On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:02:53 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-07 16:15, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:49:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-04 16:55, John B. Slocomb wrote:


[...]

But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02
trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing,
since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from
other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay
for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase
or the state will go bankrupt.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/


The pension boondoggle has to be curbed. That is the only solution.


You mean that a guy ought to work for twenty years and not get any
form of retirement pension?


Get a reasonable retirement. Not 90% of salary at 50 or 55.

Why ever not? While I did retire after 20 years in the A.F. with a 50%
of salary retirement pay had I stayed until 50 years of age I'd have
received 75%.

But more to the point, the retirement pay problem that California
faces is not the fault of the retirees who entered into a contract
with the state possible 20 or 30 years ago and now are being paid a
retirement that was specified in their contracts. The fault lies with
the state that certainly should have been able to foresee what their
liabilities would be in 5, 10, 20 years and did nothing about it.

But what is the solution? It appears that there are two options, (1)
renege on the contracts that the state offered to individuals who they
employed, which would probably result in a mammoth class action suit
against the state in which I suggest that any reasonable court would
support the retirees; or (2) increase State income, probably by
increasing taxes.