Seattle...MSN got it backwards
 

wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

Bill

- show quoted text -

"A bunch in California. Â*They get 3% per year of service of their last yearsÂ*
salary. Â*Unfortunately the public service people spike their last yearsÂ*
income. Â* Do not take vacation for 5 years, add that to the final yearsÂ*
income, add all the overtime possible, any unpaid sick leave. Â*Any privateÂ*
company defined pension plan goes either on an average of the last 5 years,Â*
or excludes unpaid vacation and overtime and sick leave."Â*


Say what?
We didn't get to add overtime, vacation pay or anything else to boost up
the average of the last 5 years salary when calculating our
pension...just 2 percent per year of Service of that last average five
years salary. That is...70 percent was the highest for 35 years or more of Service.

You needed a stronger union.
It certainly helps when your union can negotiate from both sides of
the table. They have the union reps talking to the politicians who owe
them for getting their job.
The whole concept of government unions was thought to be illegal until
the middle of the 20th century. Now they are bankrupting cities and
states as those workers reach retirement age.
A big part of the problem is the politicians raided the pension plans,
if there was actually any money being set aside in the first place.
Now they have tens of thousands of retirees and nowhere near the
revenue to make those plans whole.


CalPers, the state retirement plan, said they could raise everyone to 3%
from 2% a year rate, without any additional funds during the dot.com boom.
F’n politicians went along. Now is something like an extra $80 million
annual contribution from the general fund. And state constitution says we
can not lower it. CalPers if it was a private trust fund would have the
managers in jail. They forecast a return rate every year. Mostly been
an 8% forecast. This year they dropped it to 7%. Annual returns have
been in the 4% or less for years.

Seattle...MSN got it backwards
 

On Saturday, 5 May 2018 13:09:34 UTC-3, John H wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 11:25:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 05:21:08 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, John H wrote:
In 2003, Seattle declared itself a 'sanctuary city'. Now they have the third largest homeless
problem in the country. I think the article has it backwards. It seems like Seattle is trying to
punish Amazon for providing a lot of employment by charging Amazon $500 per employee. I sometimes
wonder how the 'news' comes up with its headlines. Faced with that kind of tax, Amazon is putting
expansion plans on hold. Sounds quite reasonable. I'd be looking at North Carolina or Arkansas!??

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/comp...ob-fb-enus-894

I wonder how Seattle or let alone Washington state would like it if Amazon relocated elsewhere? It could happen.

This is a head tax on every worker in Seattle and Amazon is not the
only company rethinking operation in that city. California and now
Washington are rapidly becoming a place where there are only very rich
people and very poor people with the middle gutted out. This just goes
farther in that direction.

This would cost Amazon, with the 7000 new jobs, $26,000,000/year. That may be a drop in Amazon's
bucket, but it's a pretty big drop. I still can't figure why MSN attempts to portray Amazon as the
'bad guy'.

Not that long ago there was a competition for a new Amazon plant. Halifax put forward a proposal but didn't make the short list.

Seattle...MSN got it backwards
 

On 5/5/18 3:35 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:03:22 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 18:47:19 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/5/18 11:39 AM, wrote:

This has as much to do with unrestrained promises forced on the people
by public service union contracts as immigration.
The pittance an immigrant gets is nothing like the six figure
retirements drawn by people who never made close to that much in most
of their working life.
A few weeks ago there was a story in the papers about a disgraced
fireman, forced into retirement over sexual allegations but we can't
feel too sorry about him. They will be paying him around $160k a year
He got a separation check of another $130k or so and he didn't even
have to **** Trump. He just ****ed the tax payers.

To make matters worse, they take that money out of state when they
retire (who wants to pay those nosebleed taxes) so it is just rust
belt tax payers sending money to the sun belt.



We can be sure that *all* *most* *many* public service employees who
retire are drawing six figure retirement pensions, right?

So, tell us, just what percentage of retired municipal or state workers
who never "made close to that much" are drawing six figure retirements?


A bunch in California. They get 3% per year of service of their last years
salary. Unfortunately the public service people spike their last years
income. Do not take vacation for 5 years, add that to the final years
income, add all the overtime possible, any unpaid sick leave. Any private
company defined pension plan goes either on an average of the last 5 years,
or excludes unpaid vacation and overtime and sick leave.

Hopefully, you and Greg have straightened Harree out. More 'authoritative blabbing' as Tim would
say.

I am sure Harry thinks those people deserve all they can squeeze from
the tax payers. I notice he is not living in one of those overtaxed
places and he is moving even farther away from them.
After all of his bitching and whining about how badly the south sucks,
he is moving right into the heart of it.
I guess he has to follow the money wherever she wants to go.
The only question is whether he will be telling us about how
enlightened and erudite his neighbors are or whether he will still be
calling them terra cotta toothed rednecks.


There you go again, making up fantasies. I've told you several times, we
moved here because it was close to the Bay, and a new house like we
wanted was too rich for our blood in Annapolis. We have county, state,
and sales taxes here.

When we move to Hilton Head, it'll be to take advantage of the climate,
the waterways, the restaurant and shopping venues and Savannah and
Charleston, et cetera, and it is as far south as both of us could
tolerate. Neither of us want to live in Florida. Oh, and because of the
demographics of Hilton Head, my wife will be able to work as a therapist
some when she wants, and make a relatively high hourly rate. Outside of
Miami, Florida's rates are pretty crappy. I don't expect to find much in
the way of erudition in South Carolina. :)