On 8/17/2017 7:57 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:36:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-16 17:41, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:55:26 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-15 16:55, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:09:32 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-08-14 20:09, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

... After Prop 13, there
are few property tax dollars for transportation projects. Maybe SMS
can weigh in on this. But I do know you pay practically nothing for
property tax. I probably paid that much 20 years ago for a dinger
house in a sketchy part of town.


Why did you do that?

Assuming that you are a normal, intelligent person the question might
arise as to why you immigrated almost half way round the world to
settle in a state with, perhaps the highest tax burden in the U.S.,
and now complain about it?


Sometimes people have to do job-related moves.

Ah, you mean that design of small electronic devise was no longer done
in Europe so one had to immigrate the New World?


Cutting edge medical ultrasound technology had dried up rather fast over
there. That was my field of work.


Then, like in my case, one can hardly predict when years later a IMO not
very competent governor ruins the works. Oh well, some day we might
move. Southern Utah looks good. So does Northern Arizona.

But Good Lord! How else can the government get the money to build the
bicycle paths that you demand in the name of SAFETY unless they DO
increase taxes?


They increase taxes to give government workers a whopping 50% retirement
raise. Now the local and state bureaucracies no longer know how they are
ever going to pay for that.


Are you sure about that?

My understanding was that retirement for state employees was funded by
CalPERS which I read has, as of June 30, 2014, CalPERS managed the
largest public pension fund in the United States, with $300.3 billion
in assets.

But you seem to be saying that the retirement for the 1.6 million
(2014) retired state employees is paid directly by the California
state government.


After all, any suggestion of asking the bicycling public to pay for
their tiny little highways meets with a united front - "WE DON'T WANNA
PAY!" So what else can the state do? Why, tax everyone. In this way
the bicycling fanatics won't be singled out as if everyone is taxed
then everyone is treated equally. Political correctness at its best!


No. Privatize. Hire non-government contractors to build bike paths. That
is cheaper and result in better quality. We've got some prime examples
in my area how not to do it.

But where is the money coming from? You don't want to pay taxes but
you want non-government contractors. Are there non-governmental
contractors that work for free?

in re pension/benefit obligations:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/st...ions-data.html

It's not just New Jersey and Illinois- they just got caught
sooner[1].

One might think that $300 billion of assets is a large pile
of money. In the real world, maybe. For Calpers, it is not.
It's insufficient and their earnings projections are pure
fantasy - they fall short every year. A public stock company
who tried a pale portion of public pension shenaningans
would see its directors & officers jailed and the firm
bankrupted promptly.

It's worse than that chart shows as the off-book unfunded
public obligations are not huge, they are garganatuan.

My state is an absolute anomaly with full funding. The rest
suck to various degrees of profligacy all of which will
punish their children severely from destitution to slavery
and nothing is getting any better.

But hey, any politician will vote for spending whose bill is
due after his terms are at an end. Adults with adult
sensibilities are scarce in the field.


[1] Puerto Rico is in a class by itself, sadly.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971