entitlements

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by biosurfer1

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.

Does anyone really work 40 hrs a week? I work over 60...and that doesn't include sleeping.

[biosurfer1]

Do you have a choice in working 60 hours a week or is only 40 required and you work more?

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by Moses

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.

I agree with Moses. I think that public safety Associations ("unions") should refuse to enter into any contract that stipulates to any overtime whatsoever.

FORCE the cities to hire an adequate amount of personnel to fully staff all public safety positions, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

[RoninLB]

not that I'm bored, but

Many FDNY view LAFD as the golf and country club set. I'd call that relative thinking.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

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.

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.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Dottore

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.

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?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

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.

Don't give me any ideas. Bring on the flat tax with NO exemptions, credits or deductions and I'll be satisfied pensions and all. Eliminate the IRS. The Treasury Dept sans the IRS could handle that. There would be no refunds.

I know I digress and I know that my "buddy's" pension will be an anomaly soon. When we get entitlements plus medical to an equilibrium across the population, we will be much better off. I'm sick and tired of the spreading of the upper class and the lower class with shrinkage of the middle class. At this point, I consider the potential 200K income of my "buddy" to be upper class, although it isn't.

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.

[Jim Sims]

Originally Posted by Moses

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?

I seem to recall the courts not letting municipalities off the hook by means of bankruptcy: they were instructed to raise taxes (this is always interesting thing for the courts to try to mandate), reduce services (including laying off people) or sell assets under court supervision if necessary to meet their contract obligations.
The solution will likely be honoring the existing contracts, not making additional contracts of this type and raising taxes. Perhaps California should tax obesity, freeway use and the wearing of open toe shoes if one has ugly toes. Budget would be in the black quickly.

[Zeke]

What's more, the state has pulled back the share of revenue that it gives to the cities. This on top of less overall revenue ratio to expenses. I think you can see at least one solution there. Give me the governorship and control over the state legislature and I'd rip this place a new one. Flat tax to start with and a hell of a lot less bureaucracy. I wasn't once, but I am now big time for contracted services.

The city of Mission Viejo has never had a municipal parks of streets dept and yet is one of the cleanest, lush places in SoCal.

[Zeke]

What's more, the state has pulled back the share of revenue that it gives to the cities. This on top of less overall revenue ratio to expenses. I think you can see at least one solution there. Give me the governorship and control over the state legislature and I'd rip this place a new one. Flat tax to start with and a hell of a lot less bureaucracy. I wasn't once, but I am now big time for contracted services.

The city of Mission Viejo has never had a municipal parks of streets dept and yet is one of the cleanest, lush places in SoCal.

[fintstone]

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

[Moses]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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

Actually, it works the other way around. Rural municipalities provide far less in tax revenues than they consume. The big cities subsidize rural public services.

[fintstone]

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.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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.

A worth goal, but rural communities could never afford public schools or police and fire services. Never.

[fintstone]

They just couldn't afford the same services as the cities. Most rural communities that I have lived in had a volunter fire dept. If schools did not take federal and state money...they would not have to waste so much time on PC stuff and could actually educate the children. My rural school did not have any of the niceties that suburuban or city schools did...and they did just fine. My achievement scores were in the top 1% in the nation...of course we were not tested on "Heather Has Two Mommies."

[David]

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.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by milt

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.

Shopping for a place where your pension dollar will go further is as old as retirement itself. That's why Spain is full of Brits and Germans. That's why others head to Costa Rica, the Philippines and Thailand. Or to Greece or South Africa or wherever. Why not Idaho - although that certainly wouldn't be my fist choice.

This is also big business. As boomers retire, everyone wants to get the most for their pension dollar. Assisted living places are springing up in India, where, for example you can get into a modern house on a beach, plus a full time nurse for very little money. All part of globalization I guess.

I have an uncle from Germany who retired in Chiang Mai (Thailand) , and who lives very, very well there. He wouldn't trade it for the world. Has a beautiful house there for which he paid less than $50,000 a few years ago, and all the toys. He used to go back to Germany to visit each year. Now he just couldn't be bothered anymore - he likes his new home too much.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Moses

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?

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.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 125shifter

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.

It may be true at NASA...but I doubt it. If not illegal....it certainly is close. I know that in DoD, the govt cannot fund a party. the only parties I have seen in my 32 years service were private...and either required attendees to pay or were paid in full by a single person (usually a guy getting promoted).
I do imagine if a fellow won a job-related national level award...the government would likely pay for his travel to receive it though...just like any other employer.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Dottore

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.

Pensions aside for the moment, when it is that we get a chance to vote for elected employees of our government that will do what they said they would do and we voted them to do? Bills laden with pork and favors are illegal IMO.