Posted on 02/09/2010 8:31:47 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (CBS 5 / AP) ― The state controller's office on Tuesday found that California taxpayers are on the hook for more state government retiree health benefits than previously thought.
Controller John Chiang's office issued a report showing the growing divide between what the state owes retirees for health and dental benefits and what it has saved so far.
The gap has grown to nearly $52 billion, about $3.6 billion over last year's estimate.
...
"Even as we try to claw our way out of the recession and provide needed cash to the state's coffers, we cannot ignore the promise that we made to pay health and dental benefits for current state employees," Chiang said in a statement. "I urge lawmakers to reduce the impact on future generations by putting additional dollars into the annual payments so that we can invest those funds."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs5.com ...
but they DO pay market price....from day one...its a myth that govt employees don’t enjoy good wages and benefits...thats what is so laughable, if not disgusting...
NOT THE TOP OF THE LIST
“Special Nurse” $350,000+
Municipal railway manager:$325,000+
“Administrative services” department head $280,000+
State college workers salaries:
JEFF TEDFORD UC BERKELEY HEAD COACH-INTERCOLG ATHLETICS $2,831,654
PHILIP E LEBOIT UC SAN FRANCISCO PROF OF CLIN___-MEDCOMP-A $1,979,362
TIMOTHY H MCCALMONT UC SAN FRANCISCO PROF OF CLIN___-MEDCOMP-A $1,945,717
RONALD W BUSUTTIL UC LOS ANGELES PROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-A $1,570,897
RICHARD J SHEMIN UC LOS ANGELES PROFESSOR-MEDCOMP-A $1,195,837
KHALIL M TABSH UC LOS ANGELES HS CLIN PROF-MEDCOMP-A $1,048,891
BEN BRAUN UC BERKELEY HEAD COACH-INTERCOLG ATHLETICS $998,569
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1669273.html
=================================
CalPERS Expected To Report Losing Nearly One-Quarter Of Investment Portfolio [$56.8 B Loss]
LATimes | July 20th 2009, Marc Lifsher
FR Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 by Steelfish
CalPERS expected to report losing nearly one-quarter of investment portfolio The estimated $56.8-billion drop at the U.S.' largest pension fund, the second annual loss in a row, would have a huge effect on what state and local governments must shell out to support retirees. Reporting from Sacramento -- California's huge government pension fund is expected to report on Tuesday a whopping annual loss of an estimated $56.8 billion, almost a quarter of its investment portfolio.
The loss at the California Public Employees' Retirement System for the fiscal year ended June 30 is the second in a row for the country's largest fund. A year ago, CalPERS reported a $8.5-billion loss, as the severe recession began to take hold. The tremendous drop in value is expected to have a direct effect on the amount of money that the state and about 2,000 local governments and school districts must contribute in coming years to pay for pensions and healthcare for 1.6 million government workers, retirees and their families.
As income from the pension investments fall, the governments would have to make up the difference to meet the state's pension and healthcare obligations. In the fiscal year that ended a year ago, CalPERS' holdings in stocks, private equity, real estate and commodities positions were worth $239.2 billion. They fell to $182.4 billion on June 30, down 23.7%, according to daily postings on the fund's Internet site. CalPERS hit a record-high balance of $247.7 billion on June 30, 2007, and it earned double-digit returns for the five fiscal years from 2002-03 to 2006-07. Without those kinds of flush years, CalPERS could have a difficult time getting the average annual return of 7.75% that its actuaries say it needs to meet obligations to retirees without drastically raising employer contributions. (Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Just days before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislators finalized a water package, including an $11.1 billion bond issue, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer warned them not to do it. California is already deeply in debt, Lockyer warned, has huge budget deficits and can't afford another big bond issue. "The days of blithely heaping more and more debt burden on the general fund are over – at least they should be," Lockyer said.
The earmark-laden bond issue, the package's single most controversial element, raises an interesting question: Just how deeply in debt are Cali state and local governments? The answer: No one knows for certain, since debt is scattered through myriad agencies in many forms, but well over a half-trillion dollars is a fair estimate.
Lockyer's warning pertained to the state's "general obligation debt," which currently stands at $59 billion, and there are an additional $50-plus billion in general obligation bonds that have not yet been sold.
The biggest chunks of debt, however, are the unfunded obligations for pensions and health care of retired public employees. (Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
=================================================
And these profligate pols expect the feds to bail them out with OUR tax dollars.
Of course, this may initially sharply raise unemployment but eventually it might reduce government take and burden on California citizens and make their state Golden again.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money" - Margaret Thatcher
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" - Alexis de Tocqueville
Yesterday Glenn Beck pointed out that Oprah has a huge mansion in CA but doesn't pay ANY real estate taxes because she doesn't live there 'full time'. Oprah actually has a staffer whose job is to keep track of how many days Oprah 'lives in CA', to avoid paying taxes.
Multiply this by every Hollyweird 'movie star' who has numerous residences. Plus the 'Limo Lib Rich' who pull the same scam in Palm Springs and are 'part time CA residents'.
(I can't recall if this also affects any CA Income Tax the Limo Libs are avoiding by living there 'part time'??)
Hmm ~ and you work in wage and salary administration for which private company?
IMHO when California finally collapses - it will be like one of those building implosion videos.
A puff of smoke, then quicker than you expect, it all falls into a dusty pile of rubble.
CA probably has a couple more good years in it, but the state is clearly rushing headlong toward some sort of messy situation.
Probably one involving the Mexican border, in some way.
So how did Oprah sneak that one past California? Must have some really stupid tax laws.
Oh, I know what it is ~ not PROPERTY TAX, but INCOME TAX. California has this deal where if someone makes a lot of money somewhere else but they come to California for so many days the state tries to tax all of the income somewhere else.
They even tried to snag federal government retiree pay ~ so some schlub who ever got sent on a trip to California for two weeks to do something about some federal government issue there (a federally financed dam perhaps) found his retirement pay taxed by CA even though he didn't live there, didn't want to live there, and after that kind of treatment, would never live there.
I do believe the Supreme Court slapped your laws down several years back.
No, you don't get to tax incomes in other states!
Glenn also took a shot at that phony Rocker, Bono ('raise taxes and give the poor all your money'). As soon as Ireland raised all its taxes, Bono moved his corporate business to the Netherlands were the taxes are much much lower.
Debt requires accrual of interest in the here and now.
For example the state issues a bond to build a toll bridge. The bonds begin bearing interest from the day they're issued. Might take 5 years to build the bridge, but in the meantime the bond and its earned interest increase. Then, the bridge is opened, tolls begin to be collected, and the bonds begin to be paid off. After a period of time, e.g. 35 years, the bonds are fully retired and the government owns an old bridge.
Let's say you hire an employee and you promise him that when he retires 40 years from now you'll pay 25% of his retirement medical care insurance premium.
For the next 40 years you pay nothing for the retirement benefit. Then, on the very day you retire the last bond on the bridge you begin to pay the employee's retirement medical care insurance premium.
Two other differences ~ you can probably continue to collect tolls on the bridge earning billions of dollars for no effort on the part of the state, but with the employee you get no more work of any kind out of him when he retires.
The lesson ~ BUILD MORE BRIDGES and HIRE FEWER EMPLOYEES. The fact that California got it backwards does nothing to persuade folks elsewhere that they ought to bail you out!
Glenn's pyrotechnics tend to garble what he's trying to say.
At this point I simply don't believe Oprah has managed to cut a tax deal better than the one I have with California.
My deal is I don't reside there temporarily, but I do visit from time to time for different periods of time. Since I never perform any work there (since I'm retired) I owe them nothing.
If I stayed long enough to become a state resident I could end up paying them taxes. At the same time they'd owe me beaucoup benefits because I'm getting older ~ I don't think I'd pay as much taxes on my income as I could game out of their corrupt system.
Your tax people were actually targeting folks like me several years back ~ wanted to tax us proportionately for our vacation days ~ and all in violation of federal law that's been on the books since FDRs day when they set up Social Security.
The deal with Oprah is that Glenn is making a claim that Oprah must be a "resident" because, lo and behold, she owns a house in California. The facts are that she owns property a lot of places ~ and that doesn't make you a resident ~ if the property is commercial in nature, you could have a turnover tax levied on the level of business conducted there, and if it's separately incorporated, there could be a state corporate income tax levied.
Still, visting CA even if you own a mansion there does not turn you into a taxable resident ~ provided you don't stay long enough to become a resident.
BTW, California universities allow out of staters to pay instate tuition after about one year attending school in California.
Indiana, in contrast, requires out of stater's to pay out of state tuition until they've lived in Indiana "other than to attend school" for about a year ~ which is really difficult to trick.
Seems to me California could adopt stiffer standards regarding residency.
While getting to poke 2 celebrities, Beck’s larger point was that high California taxes FORCE people out of the state, to shelter money, to go underground. His main point was that California needs to lower taxes to get rich people back into the state, and then California’s tax receipts would go up.
He underscored this point with the example of New Jersey losing $70 billion in net worth from millionaires who fled the state when they passed a millionaires tax.
The point was that rich people will pay the least they can, and a large disparity in state taxes will cause them to find a low tax state, as big disparities in national taxes will cause rich and corporations to go overseas.
His point was simple. LOWER TAXES to receive more MONEY.
True.
And he also mentioned how NJ is bleeding millionaires due to their high taxes
But I just couldn't overlook California Tax Dodger Oprah. (that just has a nice ring to it)
(Plus that phony mope Bono who now skates from Ireland's high taxes)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.