 3949252)

I

So what would you propose? Do we honor the contract and let a few cities go bankrupt leaving firefighters with no retirement at all? Do we renegotiate the retirement package in a way to restore solvency to the cities? Do we increase taxes in California yet again to cover the shortfall?

Originally Posted by 125shifter (Post 3949457)

I'm amazed at some of the stuff I hear gov't employees doing (NASA comes to mind).

I here stories of being flown cross country for big lavish award ceremonies (i.e. parties).

When I ask them about it, they say they get these perks because they don't get paid as well as the private sector.

Well, for the most part the private sector doesn't throw big expensive parties and retirement is a thing of the past.

I'm lucky enough to catch the transition from a full retirement plan to no retirement plan. I get 4% of my salary put in a retirement account, but any new hires only get the 401K match. This is a Fortune 500 company.

Originally Posted by Dottore (Post 3949500)

Of those options, the only sane one is the last one.

But Milt is right, the tax system is just seriously fecked, and in theory many of these issues could be avoided with a complete overhaul of the system. But there is no political will for this.

Although flat tax is absolutely the way to go. But the tax bureaucrats will always find a way to resist this because it will make them obsolete very quickly.