California is the only state to hide its spending – nearly $300B a year(forbes.com)
forbes.com
California is the only state to hide its spending – nearly $300B a year
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/12/07/california-is-the-only-state-to-hide-its-spending/
281 comments
> Suggesting that a firefighter or a teacher are "overpaid", is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
Why? It is perfectly fair for a taxpayer to question public spending, including for salaries. It is when we stop questioning, or start making statements that we should not question something, that we end up with a situation that spending go out of whack since there is no oversight. BTW, that is exactly what happens in the case of CEO compensations also.
Secondly, regarding $150K+ salaries for teachers, how do these salaries compare to the salaries of fresh Asst. and Associate Profs at Universities. Many of them are paid lower I believe, for example Assistant Prof. at UC Berkeley seems to make about $100K [0]. So, there needs to be some oversight around teacher salaries also to make sure that the salaries are actually going to well educated competent teachers and not the ones with some random degree from the University of Phoenix or similar. Education and experience in teachers should be rewarded and the salaries should not be flattened.
EDIT: To add, there are student evaluations for Profs at all Universities. Where are the student/parent evaluations of public school teachers? How are they graded? How are they promoted? Assessment results? If so that is not the correct method, since IMHO it depends more on the parents than it does on teachers. I'll hypothesize, put a bad teacher from a crappy school district in a currently great school district and I guarantee the scores will not change much, if at all.
[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/uc-berkeley-associate-pro...
Why? It is perfectly fair for a taxpayer to question public spending, including for salaries. It is when we stop questioning, or start making statements that we should not question something, that we end up with a situation that spending go out of whack since there is no oversight. BTW, that is exactly what happens in the case of CEO compensations also.
Secondly, regarding $150K+ salaries for teachers, how do these salaries compare to the salaries of fresh Asst. and Associate Profs at Universities. Many of them are paid lower I believe, for example Assistant Prof. at UC Berkeley seems to make about $100K [0]. So, there needs to be some oversight around teacher salaries also to make sure that the salaries are actually going to well educated competent teachers and not the ones with some random degree from the University of Phoenix or similar. Education and experience in teachers should be rewarded and the salaries should not be flattened.
EDIT: To add, there are student evaluations for Profs at all Universities. Where are the student/parent evaluations of public school teachers? How are they graded? How are they promoted? Assessment results? If so that is not the correct method, since IMHO it depends more on the parents than it does on teachers. I'll hypothesize, put a bad teacher from a crappy school district in a currently great school district and I guarantee the scores will not change much, if at all.
[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/uc-berkeley-associate-pro...
A professorship is a prestige position that’s subject to extreme competition. Berkeley can get away with paying their faculty barely enough to survive because every newly minted PhD dreams of becoming a professor. The same isn’t true of a grade school teaching job. People aren’t lining up to babysit a bunch of misbehaving kids.
> A professorship is a prestige position … Berkeley can get away with paying their faculty barely enough to survive …
Per that logic FAANGs should be paying the least to their software engineers, since prestige..
Sorry, but while I’ll agree there may be something to it when comparing one university to another, it doesn’t add up when comparing a K-12 school teacher to a PhD faculty.
Moreover that was just an example, other universities’ salaries are similar..
Per that logic FAANGs should be paying the least to their software engineers, since prestige..
Sorry, but while I’ll agree there may be something to it when comparing one university to another, it doesn’t add up when comparing a K-12 school teacher to a PhD faculty.
Moreover that was just an example, other universities’ salaries are similar..
FAANG employment derives its prestige from the compensation.
It’s supply and demand, not prestige. There are few perfessorship positions, and many qualified to do it, so there is great supply. In this case, supply is high even without high pay due to the prestige.
FAANG high salaries are due to the low supply of engineers skilled enough. Otherwise, FAANG would not compete on pay. As high as FAANG pays, supply is still not high enough to lower pay significantly.
OP is arguing that teachers should not be compared to professors because supply may still not be high relative to demand. Additionally, the job is still essential enough to keep demand high despite lack of prestige.
FAANG high salaries are due to the low supply of engineers skilled enough. Otherwise, FAANG would not compete on pay. As high as FAANG pays, supply is still not high enough to lower pay significantly.
OP is arguing that teachers should not be compared to professors because supply may still not be high relative to demand. Additionally, the job is still essential enough to keep demand high despite lack of prestige.
The K-12 job is usually a hell of a lot harder. In most cases you have to have knowledge in more than one subject, and then deal with whatever psychological issues the students present - whether that's starting fights in class or just not wanting to participate.
In a university setting a problematic and disruptive student just gets kicked out. Nowhere near as much drama.
In a university setting a problematic and disruptive student just gets kicked out. Nowhere near as much drama.
Especially becoming a prof at a top tier school like Berkeley. Part of the compensation is generally thought to be the ability to have that school on your resume. Its like getting a job at FAANG but instead of tech for resume passing in academia
Can we decouple the high-prestige teaching from the low-prestige babysitting? Meaning, restructure in such a way that different people can specialize in each.
Teachers do not make 150k in SF. The pay schedules are public [0].
If you’re comparing entry level professorship at UC Berkeley, then the highest paid position for a first-year teacher with the maximum number of extended education credits (since I assume you need a higher degree for professorship) is 69k.
[0] https://www.sfusd.edu/information-employees/labor-relations/...
If you’re comparing entry level professorship at UC Berkeley, then the highest paid position for a first-year teacher with the maximum number of extended education credits (since I assume you need a higher degree for professorship) is 69k.
[0] https://www.sfusd.edu/information-employees/labor-relations/...
If you want your fellow citizens, workers, doctors, etc. to all be morons, then I'd say paying teachers poorly is a good way to go about it.
It's also a good way for a country to fall behind.
It's also a good way for a country to fall behind.
Not sure where in my comment I’m advocating for paying teachers poorly.
I’m merely objecting to the fact that the salaries can’t be questioned by tax payers, and am questioning what is the metrics used in their promotion, since I’ve never seen any input ever being solicited from students/parents unlike in universities. I want the same standards employed.
Ideally I want the salaries to be high enough to attract highly qualified people who are subject matter experts and not random barebones online degree holders.
In addition, I’m saying that the university faculty salaries are low. So in fact I’m advocating for those to be higher.
I’m merely objecting to the fact that the salaries can’t be questioned by tax payers, and am questioning what is the metrics used in their promotion, since I’ve never seen any input ever being solicited from students/parents unlike in universities. I want the same standards employed.
Ideally I want the salaries to be high enough to attract highly qualified people who are subject matter experts and not random barebones online degree holders.
In addition, I’m saying that the university faculty salaries are low. So in fact I’m advocating for those to be higher.
> I think my favorite would be this one [3], where they assert that a $150,000 salary in San Francisco is excessive.
When it's almost 19,000 public employee's being paid over $150,000 in SF, that kind of does sound excessive especially in the context of a budget deficit.
> These public workers are in charge of essential duties. Suggesting that a firefighter or a teacher are "overpaid", is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
It-least in [3] they never use the word Teacher. They do claim the average Firefighter Comp is 191,000 in SF. Maybe it's not 191K but isn't there some number where people in charge essential duties can be "overpaid" ?
When it's almost 19,000 public employee's being paid over $150,000 in SF, that kind of does sound excessive especially in the context of a budget deficit.
> These public workers are in charge of essential duties. Suggesting that a firefighter or a teacher are "overpaid", is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
It-least in [3] they never use the word Teacher. They do claim the average Firefighter Comp is 191,000 in SF. Maybe it's not 191K but isn't there some number where people in charge essential duties can be "overpaid" ?
> that kind of does sound excessive
I don't know about you, but I'd have to compare it to cost of living references and public employee's per capita to begin to have an understanding. Even if I had that, there are many other factors I'd want to explore: what's the impact of CoL and commuting? What's the impact of employees not living in the jurisdictional area? What are the structural systems which function to determine salaries, both as an interaction with labor markets and those that have been institutionalized? If I was hired as a consultant to make judgements on SF public spending, in short, I'd do my due diligence.
I don't know about you, but I'd have to compare it to cost of living references and public employee's per capita to begin to have an understanding. Even if I had that, there are many other factors I'd want to explore: what's the impact of CoL and commuting? What's the impact of employees not living in the jurisdictional area? What are the structural systems which function to determine salaries, both as an interaction with labor markets and those that have been institutionalized? If I was hired as a consultant to make judgements on SF public spending, in short, I'd do my due diligence.
Is it not enough to just say that we should pay people market rates? If the true cost of a firefighter in California is indeed 190k then thats what they should be paid. If its lower then they are overpaid and if its higher than they are underpaid.
This is not to say that firefighters are not essential workers, of course they are. We can make an argument that every firefighter should be paid 500k or 1 million. Heck, they save lives, so why not 10 million?
Ultimately, the vast majority of people not in public sector work doesn't get to make these kinds of arguments, and are simply forced to take market rates.
This is not to say that firefighters are not essential workers, of course they are. We can make an argument that every firefighter should be paid 500k or 1 million. Heck, they save lives, so why not 10 million?
Ultimately, the vast majority of people not in public sector work doesn't get to make these kinds of arguments, and are simply forced to take market rates.
These markets are monopsonies. The market rate is much lower than the actual value these jobs are worth. Even so, we do not have enough firefighters and teachers. This is a price signal that the current compensation is insufficient.
Not enough firefighters in that there are open positions and no one is interested? Or open positions only for the already trained/experienced?
If it’s the latter then that’s an argument that compensation is too high if anything. It should be rebalanced such that some of it is used for training.
If the former then that’s just alien to me. Here in Australia firefighting is a prestigious job with a lot of competition. People volunteer to do it for free or do it part time while working another primary job, for years, in the hopes of being able to become a full time firey.
If it’s the latter then that’s an argument that compensation is too high if anything. It should be rebalanced such that some of it is used for training.
If the former then that’s just alien to me. Here in Australia firefighting is a prestigious job with a lot of competition. People volunteer to do it for free or do it part time while working another primary job, for years, in the hopes of being able to become a full time firey.
In California, people aren't volunteering enough, they have to resort to prisoners. As far as teachers at least, there are open positions, that require training of course, hence the need for a higher salary.
Kind of? Do you think the market for firefighters is a monopsony and if so, how does that shape the firefighter labor market?
Maybe so, but this is always going to be a problem with unionized government work. We can try to approximate a free market by reducing the power of public-sector unions. Ultimately it has to come down to tax payers to hold government accountable. More transparency is a step in that direction.
Is this the bureaucracy defense? I need to be certified, have 30 years experience, and do a 10,000 page analysis before I can have a "legitimate" opinion.
No, but you presented a false dichotomy.
They are saying my process isn't "rigorous" enough and needs to follow their complicated rules and ways of doing things, I don't think calling that bureaucratic is a false dichotomy.
No, they're saying you're making purely gut judgements that are rash.
For any employer, private or public, slashing salaries and benefits is a great way to start trending towards 100% turnover, which is a pretty negative outcome if you want to maintain any semblance of operation.
For any employer, private or public, slashing salaries and benefits is a great way to start trending towards 100% turnover, which is a pretty negative outcome if you want to maintain any semblance of operation.
All I said is that it might be excessive to pay 40% of public employee's individually [1] 40k more a year than the median household income [2] in the area.
Don't equate that with arguing for Austerity.
https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-... [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia [2]
Don't equate that with arguing for Austerity.
https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-... [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia [2]
Are you not arguing that public sector employees in San Francisco should get a pay cut?
Not really, all I did was question the OP scoffing that an 150k salary is not a lot of money. My mother is a public school teacher.
It's not a lot of money in San Francisco, where you're fighting with every tech company employee for housing
Do you have a quantitive way of making the distinction of what "a lot" is? 150k is substantially more than the average SF household, and is about 83 percentile for individuals.
https://dqydj.com/income-by-city/
https://dqydj.com/income-by-city/
That's right. I enjoy phrasing social problems in the language of software engineering so I'll do that here. The structures which enable these salaries are a Chesteron's Fence[1]. Shooting from the hip ignores second-order effects[2] and is a thought terminating rhetorical pattern. It's the equivalent of trying random code to fix a bug without doing root-cause analysis. If I tried to do any of these on a development team I'd expect someone to take me aside and kindly explain the consequences. For some reason (which I'd be happy to understand) all of these valuable mental tools are left on the bench when we move out of development and into other realms. They are powerful techniques to understand systems of all types -- we should aspire to use them whenever we can.
1. https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
2. https://personalmba.com/second-order-effects/
1. https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
2. https://personalmba.com/second-order-effects/
Agreed that it is important to understand things on a systems level, but at what point are we not talking about Chesterton's Fence but The Divine Right of Kings/Mandate of Heaven.
This feels risky, like a reply to a rhetorical question. For me the difference between the two is the acknowledgement of human authorship. Chesterton's Fence assumes human authorship leaving open the possibility for change, while the The Divine Right of Kings/Mandate of Heaven explicitly buries its authorship in an attempt to crystalize it as immutable. Feel free to disagree, but it feels like we're drifting away from the plot.
My thought is that your claim that setting salaries is a complicated process and we shouldn't rashly come to judgement, while not untrue, is also in effect saying "ours is not to wonder why" and that because high salaries exists therefore they are legitimate a la Divine Right of Kings.
Do you think a firefighter and a teacher should be able to afford a house in the community they work in?
First I think it's important to differentiate afford to live & afford to buy a home are different things.
Afford to live in the community is significantly more important but In general I think it is better if they can do both. However home's are assets & assets can have bubbles. I don't think the public should necessarily be paying wages such that someone can buy a home at any cost.
Afford to live in the community is significantly more important but In general I think it is better if they can do both. However home's are assets & assets can have bubbles. I don't think the public should necessarily be paying wages such that someone can buy a home at any cost.
Are you in support of radically changing laws around home ownership, potentially to the point of abolishing housing as an investment vehicle? Because you need to either support that, or support people making wages enough to own a home even if that home is radically expensive due to other influences. Anything less is Scrooge levels of sociopathy.
I definitely am in favor of changing laws around making it easier to build & develop new-housing.
I can't afford to purchase these radically inflated assets myself... but if you want to call me scrooge because I don't think owning a multi-million dollar house is a fundamental human right, go ahead.
I can't afford to purchase these radically inflated assets myself... but if you want to call me scrooge because I don't think owning a multi-million dollar house is a fundamental human right, go ahead.
No one’s saying it’s a fundamental human right, just something a teach should be able to do if he/she teaches in an area that exclusively has multi-million dollar homes.
Like I said previously, Teachers salaries in SF aren't even at question in the cited article. A custodian employed by sf makes an average of 92k [1] vs an average teacher in SF makes 75.6k [2].
But I can still simultaneously believe teachers are underpaid and at the same think they aren't entitled to multi-million dollar homes.
[1] https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-...
[2] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-scho...
But I can still simultaneously believe teachers are underpaid and at the same think they aren't entitled to multi-million dollar homes.
[1] https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-...
[2] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-scho...
Does the question substantially change if you replace teacher with custodian? Should custodians be able to afford the community they work in?
If you'll pay me 150k to be a custodian again or however much to afford to purchase a million dollar home I'll take it in a heart beat. You probably haven't but I've actually been a custodian, and besides the pay I found it much a more enjoyable experience than working in tech.
honestly yes. Turning housing into a financial vehicle makes it hard for average people to afford. Housing cant simultaneously be affordable perpetually for average citizens and a investment expected to appreciate in value higher than inflation. trying to have our cake and eat it to has broken the housing market and been the root cause of much suffering and the last big economic rescission.
Does that mean teachers need to get paid $1M/yr in Atherton(94027) where the average home value is $7M?
Proportionally speaking that would put teachers in Todd County South Dakota where the median home value in 2020 was $26,900[1] at an annual salary of $3,842.
If the argument is that teacher salaries should be a linear function of average home values and that a $1M/yr salary doesn't make sense and a $3.8k/yr salary doesn't either, I'm not sure where you want to go from there.
1. https://www.credible.com/blog/data-insights/county-in-every-...
If the argument is that teacher salaries should be a linear function of average home values and that a $1M/yr salary doesn't make sense and a $3.8k/yr salary doesn't either, I'm not sure where you want to go from there.
1. https://www.credible.com/blog/data-insights/county-in-every-...
No, I think it would be hilarious if a firefighter working in central London could afford a house there.
It’s not necessarily normal to live in a house. It certainly shouldn’t be normal in cities.
It’s not necessarily normal to live in a house. It certainly shouldn’t be normal in cities.
Maybe public workers should have access to public housing too?
If public housing is more attractive than private then property price problem solves itself.
If public housing is more attractive than private then property price problem solves itself.
I don't think you can make simple rules like this, or expect complex systems like economies to behave according to such simple rules.
What you can know is that in expensive areas, they will need to pay a premium, but does the premium need to be as high to allow teachers to buy houses there instead of commuting in? And if you did pay them that much, many would prefer to keep the money and commute a bit longer because they may not value housing as much as the people living in the community. So people have different values and we should let them make their own trade offs. If a community can't hire enough teachers because cost of living is high, then they will need to raise wages. Once they can hire enough, then let people chose for themselves where they want to work and live.
What you can know is that in expensive areas, they will need to pay a premium, but does the premium need to be as high to allow teachers to buy houses there instead of commuting in? And if you did pay them that much, many would prefer to keep the money and commute a bit longer because they may not value housing as much as the people living in the community. So people have different values and we should let them make their own trade offs. If a community can't hire enough teachers because cost of living is high, then they will need to raise wages. Once they can hire enough, then let people chose for themselves where they want to work and live.
While I agree with you that the motives of of this organization are suspect, nobody really seems to care about government inefficiency aside from anti-government people. Raising these concerns from the left is frowned upon because it weakens you politically. As a result, I think that the government is falling into a trap where they think that the best way to solve a problem is to throw money at it.
I am left leaning and I want the government to do more with the same amount of funding. Anyone that opposes this belief is perpetuating dysfunctional state of affairs - left, right, libertarian, whatever. It won't be too long I'll lose interest in the party if they don't fix things. I pay a lot of taxes in Alameda county and I am thinking about leaving this place precisely because of how horribly run this local government is.
A common response to your contingency plan is “oh great, another californian is going to come here and vote for politicians who will turn our state into california.”
Which is dumb because Californian problems often stem from our insane direct democracy system which is unique among states
A common response to my contingency plan here is "oh great, another Californian leaving for Fascist trumpers and Qanon loonies" :-)
I am changing. I might be voting for Republican (local) representatives for the very first time if they're not too crazy and have rational mediated approach, or centrist Democrats for that matter. Most Republicans I've talked to including my college friends reject Trumpism, but also reject toxic Berkeley's wokeness. So, I am in the same boat it feels despite of different labels. It was actually eye-opening talking to some old friends with whom I used to disagree in college, but now we're more mature and in our late 30's - and far more rational about things.
I am changing. I might be voting for Republican (local) representatives for the very first time if they're not too crazy and have rational mediated approach, or centrist Democrats for that matter. Most Republicans I've talked to including my college friends reject Trumpism, but also reject toxic Berkeley's wokeness. So, I am in the same boat it feels despite of different labels. It was actually eye-opening talking to some old friends with whom I used to disagree in college, but now we're more mature and in our late 30's - and far more rational about things.
I left SF and California years ago and started voting Republican at about the same time. The trigger was me reserving judgment and simply observing how the environment around me changed for the worst, while at the same time having to bring up two young children.
Looking at how things are today, I know I made the right decision.
Looking at how things are today, I know I made the right decision.
Why is it badly run, can you find someone who could do it better?
> Suggesting that a firefighter or a teacher are "overpaid", is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
Saying that one should never consider a firefighter or teacher overpayed sets a dangerous precedent. Sure most of them are not, maybe even all of them, but if a situation is found where some _are_ overpayed, then it should not be bad to discuss it.
Saying that one should never consider a firefighter or teacher overpayed sets a dangerous precedent. Sure most of them are not, maybe even all of them, but if a situation is found where some _are_ overpayed, then it should not be bad to discuss it.
If two people are making $150000 each, that's a household with $300000 in income. That's not bad for a stable government job.
Also, I don't see why it's unfair to call a teacher or firefighter overpaid. If you work for a private business, nobody else knows or cares about your salary. But when you work for government, every taxpayer has a right to complain. Especially for taxpayers who make less than the government position.
Also, I don't see why it's unfair to call a teacher or firefighter overpaid. If you work for a private business, nobody else knows or cares about your salary. But when you work for government, every taxpayer has a right to complain. Especially for taxpayers who make less than the government position.
> Also, I don't see why it's unfair to call a teacher or firefighter overpaid.
Education should be extremely well compensated. There's a host of reasons why it's a good idea to pay teachers the way doctors, lawyers and engineers are paid; but it all comes down to wanting the best and brightest working in education, because kids getting a shitty education decreases the country's ability to produce bright people, whereas kids getting a good education increases the country's overall intelligence.
Instead, those people work on ads. Idiocracy thought it'd be the cosmetics industry. Turns out…
Education should be extremely well compensated. There's a host of reasons why it's a good idea to pay teachers the way doctors, lawyers and engineers are paid; but it all comes down to wanting the best and brightest working in education, because kids getting a shitty education decreases the country's ability to produce bright people, whereas kids getting a good education increases the country's overall intelligence.
Instead, those people work on ads. Idiocracy thought it'd be the cosmetics industry. Turns out…
You're arguing for higher standards for teachers, which would naturally increase the market rate compensation. I don't think thats whats happening.
We can have a discussion about increasing the minimum training for teachers to be additional years + a PhD. I'm sure this would naturally increase the quality of teaching and also increase the market rate for teachers since there are less people who are qualified.
We can also discuss raising salaries if the school simply cannot find enough teachers.
It doesn't make as much sense to say we should simply increase the pay of teachers if there is a huge backlog of qualified applicants.
I believe SF is having a teacher shortage, so for that reason, it makes sense to increase teacher pay. But I think too often people make moralistic arguments for government pay but free market arguments for everyone else.
We can have a discussion about increasing the minimum training for teachers to be additional years + a PhD. I'm sure this would naturally increase the quality of teaching and also increase the market rate for teachers since there are less people who are qualified.
We can also discuss raising salaries if the school simply cannot find enough teachers.
It doesn't make as much sense to say we should simply increase the pay of teachers if there is a huge backlog of qualified applicants.
I believe SF is having a teacher shortage, so for that reason, it makes sense to increase teacher pay. But I think too often people make moralistic arguments for government pay but free market arguments for everyone else.
Mostly because government pay trails free market rates. So the moralistic arguments come in to play because they're so underpaid.
Someone might also reasonably feel that more money for teachers does not, by itself improve outcomes. It's certainly possible for bad teachers to be paid a lot, which some people might call "being overpaid" even if there exists some other teacher that is making more money and is perhaps underpaid.
Or, someone might reasonably think that teachers play only one part in educational outcomes, and that investing more in teaching quality isn't an efficient use of resources.
Or maybe both those people are wrong. But it's hardly dangerous to entertain the complaints of the people paying the bills.
Or, someone might reasonably think that teachers play only one part in educational outcomes, and that investing more in teaching quality isn't an efficient use of resources.
Or maybe both those people are wrong. But it's hardly dangerous to entertain the complaints of the people paying the bills.
I will agree with your position the second compensation for teacher is tied to performance. However unions do not want any compensation tied to performance, nor do most people on the "left"
They simply want the high salaries with no responsibly to produce results.
They simply want the high salaries with no responsibly to produce results.
>Especially for taxpayers who make less than the government position.
Why?
Why?
Having a "right to complain" doesn't mean that it's accurate, fair, just, or a good idea to complain.
Every dollar paid to the government in taxes is a dollar someone else earned. People are going to complain about that, and it is entirely fair and just to do so. Whether it’s a good idea boils down to where your own politics are, so that’s always going to be subjective.
Implying they could have earned that money without the existence of government. Government is an essential service.
> without the existence of government.
paying less taxes doesn't imply that the gov't ceases to exist. The gov't has no competition, so every entity within the gov't has every incentive to increase their own revenue by maximally expending tax dollars.
It is up to the people paying taxes to reduce it, as a counter-balancing force, and hold the spending efficiency to a good standard.
paying less taxes doesn't imply that the gov't ceases to exist. The gov't has no competition, so every entity within the gov't has every incentive to increase their own revenue by maximally expending tax dollars.
It is up to the people paying taxes to reduce it, as a counter-balancing force, and hold the spending efficiency to a good standard.
It’s not implying anything. That is literally how taxes work. See income taxes: A compensatory agreement between employer and employee is I pay you $X for work. The government then levies a percentage of that money for itself. You can see that on your paystub. You’re not paid $X and an amount equal to a percentage of $X is then donated to the government, that percentage comes directly from your compensation.
It’s a revenue stream for governments, sure, but how much revenue a government needs is determined by what policies a government has in place, their obligations to pay employees and officers, and what additional services the government offers. The politics is all around that stuff, but a tax is still a taking of the money that someone else earned to pay for all that, including to pay public employees.
It’s a revenue stream for governments, sure, but how much revenue a government needs is determined by what policies a government has in place, their obligations to pay employees and officers, and what additional services the government offers. The politics is all around that stuff, but a tax is still a taking of the money that someone else earned to pay for all that, including to pay public employees.
All that legal tender is thanks to the government.
Sure, legal tender demands a government by definition, it’s right there in the word “legal”. Money, or rather currency doesn’t.
That’s also irrelevant because that doesn’t address what a tax is, or how it ended up in a government’s treasury, or why it is there in the first place.
That’s also irrelevant because that doesn’t address what a tax is, or how it ended up in a government’s treasury, or why it is there in the first place.
Correct. Government spending (investment) is a loan we repay thru taxes.
So what's the "dangerous precedent" then?
Very well then. I will complain.
These people are underpaid. We have every right to expect the best in these positions, why are we not paying for it?
These people are underpaid. We have every right to expect the best in these positions, why are we not paying for it?
How does suggesting something set a dangerous precedent? People are allowed to have opinions, even stupid ones.
There is a difference between having an opinion and lobbying.
Why are you making this vague distinction instead of addressing the actual conclusion (on topic)?
> Suggesting [x], is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
The root parent shared a values-based opinion with no objective support.
Your parent asked for an explanation of the circular conclusion.
> Suggesting [x], is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
The root parent shared a values-based opinion with no objective support.
Your parent asked for an explanation of the circular conclusion.
The only thing of substance in the parent was "opinions aren't dangerous".
Since that isn't accurate (lobbying can be dangerous) there wasn't anything substantial to respond to.
Since that isn't accurate (lobbying can be dangerous) there wasn't anything substantial to respond to.
- Opinions aren't dangerous
- Lobbying can be dangerous
Those two things are orthogonal. Lobbying is not "an opinion". Lobbying is an attempt to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials. An opinion is just what someone thinks about someone. It is possible to lobby your government official to get them to support your position, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
- Lobbying can be dangerous
Those two things are orthogonal. Lobbying is not "an opinion". Lobbying is an attempt to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials. An opinion is just what someone thinks about someone. It is possible to lobby your government official to get them to support your position, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
> "opinions aren't dangerous" [...] Since that isn't accurate [...]
At face value, it really sounds like you're accusing people of thought-crimes for having an opinion (e.g. firefighters are overpaid/underpaid/fairly-paid).
> (lobbying can be dangerous)
And if you think that firefighters are underpaid, then couldn't lobbying (i.e. firefighter unions) possibly produce "good" outcomes? Can someone call that outcome dangerous? This really boils down to you making a value judgment AGAINST lowering firefighter pay. That's what the grandparent comment said and other commenters asked for the reasoning.
At face value, it really sounds like you're accusing people of thought-crimes for having an opinion (e.g. firefighters are overpaid/underpaid/fairly-paid).
> (lobbying can be dangerous)
And if you think that firefighters are underpaid, then couldn't lobbying (i.e. firefighter unions) possibly produce "good" outcomes? Can someone call that outcome dangerous? This really boils down to you making a value judgment AGAINST lowering firefighter pay. That's what the grandparent comment said and other commenters asked for the reasoning.
An expressed opinion is lobbying.
Read the articles. Specifically, for the Baltimore school system, they compare the average wages of a teacher in the public sector, with the average of a teacher in a catholic school. They try to make the point that $40,000 a year is enough for a teacher in Baltimore.
Now, for a person to have an opinion is fine. But this is a partisan organization, devoted to pushing an agenda and spread it to the public opinion. If they were to succeed, teachers would see their salaries effectively cut.
Now, for a person to have an opinion is fine. But this is a partisan organization, devoted to pushing an agenda and spread it to the public opinion. If they were to succeed, teachers would see their salaries effectively cut.
The biggest sham in public education is this idea of "a teacher's salary" as if an english teacher is equivalent to a math or chemistry teacher. While we can go for hours about the intangible values present in all subjects #allsubjectsmatter, the reality is that someone qualified to be a STEM teacher is accepting a loss in opportunity cost in our current system.
Why would someone with a math background take $40k to teach a bunch of kids math when they can learn a bit of python and make $140k doing data science? Some do, but outside of rare exceptions, you aren't going to get the best talent.
You also end up with teachers who can't be bothered to learn how the subject is used in the real world. I barely put effort into learning matrices or complex numbers in high school.
"You just have to learn it, There aren't any practical uses for it" said my highschool algebra teacher told me when I asked what these are used for.
Why would someone with a math background take $40k to teach a bunch of kids math when they can learn a bit of python and make $140k doing data science? Some do, but outside of rare exceptions, you aren't going to get the best talent.
You also end up with teachers who can't be bothered to learn how the subject is used in the real world. I barely put effort into learning matrices or complex numbers in high school.
"You just have to learn it, There aren't any practical uses for it" said my highschool algebra teacher told me when I asked what these are used for.
Not everyone is optimizing for the maximum amount of dollars they can squeeze out of an hour of work. Plenty of people would be happy to make less, e.g. a dual-income couple, someone right out of college who needs resume experience, someone who's semi-retired and likes to work with kids, someone who doesn't exactly need the money but wants the benefits, and so on.
We need good teachers for every subject for every student. That means paying them wages that are competitive with their other options. We are not going to meet national demand by relying on people who are "happy to make less, e.g. a dual-income couple, someone right out of college who needs resume experience, someone who's semi-retired and likes to work with kids, someone who doesn't exactly need the money but wants the benefits,"
If sufficient teachers were willing to do the work for current pay, then we would not be seeing 30 kids in a classroom.
What number of kids per class are the current policies aiming for?
> english teacher is equivalent to a math or chemistry teacher
Do they actually have different qualifications? Each of them has to be trained for a teaching job and, er, remember most of their school program?
In the same vein instructor at the bootcamp is someone who's good at motivational shouting and in all likelihood isn't missing opportunities to serve as a commando.
Do they actually have different qualifications? Each of them has to be trained for a teaching job and, er, remember most of their school program?
In the same vein instructor at the bootcamp is someone who's good at motivational shouting and in all likelihood isn't missing opportunities to serve as a commando.
The fact that they dont is another big problem with public schooling.
The fact that all teachers are trained the same is a big problem. Personally I am fan of not having "trained teachers" for anything beyond grade school
After that we should be using subject matter experts
The fact that all teachers are trained the same is a big problem. Personally I am fan of not having "trained teachers" for anything beyond grade school
After that we should be using subject matter experts
> After that we should be using subject matter experts
No we should be using teachers, people trained to effectively communicate and teach concepts of a subject.
A subject matter expert can be an expert in a subject but terrible at communicating and teaching that concept. Knowing that concept is not equivalent to effective communication. This is analogous to Great Software engineers becoming mangers with no managing talent whatsoever.
No we should be using teachers, people trained to effectively communicate and teach concepts of a subject.
A subject matter expert can be an expert in a subject but terrible at communicating and teaching that concept. Knowing that concept is not equivalent to effective communication. This is analogous to Great Software engineers becoming mangers with no managing talent whatsoever.
They might succeed, but that is the price of freedom of speech. The good people in society need to work to oppose these organizations, and use the same transparent data to make the opposite case.
I hope even the dumbest 20% of people can understand that $40k per year is not sufficient pay for almost everywhere in the country, much less Baltimore.
But it is possible for firefighters or teachers or anyone to be overpaid. I have even seen it where the firefighters union (and police unions) have captured local government, and captured DB pensions worth millions of dollars where they walk away at age 45 with a $100k+ per year annuity for the rest of their life.
I hope even the dumbest 20% of people can understand that $40k per year is not sufficient pay for almost everywhere in the country, much less Baltimore.
But it is possible for firefighters or teachers or anyone to be overpaid. I have even seen it where the firefighters union (and police unions) have captured local government, and captured DB pensions worth millions of dollars where they walk away at age 45 with a $100k+ per year annuity for the rest of their life.
> I hope even the dumbest 20% of people can understand that $40k per year is not sufficient pay for almost everywhere in the country, much less Baltimore.
When I read a comment like this, I'm reminded of how much of a bubble HN is. $40k a year is higher than the median personal income of the US, which is higher than the median personal income of Baltimore.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/2404000?utm_medium=explo...
When I read a comment like this, I'm reminded of how much of a bubble HN is. $40k a year is higher than the median personal income of the US, which is higher than the median personal income of Baltimore.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/2404000?utm_medium=explo...
I know that, and I think it is insufficient pay for a full time career, much less one that requires working far more than 40 hours per week, and take on huge liability working with kids which likely do not have supportive home lives.
Also, a better comparison would be to median income of people of working age working in roles with the work and responsibilities of teachers, or the type of work that our ideal teachers are doing instead of teaching, because the pay is so meager.
Also, a better comparison would be to median income of people of working age working in roles with the work and responsibilities of teachers, or the type of work that our ideal teachers are doing instead of teaching, because the pay is so meager.
I think that's a reasonable view, but what I found more questionable was why you would think that it is so obvious that even the dumbest 20% should share agreement with you.
A cursory knowledge of living expenses?
Rent, auto insurance, food, mobile, retirement savings, clothing, healthcare, taxes, emergency savings. There is no way to fit that all in $40k.
Which I assume must be evident to anyone that has had to pay bills.
Rent, auto insurance, food, mobile, retirement savings, clothing, healthcare, taxes, emergency savings. There is no way to fit that all in $40k.
Which I assume must be evident to anyone that has had to pay bills.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks those expenses individually based on what people actually spend for each decile of the population and came to a different conclusion.
Anecdotally, it is eminently possible to live a modest life on $40k. I know several people that do, and would have no trouble doing so myself if I needed to based on my actual expenses. The idea that Americans can't live on $40k is out of touch with reality; in many parts of the US that is considered a pretty good wage.
Anecdotally, it is eminently possible to live a modest life on $40k. I know several people that do, and would have no trouble doing so myself if I needed to based on my actual expenses. The idea that Americans can't live on $40k is out of touch with reality; in many parts of the US that is considered a pretty good wage.
What kind of life does $40k/yr buy you? Kids? Vacations? Hobbies? Medical, dental, vision insurance? Retirement?
It depends on where you live, but if the household only has a single $40k income they would likely be lower-middle class in most of the country. I know people that are raising kids on that, though I wouldn't recommend it. It would only work in a very high cost-of-living area if you were single, though if you have kids you'll receive significant government subsidies. It will only support a simple and unambitious lifestyle but it won't be terrible by any means.
You'll live in a small house or suitable apartment, you'll cook at home almost all the time using inexpensive ingredients, and you'll take inexpensive vacations. You won't have any fancy stuff, aside from one or two special "nice" things, and the stuff you do have you'll use for as long as it is feasible to do so. The most challenging expense will be transportation, because you'll rely on your car and cars are prone to significant random and variable expenses.
Savings won't be enough to cover retirement but you will have a modest amount, you'll mostly be relying on Social Security. Even poor people often have a very modest amount of savings. I know a single mother who amassed $20k savings on a $30k income just by saving for many years.
The ugly part, and one of the main reasons I would not recommend raising a family this way even though I know how, is the social consequences because it comes with a lot of class signals. People in this class are often treated quite shabbily by people that live in the expensive coastal cities, which will impact your kids.
You'll live in a small house or suitable apartment, you'll cook at home almost all the time using inexpensive ingredients, and you'll take inexpensive vacations. You won't have any fancy stuff, aside from one or two special "nice" things, and the stuff you do have you'll use for as long as it is feasible to do so. The most challenging expense will be transportation, because you'll rely on your car and cars are prone to significant random and variable expenses.
Savings won't be enough to cover retirement but you will have a modest amount, you'll mostly be relying on Social Security. Even poor people often have a very modest amount of savings. I know a single mother who amassed $20k savings on a $30k income just by saving for many years.
The ugly part, and one of the main reasons I would not recommend raising a family this way even though I know how, is the social consequences because it comes with a lot of class signals. People in this class are often treated quite shabbily by people that live in the expensive coastal cities, which will impact your kids.
Thanks for spelling out why I think it should be obvious that $40k is
>insufficient pay for a full time career, much less one that requires working far more than 40 hours per week, and take on huge liability working with kids which likely do not have supportive home lives.
There are plenty of other $40k jobs that let you be a desk jockey and browse HN while you work 4 hours per day.
>insufficient pay for a full time career, much less one that requires working far more than 40 hours per week, and take on huge liability working with kids which likely do not have supportive home lives.
There are plenty of other $40k jobs that let you be a desk jockey and browse HN while you work 4 hours per day.
I've lived on less. It's worse than being rich but not really that hard. Especially so when it comes with excellent benefits.
was that after 2000 with student loans? My first few jobs after college where under $40, I think my first year in software I made 42K USD but my rent was $300 and i had no kids. 1996
[deleted]
Is the median wage a living wage?
It's Forbes though. The magazine is designed to cater to those who were born on third base and are convinced they hit a triple to get there.
I went to a private, Catholic high school. The teachers were paid less that public schools because some felt a calling to it, there's more autonomy and less BS than a public school, and parents were more engaged. 1/3 of students weren't Catholic; they were there for the academics.
They didn’t need the money?
Their motives might be suspect, but their goals are admirable. There is no reason every state payment shouldn’t be public.
Pick your allies carefully.
I flirted with a transparency org. Washington Citizens for Open Government.
The libertarian minded (Discovery Institute, Toby Nixon, Paul Guppy, so many others) used these nonpartisan good govt orgs to advocate their religion. It was maddening.
For instance, simultaneously advocating transparency AND privatization, without irony. Corporations are not subject to public records requests. Many an agency outsourced work to keep the activities away from public scrutiny. Anyone with a sincere desire for good govt advocates for less outsourcing, less privatization.
By all means, advocate for better stuff. Just know the opponents of democratic civil society will always highjack, subvert, project, argue in bad faith. The paradox of tolerance, on endless repeat.
I have no ideas how to avoid that trap. A large part of my burn out as an activist.
I flirted with a transparency org. Washington Citizens for Open Government.
The libertarian minded (Discovery Institute, Toby Nixon, Paul Guppy, so many others) used these nonpartisan good govt orgs to advocate their religion. It was maddening.
For instance, simultaneously advocating transparency AND privatization, without irony. Corporations are not subject to public records requests. Many an agency outsourced work to keep the activities away from public scrutiny. Anyone with a sincere desire for good govt advocates for less outsourcing, less privatization.
By all means, advocate for better stuff. Just know the opponents of democratic civil society will always highjack, subvert, project, argue in bad faith. The paradox of tolerance, on endless repeat.
I have no ideas how to avoid that trap. A large part of my burn out as an activist.
"Anyone with a sincere desire for good govt advocates for less outsourcing, less privatization."
"Just know the opponents of democratic civil society will always highjack, subvert, project, argue in bad faith."
The only bad faith displayed here is yours.
"Just know the opponents of democratic civil society will always highjack, subvert, project, argue in bad faith."
The only bad faith displayed here is yours.
Sure, but I would be happy to team with people whom I personally disagree with if the end result is more transparency. Transparency feels like one of those necessary things for functioning democracy.
Aside. I think public services, which are not subject to market forces, should be required to be easily auditable. The tradeoff you make for being a government monopoly is that any citizen should have the right to inspect it.
Aside. I think public services, which are not subject to market forces, should be required to be easily auditable. The tradeoff you make for being a government monopoly is that any citizen should have the right to inspect it.
> but to sway public opinion against public spending in general
The motive behind information should be irrelevant in terms of its veracity but your implied premise here is interesting: advocating to reduce public spending is wrong. Obviously no government can support indefinitely high public spending, so at some point there needs to be a reduction of public spending in the public’s favor lest the government institution go bankrupt. In that case advocating for reduced public spending would obviously be right, not wrong, at least by your apparent moral standards.
At what point would you consider it right to reduce public spending? Or rather, what factors would you consider when making a determination as to whether public spending is too high?
The motive behind information should be irrelevant in terms of its veracity but your implied premise here is interesting: advocating to reduce public spending is wrong. Obviously no government can support indefinitely high public spending, so at some point there needs to be a reduction of public spending in the public’s favor lest the government institution go bankrupt. In that case advocating for reduced public spending would obviously be right, not wrong, at least by your apparent moral standards.
At what point would you consider it right to reduce public spending? Or rather, what factors would you consider when making a determination as to whether public spending is too high?
> sway public opinion against public spending in general
When public spending inevitably degenerates into nepotism and corruption, that is just cutting the problem at its root. What alternative do you propose?
When public spending inevitably degenerates into nepotism and corruption, that is just cutting the problem at its root. What alternative do you propose?
The worst possible (or close to) solution to keep "anti guvernement spending" activists away is keeping your spending secret.
"CALIFORNIA SPENT $20 MILLION ON PAPERCLIPS LAST YEAR, THAT IS TOO MUCH" > No we did not. "SHOWS US THE BOOKS. HOW MANY PAPERCLIPS DID YOU BUY AND FROM WHOM" > No that is secret. "IT CANT BE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW US HOW MANY PAPERCLIPS" > Well we can, but it is too much work, so no.
Governments should strive for transparency and be able to admit errors if any are made.
"CALIFORNIA SPENT $20 MILLION ON PAPERCLIPS LAST YEAR, THAT IS TOO MUCH" > No we did not. "SHOWS US THE BOOKS. HOW MANY PAPERCLIPS DID YOU BUY AND FROM WHOM" > No that is secret. "IT CANT BE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW US HOW MANY PAPERCLIPS" > Well we can, but it is too much work, so no.
Governments should strive for transparency and be able to admit errors if any are made.
> I also want to note that the goal of the organization behind this article is not transparency, but to sway public opinion against public spending in general.
They might spin their findings into something you dislike, but consider that other journalists and researchers could have access to these records to bring other useful insights to the public. Isn't this the whole point of maintaining a healthy democracy (i.e. the fourth estate)?
They might spin their findings into something you dislike, but consider that other journalists and researchers could have access to these records to bring other useful insights to the public. Isn't this the whole point of maintaining a healthy democracy (i.e. the fourth estate)?
Yeah reading the articles you posted it’s clear that any amount of public spending is too much for OpenTheBooks. Especially how they point out how much of the school budgets goes to labor costs (labor costs are the largest cost of nearly every organization and business) and how many employees in Dallas ISD and Houston ISD make >$100,000 a year (DISD employees ~22,000 people and HISD ~30,000. Both serve hundreds of thousands of students. So they are just complaining about big numbers. Also DISD already implements the “performance based” pay they suggest. I despise such a system, but the promise is that “if your one of the best teachers, you can actually make $100,000 a year”).
Edit: Also the Teacher Retirement System is basically a massive investment firm. The more money it makes for the teacher pension, the less the public has to kick in to make up for any pension shortfalls. You would presumably want to hire the best of the best. Now if that actually happens is debatable, but you absolutely would not want to cut those salaries to the bone.
Edit: Also the Teacher Retirement System is basically a massive investment firm. The more money it makes for the teacher pension, the less the public has to kick in to make up for any pension shortfalls. You would presumably want to hire the best of the best. Now if that actually happens is debatable, but you absolutely would not want to cut those salaries to the bone.
Regardless of their agenda, the data should be public.
Once it is public, we can argue about what is needed or too expensive. And the best reasoning should win.
Are farmers not in charge of essential duties? Are people working at electric plant, building houses, plumbing, manufacturing clothing, in charge of essential duties? How should they be paid? There shouldn't be a market price for that?
And who among us are performing non-essential duties? What does "essential duties" even mean? Should all so called essential duties be publicly funded? If so, by who? by the remaining of us who are providing non-essential duties?
And who among us are performing non-essential duties? What does "essential duties" even mean? Should all so called essential duties be publicly funded? If so, by who? by the remaining of us who are providing non-essential duties?
> $150,000 salary in San Francisco is excessive
Holy shit. IF its anything like when i lived there 5 years ago, thats JUST enough to not be on the poverty line if you're supporting a family
Holy shit. IF its anything like when i lived there 5 years ago, thats JUST enough to not be on the poverty line if you're supporting a family
150K is not anywhere close to the poverty line. In fact median household income in San Francisco is 112K.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia
Honestly this comes off pretty elitist. "Well, George, if you're not earning 400K then you're dreadfully poor!"
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia
Honestly this comes off pretty elitist. "Well, George, if you're not earning 400K then you're dreadfully poor!"
The low-income threshold in sf for a family of four is about $120,000. And $150,000 is not far off from that. And even more important, the extraordinary rents in sf more than outpace the higher incomes:
For example, a fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the San Francisco area is considered to be $3,121 (£2,340) per month - nearly twice the 2008 figure of $1,592 (£1,190). In Cincinnati, Ohio, the figure is $845 (£632). This difference (270%) is much larger than the difference in median family incomes (50%).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026
For example, a fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the San Francisco area is considered to be $3,121 (£2,340) per month - nearly twice the 2008 figure of $1,592 (£1,190). In Cincinnati, Ohio, the figure is $845 (£632). This difference (270%) is much larger than the difference in median family incomes (50%).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026
Median household income is going to consider a lot of single people; the parent post said "supporting a family".
The income thresholds for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development[1] (HUD) seem to be the best location-adjusted standards for poverty (the federal poverty thresholds[2] are the same for all mainland states). HUD's 2021 numbers for households of 3-5 people in San Francisco:
[1]: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il21/Section8-Inc...
[2]: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-ser...
-- lukeshu (some guy who has never even been to California)
The income thresholds for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development[1] (HUD) seem to be the best location-adjusted standards for poverty (the federal poverty thresholds[2] are the same for all mainland states). HUD's 2021 numbers for households of 3-5 people in San Francisco:
| | 3 PERSON | 4 PERSON | 5 PERSON |
|-----------------+----------+----------+----------|
| EXTR LOW INCOME | 49,350 | 54,800 | 59,200 |
| VERY LOW INCOME | 82,250 | 91,350 | 98,700 |
| LOW-INCOME | 131,750 | 146,350 | 158,100 |
[1]: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il21/Section8-Inc...
[2]: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-ser...
-- lukeshu (some guy who has never even been to California)
I worked for a company located in SF not long ago, I don’t think most people appreciate just how absurd the cost of living there actually is.
The people I worked with lived in fairly small apartments, shared with up to eight co-tenets. It was all they could reasonably afford, and they were well payed tech employees.
I bought a new house in the Central Valley for the same pay.
The people I worked with lived in fairly small apartments, shared with up to eight co-tenets. It was all they could reasonably afford, and they were well payed tech employees.
I bought a new house in the Central Valley for the same pay.
I lived in SF also, and know exactly how much it costs to live there. I also know that because the cost of living is high, many people commute into San Francisco to work, living where it's cheaper.
But even in SF, 112K is sufficient for 50% of households, and the median household does not live in a small apartment with eight cotenants. That's also absurd.
But even in SF, 112K is sufficient for 50% of households, and the median household does not live in a small apartment with eight cotenants. That's also absurd.
Those households moved in prior to prices going crazy, and have arrangements like mortgages, prop 13, and rent control such that they're still paying outdated prices.
These people have home equity and/or legal privileges (prop 13, rent control) that reduce their housing costs by thousands of dollars per month relative to what a new migrant would face. Although their incomes could be modest, their assets are significant.
"median" might not the best measure to use in cases such as this. I'm not from SF, so I won't try to take a side, but I do know that with the wealth gaps in this country, median is highly unlikely to accurately tell the story of employees working in the public sector.
The federal poverty line != living wage in a specific area.
> One article in their website suggests tying education spending to performance
What's wrong with that? That's how markets work, and they work well.
What's wrong with that? That's how markets work, and they work well.
One issue is that schools in disadvantaged areas tend to already have bad performance, and if you tie spending to performance results they will in turn receive even less funds, which will cause them to fall even more behind and then get even worse results, and so on the cycle goes. It’s a negative feedback loop.
I got corrected, I mean educated, on this previously but even though the outcome isn't desired, it's still a positive feedback loop. A negative feedback loop is self correcting in a sine-wave type homeostasis.
You can adjust for historical school performance (even across multiple schools w/ comparable demographics). That still rewards teachers who perform better than average.
Maybe. A good teacher can only do so much without resources.
A good teacher can do a great deal with just a blackboard and chalk.
Most of the classes at Caltech were just that - blackboard and chalk. Often there wasn't even a textbook.
Most of the classes at Caltech were just that - blackboard and chalk. Often there wasn't even a textbook.
So, one of the world's most prestigious school employs the brightest scholars, with private offices and regular international travel on the employer's dime to attend conferences, and they are essentially paid to spend their waking hours thinking of really difficult problems they'd love to solve.
They're never expected to worry about year-end donation drive to manage the school band's budget, finding out who vandalized all the bathrooms, or how to talk to Sally's parents after she missed school for three days. And they get to teach some of the best, brightest, most motivated students America produces.
Yeah, all they needed was a blackboard and chalk. Who needs more resources?
They're never expected to worry about year-end donation drive to manage the school band's budget, finding out who vandalized all the bathrooms, or how to talk to Sally's parents after she missed school for three days. And they get to teach some of the best, brightest, most motivated students America produces.
Yeah, all they needed was a blackboard and chalk. Who needs more resources?
The point remains. A teacher and a blackboard are all that is really necessary to educate. Building a palace to house the classrooms does not help.
[deleted]
C’mon Walter. You can’t really compare a class at Caltech, of all places, to an inner city classroom.
I don't buy that there's any evidence that a school with "resources" does a better job educating than a motivated teacher with a blackboard.
Heck, hands-down the best calculus lesson I ever had was a one-on-one with a prof and a blackboard.
I suppose it's like running. No technology can make you a better runner than a good coach and a desire to run.
P.S. note that colleges compete on "resources" all the time. But that simply isn't what matters. It's the prof, the blackboard, and the student. Facilities don't matter. Sports programs don't matter. Landscaping doesn't matter. Luxury dorms don't matter.
Heck, hands-down the best calculus lesson I ever had was a one-on-one with a prof and a blackboard.
I suppose it's like running. No technology can make you a better runner than a good coach and a desire to run.
P.S. note that colleges compete on "resources" all the time. But that simply isn't what matters. It's the prof, the blackboard, and the student. Facilities don't matter. Sports programs don't matter. Landscaping doesn't matter. Luxury dorms don't matter.
How many homeless students did you have in your Caltech class? Were they going to bed hungry? Were Caltech professors in danger of being physically attacked? Did they have to buy their own chalk? Did they receive decent compensation for their work?
If you can’t see or understand the incredible amount of _hidden_ infrastructure in place at a place at Caltech so that you could sit down and think about nothing but Calculus with a world class professor then you are extremely privileged.
If you can’t see or understand the incredible amount of _hidden_ infrastructure in place at a place at Caltech so that you could sit down and think about nothing but Calculus with a world class professor then you are extremely privileged.
Are you really arguing that the lower quintile in income in America are all homeless and hungry and attacked?
Secondly, there is a federal school lunch program for all the students that need it. This program is not underfunded, and is not what I am talking about when discussing educational "resources".
> Buy their own chalk.
Oh please.
> incredible amount of _hidden_ infrastructure in place at a place at Caltech
There were many opportunities to join research activities. This was not necessary for the education, though. I didn't partake of that, as research did not interest me.
> so that you could sit down and think about nothing but Calculus
Sorry, but that does not require incredible infrastructure. It just doesn't.
> world class professor
Being a researcher is not the same thing as being an effective teacher, not at all. They weren't hired for their teaching ability. I doubt any had any training whatsoever as teachers.
I'm amazed at the notion that teaching with a blackboard and chalk requires incredible infrastructure.
Secondly, there is a federal school lunch program for all the students that need it. This program is not underfunded, and is not what I am talking about when discussing educational "resources".
> Buy their own chalk.
Oh please.
> incredible amount of _hidden_ infrastructure in place at a place at Caltech
There were many opportunities to join research activities. This was not necessary for the education, though. I didn't partake of that, as research did not interest me.
> so that you could sit down and think about nothing but Calculus
Sorry, but that does not require incredible infrastructure. It just doesn't.
> world class professor
Being a researcher is not the same thing as being an effective teacher, not at all. They weren't hired for their teaching ability. I doubt any had any training whatsoever as teachers.
I'm amazed at the notion that teaching with a blackboard and chalk requires incredible infrastructure.
I forgot to mention - freshman and sophomore Calculus was taught by grad students, not professors. Grad students have no training in teaching, are very poorly paid, and do it only because that's part of the aid package they received.
Freshman physics was taught by Prof Goodstein, who is a world class physicist. I had no personal interaction with him at all. The homework was graded and administered and coached by grad students (in "recitation" sessions). A couple years after I graduated, his lectures were recorded and made available as "The Mechanical Universe" series of videos. Lots of fancy animations and stuff were added, but in my not-so-humble opinion added entertainment but little value.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5...
Freshman physics was taught by Prof Goodstein, who is a world class physicist. I had no personal interaction with him at all. The homework was graded and administered and coached by grad students (in "recitation" sessions). A couple years after I graduated, his lectures were recorded and made available as "The Mechanical Universe" series of videos. Lots of fancy animations and stuff were added, but in my not-so-humble opinion added entertainment but little value.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5...
Tying education spending to performance is very difficult because student performance is primarily due to socioeconomic factors, and not the school.
In the worst case, teachers at inner city schools who have the hardest jobs get paid the least since their students do the worst.
In the worst case, teachers at inner city schools who have the hardest jobs get paid the least since their students do the worst.
That's a good point. So the performance part of their pay can be set to be relative to that of other teachers in the same school.
The idea is great - but the measure implemented to do that will inevitably fall flat and create the wrong incentives.
It will be a system that has to work across the board everywhere and easy to administer. So no looking intelligently at the individual cases, instead there will be some numeric targets - and as usual the "searching under the lantern" a.k.a. streetlight effect appears, meaning the system will measure what can be measured instead of what would be needed (which likely cannot even be measured).
Next, a lot of intelligent and at the beginning motivated people will be measured by an unfeeling bureaucracy against insane targets. The system will also fail to do what it is supposed to do and remove the "bad" teachers. Case in point: Measuring all kinds of "performance" has already been happening in education for a long time. What did it achieve apart from increasing frustration? Are teachers in the US doing "free form", whatever they like, right now? They already follow strict protocol.
The link is kind of random, soooo many articles have been written about this in a lot of countries all facing similar issues, so I don't really think I can find some "definitive" source to link to.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/to-fix-...
.
> That's how markets work, and they work well.
Uh... I don't really want to go there right now.
It will be a system that has to work across the board everywhere and easy to administer. So no looking intelligently at the individual cases, instead there will be some numeric targets - and as usual the "searching under the lantern" a.k.a. streetlight effect appears, meaning the system will measure what can be measured instead of what would be needed (which likely cannot even be measured).
Next, a lot of intelligent and at the beginning motivated people will be measured by an unfeeling bureaucracy against insane targets. The system will also fail to do what it is supposed to do and remove the "bad" teachers. Case in point: Measuring all kinds of "performance" has already been happening in education for a long time. What did it achieve apart from increasing frustration? Are teachers in the US doing "free form", whatever they like, right now? They already follow strict protocol.
The link is kind of random, soooo many articles have been written about this in a lot of countries all facing similar issues, so I don't really think I can find some "definitive" source to link to.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/to-fix-...
.
> That's how markets work, and they work well.
Uh... I don't really want to go there right now.
> The idea is great - but the measure implemented to do that will inevitably fall flat and create the wrong incentives.
Not if the parents decide how well they're doing. After all, if the parents buy the kid guitar lessons, and the kid fails to learn, are they going to continue paying that teacher? Nope.
Not if the parents decide how well they're doing. After all, if the parents buy the kid guitar lessons, and the kid fails to learn, are they going to continue paying that teacher? Nope.
Even having the "wrong" incentives is likely better than having none at all. It doesn't take much alignment if your goal is simply addressing the most dysfunctional cases and leaving the rest of the system broadly unaffected.
> I don't really want to go there right now.
Markets fail when they are government by bureaucratic rules instead of free choice.
Markets fail when they are government by bureaucratic rules instead of free choice.
I well know that the notion that teachers could be affected by performance based pay is an anathema to the school industry.
But it would be inexpensive to try a simple experiment. Pick a school, any school. Offer teachers a fat bonus for every student they bring up to grade-level reading.
I bet a miracle will be observed.
But it would be inexpensive to try a simple experiment. Pick a school, any school. Offer teachers a fat bonus for every student they bring up to grade-level reading.
I bet a miracle will be observed.
> That's how markets work, and they work well.
You haven't been paying much attention to markets lately, then.
Also, there are things that shouldn't be treated as a market. Education is one of them, unless the goal is to exacerbate inequality.
You haven't been paying much attention to markets lately, then.
Also, there are things that shouldn't be treated as a market. Education is one of them, unless the goal is to exacerbate inequality.
The general mediocrity of the public school system suggests otherwise. It exhibits all the classic problems with centralized government control. The current attempt by it to achieve equality by eliminating testing and gifted programs is mind-boggling.
I don't like comments like this. They divert attention from the topic to some underlying motivation (which is suspect). This way, we keep playing tribal politics, instead of being grounded in truth. Textbook whataboutism.
There are a lot of wealthy people who wouldn’t like anyone poking around these books.
I'm not sure if you're talking about people who got rich from getting no-bid contracts from the state who would be reveled, or just the rich people who live in the state.
The first I can obviously see why they wouldn't that information public, but I'm not sure why the second group would care.
The first I can obviously see why they wouldn't that information public, but I'm not sure why the second group would care.
I suspect the wealthiest people already know what's in these books. The more likely strategy here is to avoid the controversy if the public and media were to see them.
The only thing surprising me is that more states don't do it. Not that California does it... But when a private individual is in discussions over their IRS bill then it's a completely different matter.
Just pay your taxes and make public how that money is spent, no matter what the individual, country or community. Is it really so hard?
Just pay your taxes and make public how that money is spent, no matter what the individual, country or community. Is it really so hard?
This data should not even have to be requested, it should just be available via a API, or a minimum a structured data download of some kind
I live in California. The state with highest tax rate in the country.
For whatever historic reasons our street is not maintained by the city, nor by the county (we are in Marin County). Obviously not by the State of California. Every 10 years neighbors get together and we hire a contractor to patch the holes in the street and coat with tar. We have no public lights, each house installs a light in front on the entrance.
Our public high school is severely underfunded. There is side system funded by parents/PTA to maintain projetcs, art classes, etc.: https://www.tamvalleypta.com/
Kiddo (https://kiddo.org/) raise $3M every year to fund just about everything:
What Kiddo! Funds
At every elementary school, Kiddo! funding pays for many people and programs.
Because of Kiddo!, the Mill Valley School District is able to provide our students with an unparalleled, top-notch education that values the arts as much as any other content area. This is integral to our Strategic Plan, and it is a point of pride for our District that students in all six of our schools participate in a diverse array of enriching experiences that deepen and expand their learning every year, from transitional Kindergarten through 8th grade.
How Kiddo! Helps Elementary and Middle School Teachers
Learn more about volunteering, events, and other ways to get involved at http://kiddo.org/
For whatever historic reasons our street is not maintained by the city, nor by the county (we are in Marin County). Obviously not by the State of California. Every 10 years neighbors get together and we hire a contractor to patch the holes in the street and coat with tar. We have no public lights, each house installs a light in front on the entrance.
Our public high school is severely underfunded. There is side system funded by parents/PTA to maintain projetcs, art classes, etc.: https://www.tamvalleypta.com/
Kiddo (https://kiddo.org/) raise $3M every year to fund just about everything:
What Kiddo! Funds
At every elementary school, Kiddo! funding pays for many people and programs.
Kiddo! provides funding for the salaries for all Art teachers, Music teachers, Chorus teachers, Orchestra and Band teachers, and P.E. teachers; plus salaries for almost every Classroom aide, and every Library aide in our District.
Kiddo! also funds Dance programs in every grade, Poetry and/or Drama instruction in every grade, and multiple Innovative Teacher Grants.
Kiddo! funds 100% of the salaries for all Art teachers, Instrumental Music teachers, and Vocal Music teachers, plus Music Technology, and our MVMS Library Aide
Kiddo! funds 100% of the Specialist Contracts to teach Dance in all grades, and Poetry in 6th grade.
Kiddo! funds the Greek Mythology workshops for all of 6th grade, Shakespeare program and performances for all 7th grade classrooms, Word for Word literary drama program for all 8th grade classes, a Yoga unit for all grades during P.E., an all-school Robotics Club, and several innovative teacher grants.
Kiddo! also provides funding for the all-school Spring Cabaret for all grades.
Kiddo! also provides funding for technology, including computers and software for classrooms, plus the salaries of our district-wide Instructional Tech Coach and some of the tech support staff. Read more about the District Tech Plan here.
Because of Kiddo!, the Mill Valley School District is able to provide our students with an unparalleled, top-notch education that values the arts as much as any other content area. This is integral to our Strategic Plan, and it is a point of pride for our District that students in all six of our schools participate in a diverse array of enriching experiences that deepen and expand their learning every year, from transitional Kindergarten through 8th grade.
How Kiddo! Helps Elementary and Middle School Teachers
Support for Core Curriculum. The arts and P.E. are not "extras." They are part of the core curriculum in California. Kiddo! funds pay for the art, music and elementary P.E. teachers, and provide dance, drama and poetry specialists.
Specialized Instruction. In districts that can't afford dedicated staff for art or P.E., classroom teachers often teach these subjects, squeezing them in when they can. Mill Valley students receive regularly scheduled art, music, drama, dance, poetry and P.E. from professionals trained in these subjects.
Support for Differentiated Learning. Because Kiddo! funds classroom aides, teachers have more prep time and more time to dedicate to students. They can provide more attention to students who need it and more challenges for students who are excelling.
Teaching Grants. Kiddo! also funds grants so classroom teachers can try new and innovative programs. This year Kiddo! has funded over $50,000 in teaching grants across the District.
Teaching Teachers. – Kiddo! provides the funding for our district-wide Instructional Technology Coach whose primary focus is to assist classroom teachers to successfully integrate instructional strategies using multiple technologies.
Funding for Other Needs. Kiddo! fills holes in other critical areas such as supporting professional development and funding most of our tech support team.
Learn more about volunteering, events, and other ways to get involved at http://kiddo.org/
LOL..."Highest Tax Rate" in the country. This is the state which passed Prop 13 -- locking property tax rates at 1970's levels. The decline in property tax revenue is why parents are having to self-fund school programs.
This is exactly the scenario prop 13 was designed to create.
> decline in property tax revenue
Wait property tax is a percentage of assessed value - not a fixed amount. Property tax revenue has increased pretty reliably since 1978.
https://dailybruin.com/2017/01/11/ucsa-campaign-aims-to-refo...
Wait property tax is a percentage of assessed value - not a fixed amount. Property tax revenue has increased pretty reliably since 1978.
https://dailybruin.com/2017/01/11/ucsa-campaign-aims-to-refo...
Unless the property is sold, Prop 13 caps the increase at no more than 2% annually. So if you have owned a home for more than 10 years, the tax basis is probably way lower than market value -- particularly in a place like Marin County.
The cost of provisioning public services depends on the cost of paying workers to live here, which has done a lot more than "increased pretty reliably."
California has the highest tax revenue in the union; both per capita and gross. Tax revenue is not an issue in California.
[deleted]
> I live in California. The state with highest tax rate in the country.
This is, at best, a misleading statement: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-bur... shows that California is 10th by tax burden, not 1st. It's not even first by income tax burden.
This is, at best, a misleading statement: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-bur... shows that California is 10th by tax burden, not 1st. It's not even first by income tax burden.
Hmm, I don't quite understand this methodology. This site lists my state, Massachusetts, as having a 3.29% individual income tax burden, but our income tax rate is a flat 5% (no brackets). I'm looking at the exemption list (https://www.mass.gov/service-details/view-massachusetts-pers...) and I can't see how it could possibly make that big of a difference.
The dependent exemption and old age exemptions definitely look like they could knock out 1.5% of income. If you have an income of 70k and two dependents, you would have an effective tax rate of 2.14%.
can you clarify how you got that result?
70,000 - 8800 (married filing jointly) - 2000 (two dependents) = $59200 taxable income, $2960 tax bill. An effective rate of 4.22%
To reach the site's stated 3.29%, this family would need to make around 32k a year.
Fwiw, it appears the average household income in Massachusetts is about 80k.
70,000 - 8800 (married filing jointly) - 2000 (two dependents) = $59200 taxable income, $2960 tax bill. An effective rate of 4.22%
To reach the site's stated 3.29%, this family would need to make around 32k a year.
Fwiw, it appears the average household income in Massachusetts is about 80k.
Always brought up and a bit of a red herring. Averaged out, yes. But prop 13 gives older generations are far lower tax burden. If you’re a young home owner in California, it’s absolutely the highest tax burden in the country.
It's not a red herring. If I think my taxes are too high, and I hear "California has the highest taxes in the country!", I will think, "Oh, California should spend less money so my taxes go down." But if I hear "California has extremely high taxes for people like me, but very low taxes for certain other rich people," I will think, "California should reform its tax policies so that it gets more money from those people and less from me."
Superlatives are weird. You can claim California has the highest tax rate and it could actually just be average, because you aren’t technically comparing against anything. If the commenter said “California has the highest tax rate compared to any other state”, the statement would be false, but leaving out the comparison makes it true by default.
Of course, that’s just advertising law (what you can legally claim about your product), this is an online forum based on higher standards.
Of course, that’s just advertising law (what you can legally claim about your product), this is an online forum based on higher standards.
Why would you take anyone seriously where the first thing to come out their mouth is a lie?
Words matters. Their context matters.
Words matters. Their context matters.
You are confusing rate and burden. The top burden is different from the top rate-- tax burden is a function of income and demographics.
I'm not confusing them, but highest tax rate is a useless statistic. Quoting it is thus usually used to push and agenda, not to understand and explain a complex situation.
You could equally be accused of pushing an agenda by quoting an average to refute the max without any further context. Both numbers are misleading.
How is “Tax Burden” calculated? How is “personal income” determined? This is opaque and essentially meaningless. It remains true that California has the highest tax rate in the country.
It says it in the link: "property taxes, individual income taxes and sales and excise taxes — as a share of total personal income in the state."
As for personal income, you declare it every year on your tax form.
As for personal income, you declare it every year on your tax form.
If that’s the case then something is wrong with their data. They say that 3.78% is the individual income tax “burden” on personal income in California and that is just not true unless they are doing some sort of average across the population. The income tax rate in California can be as high as ~13%
> They say that 3.78% is the individual income tax “burden” on personal income in California and that is just not true unless they are doing some sort of average across the population.
Why do so many people not understand how graduated income taxes work? And why wouldn’t you average the tax burden across the entire California population when calculating its “tax rate”, unless you are claiming the highest tax rate in California someone could actually pay rather than the rates paid on average?
Why do so many people not understand how graduated income taxes work? And why wouldn’t you average the tax burden across the entire California population when calculating its “tax rate”, unless you are claiming the highest tax rate in California someone could actually pay rather than the rates paid on average?
One camp is referencing the max. The other camp is referencing the average. The max does not refute the average and vice versa therefore both are misleading. A distribution would be more clear.
If one means to say highest maximum tax rate, just say it. No weasel interpretations.
But I guess these are the same people that don’t understand how America dealt with a 90% income tax rate in the 1950s. Or a 77% tax rate until 1981!
But I guess these are the same people that don’t understand how America dealt with a 90% income tax rate in the 1950s. Or a 77% tax rate until 1981!
> If one means to say highest maximum tax rate, just say it. No weasel interpretations.
To be fair, when people criticize the tax rate, be it state or federal, it is usually implied they are referencing the highest tax rate. Apples to apples, it’s a rough but fairly accurate proxy for relative so called “tax burden.” One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down.
To be fair, when people criticize the tax rate, be it state or federal, it is usually implied they are referencing the highest tax rate. Apples to apples, it’s a rough but fairly accurate proxy for relative so called “tax burden.” One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down.
> One would expect states with roughly equivalent highest tax rates to scale their tax rates about the same as income goes down.
That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%. States with lower top tax rates are usually more regressive than states with higher top tax rates, red southern states being the main example of states with regressive taxation.
That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%. States with lower top tax rates are usually more regressive than states with higher top tax rates, red southern states being the main example of states with regressive taxation.
> That is incredibly stupid. Someone (single) in Alabama making $40k/year is paying 4.07% effective state income tax rate, in California they are just paying 2.37%.
This actually validates my point. 40K in Alabama goes a lot farther than 40K in California, based on differences in average cost of living. Just look at relative gas prices. Why are you so hostile? You shouldn’t bully fellow commenters on HN.
This actually validates my point. 40K in Alabama goes a lot farther than 40K in California, based on differences in average cost of living. Just look at relative gas prices. Why are you so hostile? You shouldn’t bully fellow commenters on HN.
That wasn’t the argument being made. The one stated that higher top tax rates mean higher low tax rates as well is false, the converse is true.
Alabama is nearly last in everything for a good reason. That Californians have a much longer life expectancy (with correspondingly lower obesity rates and fewer health problems) shows that there is more to measuring COL than just what people can buy.
I only pointed out that the assumption that higher top tax rates meant higher bottom tax rates as well is incredibly stupid, if anything, the converse is true (higher top tax rates usually mean lower bottom tax rates, not higher).
Alabama is nearly last in everything for a good reason. That Californians have a much longer life expectancy (with correspondingly lower obesity rates and fewer health problems) shows that there is more to measuring COL than just what people can buy.
I only pointed out that the assumption that higher top tax rates meant higher bottom tax rates as well is incredibly stupid, if anything, the converse is true (higher top tax rates usually mean lower bottom tax rates, not higher).
The top rate 12.3% only applies to income in excess of $600k for single and $1.2m for married. How is quoting this rate at all relevant for average people?
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2020/2020-California-Tax-Rate-S...
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2020/2020-California-Tax-Rate-S...
Marin county is the 6th-richest county in the U.S. Yet, it has locked itself into the same infrastructure spending death spiral that so many other places have initiated, by having roads all over the place going nowhere, and no growth in existing urbanized areas to increase revenue and amortize the cost of road maintenance.
Yeah, I kind of think Marin wants to have it both ways.
How widely spread are these heavily funded PTA setups in CA? Base on my limited visibility while living in SF and on the peninsula, this setup seems to run rampant -- for the areas with people that can afford it. Is any of the funding gathered devoted to legislating for fixing funding for all kids in the state?
I am not sure. As often is the case, if you want your kids to go to public schools, you step in and fund an organization (in this case Kiddo) to provide funding for anything the state does not provide. The same folks just want to see their money going 100% to fund classrooms, teachers and projects.
It is very efficient. All volunteers. 100% of your money is put to good use.
Funding legislation is a whole different Hydra and the best way to go nowhere while you have kids in school. Focus on the short term and support classes and teachers right now.
It is very efficient. All volunteers. 100% of your money is put to good use.
Funding legislation is a whole different Hydra and the best way to go nowhere while you have kids in school. Focus on the short term and support classes and teachers right now.
Go to https://www.taxfairnessproject.org/ to see how much subsidies your neighbors are getting.
It's interesting that there is a lot of effort spent on reigning in spending but when there are reductions in services, quality thereof or otherwise spending there is not a corresponding reduction in taxes.
In Canada we have had constant reductions in the quality of education for at least the last 40 years, without any corresponding reduction in taxes.
While I'm in favour of public education in principle, we cannot trust the gov to not raid this and the health care coffers so that they can spend on what will get them re-elected.
In Canada we have had constant reductions in the quality of education for at least the last 40 years, without any corresponding reduction in taxes.
While I'm in favour of public education in principle, we cannot trust the gov to not raid this and the health care coffers so that they can spend on what will get them re-elected.
That's almost how much debt Argentina has.
California pays a lot of pensions. Pensions are stupid. Just pay people for the time that they work. We have social security, we have welfare, we have MediCal Medicaid, we have affordable housing. People can also invest in their own retirement accounts throughout their careers. It's stupid.
> People can also invest in their own retirement accounts throughout their careers. It's stupid.
People can but will they? From what I've seen, no they won't. This is how you get an aged / aging population that has not saved enough, but often cannot work (e.g., because of health reasons). Then you have a sizeable demographic that's stuck eating proverbial cat food.
Further, even when people do save, they put money into absolute non-sense things either because they think they can beat the market (spoiler: 99.99% of us can't [1]) or because they don't know what to invest in and may not have the time to learn.
Forced savings [1] is a good thing for the general population.
Of course you are different, and don't suffer from cognitive/behaviour biases, so you'll do better than average and beat the market.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_saving
People can but will they? From what I've seen, no they won't. This is how you get an aged / aging population that has not saved enough, but often cannot work (e.g., because of health reasons). Then you have a sizeable demographic that's stuck eating proverbial cat food.
Further, even when people do save, they put money into absolute non-sense things either because they think they can beat the market (spoiler: 99.99% of us can't [1]) or because they don't know what to invest in and may not have the time to learn.
Forced savings [1] is a good thing for the general population.
Of course you are different, and don't suffer from cognitive/behaviour biases, so you'll do better than average and beat the market.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_saving
>Further, even when people do save, they put money into absolute non-sense things either because they think they can beat the market (spoiler: 99.99% of us can't [1]) or because they don't know what to invest in and may not have the time to learn.
The situation has changed with the advent of near zero cost index funds and target date retirement funds.
There is no reason for pension fund managers to exist when they have been automated.
The situation has changed with the advent of near zero cost index funds and target date retirement funds.
There is no reason for pension fund managers to exist when they have been automated.
> The situation has changed with the advent of near zero cost index funds and target date retirement funds.
Again, this assumes that people will actually invest. Which plenty of people do not do. For a large portion of they never bother setting anything up.
As someone who participates in /r/PersonalFinanceCanada a lot, the number of posts that say something like "my parents are 60 and have nothing saved" is quite tragic. There are books written on folks who have only started late in the game:
* https://www.moneysense.ca/save/retirement/procrastinating-on...
The problem is not technical in nature on the products one should buy, but behaviour on actually buying anything (even if it's a shitty mutual fund with a MER of 2%). Getting people saving something, anything is the problem.
Forced savings are a good thing for a very, very large portion of the population.
Again, this assumes that people will actually invest. Which plenty of people do not do. For a large portion of they never bother setting anything up.
As someone who participates in /r/PersonalFinanceCanada a lot, the number of posts that say something like "my parents are 60 and have nothing saved" is quite tragic. There are books written on folks who have only started late in the game:
* https://www.moneysense.ca/save/retirement/procrastinating-on...
The problem is not technical in nature on the products one should buy, but behaviour on actually buying anything (even if it's a shitty mutual fund with a MER of 2%). Getting people saving something, anything is the problem.
Forced savings are a good thing for a very, very large portion of the population.
Sure, but this societal risk should be covered by the federal government, and federal government alone since the federal government is the only one that can print money. Which in its current form is known as Social Security in the US.
I think that Wikipedia definition of "forced saving" is woefully incomplete.
California does have a "strongly encouraged" saving program that is mandatory for all employers with five or more employees to offer[0]. It is similar to the MyRA program that Obama implemented but was left to fade away for partisan reasons.
[0]https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/calsavers/
California does have a "strongly encouraged" saving program that is mandatory for all employers with five or more employees to offer[0]. It is similar to the MyRA program that Obama implemented but was left to fade away for partisan reasons.
[0]https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/calsavers/
401k matching might solve this problem? Are any governments doing this? It’s a really strong incentive to contribute the maximum every year, and while it does cost some money, it’s peanuts compared to the long term liability of a pension. With (tax free) compounding interest, the employee would probably end up better off in most cases when they retire.
Okay, so if this is the only thing then we can just turn it into a defined contribution fund instead of a defined benefit fund. You don’t make $x, you just have to put $y into a 401k. Why does it have to be different for public sector workers?
> People can also invest in their own retirement accounts throughout their careers.
It takes an illness and a lifetime of making less than the average wage, to condemn a person to poverty after retirement.
Pensions are essential all around the developed world. They are not "stupid", they are one of the pillars of elderly protection.
It takes an illness and a lifetime of making less than the average wage, to condemn a person to poverty after retirement.
Pensions are essential all around the developed world. They are not "stupid", they are one of the pillars of elderly protection.
Defined benefit pensions are stupid unless you can print money. So it is fine for the US federal government to offer, such as Social Security, but since no one can see 5, 10, 20, or 30+ years into the future, no city, county, or state should be in the business of promising things that far into the future.
Otherwise, as evidenced by basically every data point, politicians will promise the DB pensions, then not fund them, then lay the costs on future generations.
Otherwise, as evidenced by basically every data point, politicians will promise the DB pensions, then not fund them, then lay the costs on future generations.
> Defined benefit pensions are stupid unless you can print money.
Or you look at demographics ahead of time and have the political will to switch away from a pay-as-you-go system. Like Canada did with its CPP in the 1990s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_refor...
Every three years the CPP is independently audited to make sure it is solvent 75 years out given certain assumptions:
* https://www.cppinvestments.com/the-fund/our-performance/actu...
And that includes audits from foreign auditors/actuaries that don't have a dog in the fight:
* https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/ipr-rip/Pages/gad30....
> no city, county, or state should be in the business of promising things that far into the future.
Health care workers in the province of Ontario would disagree:
* https://hoopp.com
Or you look at demographics ahead of time and have the political will to switch away from a pay-as-you-go system. Like Canada did with its CPP in the 1990s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_refor...
Every three years the CPP is independently audited to make sure it is solvent 75 years out given certain assumptions:
* https://www.cppinvestments.com/the-fund/our-performance/actu...
And that includes audits from foreign auditors/actuaries that don't have a dog in the fight:
* https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/ipr-rip/Pages/gad30....
> no city, county, or state should be in the business of promising things that far into the future.
Health care workers in the province of Ontario would disagree:
* https://hoopp.com
Canada can print its own money though. They are effectively solvent no matter what. And sure, there might be some decent people working at decent DB pension funds.
But at the end of the day, what are they doing different that a target date fund from Vanguard/Schwab/Fidelity is not? Except the latter avoids agency risk and is super cheap.
But at the end of the day, what are they doing different that a target date fund from Vanguard/Schwab/Fidelity is not? Except the latter avoids agency risk and is super cheap.
And yet the health care works who have HOOPP also get it. As well as secondary school teachers (OTP), municipal workers (OMERS), etc. None of these entities can print money.
There's no guarantee that pensions will perform well of course (see Alberta). But as someone who spends a decent amount of time in /r/PersonalFinanceCanada, the random person on the street probably does worse.
> But at the end of the day, what are they doing different that a target date fund from Vanguard/Schwab/Fidelity is not?
1. Forced savings taken off their pay cheques no matter what, which solves a huge behaviour issue.
2. Run by folks who are better audited than individuals are personally, so results are readily available, and can be easily criticized for non-performance.
There's no guarantee that pensions will perform well of course (see Alberta). But as someone who spends a decent amount of time in /r/PersonalFinanceCanada, the random person on the street probably does worse.
> But at the end of the day, what are they doing different that a target date fund from Vanguard/Schwab/Fidelity is not?
1. Forced savings taken off their pay cheques no matter what, which solves a huge behaviour issue.
2. Run by folks who are better audited than individuals are personally, so results are readily available, and can be easily criticized for non-performance.
1. This is more easily accomplished as a federal program.
2. It is already very easy to write software that compares performance to an index.
Regardless, if the purpose of a DB pension fund is to protect people from their own proclivities, then a federal pay as you go system works better (cheaper, less agency risk). If the purpose is to supplement the amounts from the federal system, then a personal account at a brokerage invested in a low cost index works better.
I am not even sure why Canada invests its pension funds in the private markets. Canada can always issue new Canadian dollars anytime it needs to pay the benefits it has promised if tax receipts are insufficient. If anything, this leads to another perverse incentive of Canada’s government wanting to bail out businesses it has invested in.
2. It is already very easy to write software that compares performance to an index.
Regardless, if the purpose of a DB pension fund is to protect people from their own proclivities, then a federal pay as you go system works better (cheaper, less agency risk). If the purpose is to supplement the amounts from the federal system, then a personal account at a brokerage invested in a low cost index works better.
I am not even sure why Canada invests its pension funds in the private markets. Canada can always issue new Canadian dollars anytime it needs to pay the benefits it has promised if tax receipts are insufficient. If anything, this leads to another perverse incentive of Canada’s government wanting to bail out businesses it has invested in.
Actually, if these funds are so good for the public good why not open it to all members of the public?
Surely just because you don’t work for Ontario doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed a pension. Same in, same out should be the principle.
Surely just because you don’t work for Ontario doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed a pension. Same in, same out should be the principle.
1. I wouldn't object. But employers would have to kick in money too, and some may not want to because that could potentially effect the bottom line. With (US) 401(k) (CA: RRSP), it's up to the employee to contribute and many don't so that saves companies money.
2. The listed pension funds are not for working specifically for the government, but are for more publicly focused aspects (health care, education). But there are other options, like folks who work in (e.g.) the food industry (supermarkets):
* http://ccwipp.ca/index.php/en/
Construction:
* https://www.lpfcec.org
And even general solutions:
* https://www.caatpension.ca
That said, the public sector pension (OPTrust) set up a system where Ontario charities / non-profits can join their general pool not too long ago:
* https://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/2018/09/ontarios-new-non-p...
* https://www.optrust.com/AboutOPTrust/News/Nonprofits-Enroll-...
* https://theonn.ca/our-work/our-people/decent-work/pension/
BC is looking at pensions for gig workers:
* https://www.benefitscanada.com/benefits/health-benefits/b-c-...
2. The listed pension funds are not for working specifically for the government, but are for more publicly focused aspects (health care, education). But there are other options, like folks who work in (e.g.) the food industry (supermarkets):
* http://ccwipp.ca/index.php/en/
Construction:
* https://www.lpfcec.org
And even general solutions:
* https://www.caatpension.ca
That said, the public sector pension (OPTrust) set up a system where Ontario charities / non-profits can join their general pool not too long ago:
* https://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/2018/09/ontarios-new-non-p...
* https://www.optrust.com/AboutOPTrust/News/Nonprofits-Enroll-...
* https://theonn.ca/our-work/our-people/decent-work/pension/
BC is looking at pensions for gig workers:
* https://www.benefitscanada.com/benefits/health-benefits/b-c-...
Why make it on employers to kick in rather than say $x gets $y? The thing the fund performs on is amount of money in per person anyway.
Otherwise seems rather sensible.
Otherwise seems rather sensible.
3. Scale
Scale helps a lot because you tend to get closer to average returns and closer to the statistical distribution of payout timelines.
Scale helps a lot because you tend to get closer to average returns and closer to the statistical distribution of payout timelines.
CPP is woefully inadequate to survive on in most of Canada.
Which is why there is also OAS and GIS.
CPP was never meant to be a 100% program.
CPP was never meant to be a 100% program.
You keep using the word "stupid", and I don't think you know what it means.
It would be "stupid" to not pay pensions, unless you don't see the risks in leaving a whole generation in their elderly years with no income whatsoever. Most evident of all, it would be a deadly blow agains the economy itself, especially in developed countries with aging populations.
It would be "stupid" to not pay pensions, unless you don't see the risks in leaving a whole generation in their elderly years with no income whatsoever. Most evident of all, it would be a deadly blow agains the economy itself, especially in developed countries with aging populations.
I specified the condition that it is stupid for entities that cannot print money, due to the enormous moral hazard allowing today's taxpayers to soak future taxpayers in unstated debt which evident by looking at almost any US city or state government's finances.
you seem to assume that printing money absolves a (nation-)state from future liability. it doesn’t. it’s still a moral hazard either way. you’re still leaving the future with less; it’s only the accounting that changes.
I am aware it devalues the currency, it is the least morally hazardous way though.
It is inevitable that the longer people live during their non working years and the more top heavy the population pyramid becomes, that there will be less for future generations’ during their younger years.
It is inevitable that the longer people live during their non working years and the more top heavy the population pyramid becomes, that there will be less for future generations’ during their younger years.
the least morally hazardous way is to not take from the future at all. there’s no reason for the top-heavy not to take less into retirement. there’s also plenty of excess wealth to easily avoid stealing from the future while still providing for all the top-heavy now.
The only way to not take from the future is to kill yourself after you become unable to support yourself.
Nobody is proposing to just pull the rug out on pensions. We need to transition to a more sustainable option.
Why aren't pensions sustainable? Honest question.
At least in the US, there seems to be more than enough money to keep several branches going. The military just got $20 billion extra this year. Foreign aid is around $45 billion a year.
It's not that there isn't enough tax money.
At least in the US, there seems to be more than enough money to keep several branches going. The military just got $20 billion extra this year. Foreign aid is around $45 billion a year.
It's not that there isn't enough tax money.
They inevitably fall into the trap of promising that benefits will be paid for in the future.
At a national level that is probably okay, at a municipal level it means that people that leave a city get services that they don't pay for, and future residents pay for services they didn't benefit from. It's a terrible alignment.
At a national level that is probably okay, at a municipal level it means that people that leave a city get services that they don't pay for, and future residents pay for services they didn't benefit from. It's a terrible alignment.
You are describing pensions. That's how pensions work, and have been working for decades now.
Would creating a national pension system work better?
Would creating a national pension system work better?
No, I'm making a particular point about public pensions. They should be fully funded during the vesting period or not exist, except maybe at the national level.
Note the "paid for" in "paid for in the future".
Note the "paid for" in "paid for in the future".
Sustainable implies “don’t need to print money forever”.
You really wouldn’t like Europe then xD
But if you’re on disability and not working you’re not earning a pension either. This doesn’t seem like an argument against retirement savings accounts, it seems like you’re arguing for Social Security, which is totally unrelated.
Pensions are a great thing for the retired. For everyone else they’re unsustainable, growing tax burdens. I agree with OP. We need to end new pensions right now, transition everyone to self-funding retirement through tax advantaged accounts, give a good baseline via Social Security and Medicare, and then fill the gaps with things like disability.
> California ... we have affordable housing
California is 2nd to Hawaii in home prices and more importantly, payment to income ratio
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-house-price...
California has the 2nd lowest percentage of home ownership, and is among the highest decline in home ownership over the past 15 years.
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-...
California is 2nd to Hawaii in home prices and more importantly, payment to income ratio
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-house-price...
California has the 2nd lowest percentage of home ownership, and is among the highest decline in home ownership over the past 15 years.
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-...
I meant that we have government subsidized housing all over the country. California has its own problems related to supply constrained housing, but I don't understand why the expectation should be that anyone is entitled to live in one of the most desired locations on the planet. You don't have to retire in California.
Sorry, that wasn't clear to me. In that case, I agree 100%
Defined benefit pensions allow politicians to spend money today without having to increase taxes today. No politician is going to win an election by saying they are going to offer government employees competitive cash compensation today, and hence higher taxes today, for the benefit of future taxpayers.
I think you could fix pensions without destroying them. Instead of reiterating what most others have said about how it’s a nice benefit and a way to compete with the private sector, I’ll point out that the way pension amounts are calculated (often involving some percent of the average pay for X% of someone’s Y highest earnings years) incentivized fraud and overspending. If you fix that, you could likely see more reasonable pension costs. An easy fix would be to just have OT pay not factor in this calculation and otherwise keep it the same.
It’s pretty common to hear about police officers and firefighters supposedly working >80 hr/week for extended periods. I’m not saying it’s impossible for that to happen naturally, but I think it is greatly incentivized by pension calculations. The OT pay itself being time fraud isn’t a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but the fact the taxpayer has to pay it over and over again over potentially decades really makes it consequential and something we need to disincentivize (note I’m NOT suggesting we even get rid of OT. Just remove it from pension calculations).
Another controversial statement: a lot of public jobs in CA pay a lot of money. I don’t think they necessarily need to have their pay cut but you could probably reduce the pension to like 40-50% of max income. Someone making $120k/yr has plenty of money to make other retirement contributions and still live well off an extra $50k+/yr. Healthy pensions are good to avoid destitution but $100k/yr pernsion is a lot of money…
It’s pretty common to hear about police officers and firefighters supposedly working >80 hr/week for extended periods. I’m not saying it’s impossible for that to happen naturally, but I think it is greatly incentivized by pension calculations. The OT pay itself being time fraud isn’t a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but the fact the taxpayer has to pay it over and over again over potentially decades really makes it consequential and something we need to disincentivize (note I’m NOT suggesting we even get rid of OT. Just remove it from pension calculations).
Another controversial statement: a lot of public jobs in CA pay a lot of money. I don’t think they necessarily need to have their pay cut but you could probably reduce the pension to like 40-50% of max income. Someone making $120k/yr has plenty of money to make other retirement contributions and still live well off an extra $50k+/yr. Healthy pensions are good to avoid destitution but $100k/yr pernsion is a lot of money…
Alternatively 401ks are stupid. They transfer the market risk to individuals which can result in dramatic loss of savings of no fault of the naïve general investor. Once more, they transfer wealth from wage earners to the investment class and by automatically investing more, inflate the divide between rich and poor and drive up valuations. They take dumb investor money and then add regulated inflexibility that locks it up in stock investments. These investors are told to never sell even in a crash. It’s HOLLDD in its original form. Another result in the market is that few 401k investors play anything other than indexes, which means that companies become owned by huge funds that don’t exert any control over the companies they own and don’t care about their performance. This corrupts the corporate level since accountability to investors is weakened.
Otherwise it’s great as long as stocks always go up.
Otherwise it’s great as long as stocks always go up.
> dramatic loss of savings of no fault of the naïve general investor.
Not weighting your investments towards bonds as you get closer to retirement is solely on the individual.
> These investors are told to never sell even in a crash
Realizing losses on money you don't need for 20 years is an incredible stupid thing to do. The instruction here is almost always correct.
Not weighting your investments towards bonds as you get closer to retirement is solely on the individual.
> These investors are told to never sell even in a crash
Realizing losses on money you don't need for 20 years is an incredible stupid thing to do. The instruction here is almost always correct.
401(k)s give you the flexibility to invest how you want. You can buy bonds, or ETFs, whatever mix you want. Just because the best investment option in the 21st century has generally been stocks doesn’t mean it has to be that way for every investor.
Many states are switching over to 401Ks from pensions, but the trade off is that they have to increase salaries and pay into those investment accounts now rather than paying out later. It is actually a good idea I think, something that tech mostly already does, and private industry is also moving to.
My mom is a teacher and her school just switched them to 401(k). It was not a popular decision but it’s obviously a better move for the school since they will eventually not have to pay out any funds to anyone who doesn’t actually work at the school.
> but it’s obviously a better move for the school since they will eventually not have to pay out any funds to anyone who doesn’t actually work at the school.
The school district has to pay now rather than pay later (not only the employer contribution, but salary is generally higher to make up for the lack of a juicy pension). The 401K is also persistent (you don't need to work X amount of years at the school district for it to stick), and if you die early, your heirs inherit it rather than it just going poof. It isn't an obvious win for the school district...and it does keep them more honest in that they can't pretend their investment returns will be higher than they actually are.
The school district has to pay now rather than pay later (not only the employer contribution, but salary is generally higher to make up for the lack of a juicy pension). The 401K is also persistent (you don't need to work X amount of years at the school district for it to stick), and if you die early, your heirs inherit it rather than it just going poof. It isn't an obvious win for the school district...and it does keep them more honest in that they can't pretend their investment returns will be higher than they actually are.
The school district might have 100 employees but have 100 active pensions. Compare that to having 100 employees being paid 5% more and 0 pensions..
> The school district might have 100 employees but have 100 active pensions. Compare that to having 100 employees being paid 5% more and 0 pensions..
A bit more than 5%, but exactly (about $30k/year to fully fund a 401k from employee and employer side, sans whatever the employee contribution was before).
A bit more than 5%, but exactly (about $30k/year to fully fund a 401k from employee and employer side, sans whatever the employee contribution was before).
I believe the real problem is that market-level salaries are determined by surveying comparable jobs in private firms, but without taking into account the added compensation represented by a pension. I used to work for a large regulated utility in the IT area, and my job came with a defined benefit pension. However, my salary was substantially below market, which I know because after more than 15 years, I left and took a job in private industry with an immediate 25% bump in annual salary, but without a pension.
Basically, a pension is an understanding that you accept lower pay during your career in exchange for a guaranteed annuity in retirement, but the workers have by and large completely broken their side of the tacit agreement.
Basically, a pension is an understanding that you accept lower pay during your career in exchange for a guaranteed annuity in retirement, but the workers have by and large completely broken their side of the tacit agreement.
The governments underfunding and corruptly investing pension funds did not break their side of the agreement? Or the numerous private employers where employees have had to take a reduction on their promised compensation?
Why would anyone trust a good politician to nominate a good pension fund board member to hire good investment firms to make good investments when you can cut all that agency risk out and just stick your money in VOO and VCSH or a target date retirement fund at Vanguard/Fidelity/Schwab?
Why would anyone trust a good politician to nominate a good pension fund board member to hire good investment firms to make good investments when you can cut all that agency risk out and just stick your money in VOO and VCSH or a target date retirement fund at Vanguard/Fidelity/Schwab?
Retirement accounts effectively mean you are managing a pension fund of one (or two, if a couple) which means the amortization benefits are absent and all of your payout modeling has to be around the worst case. People like us, assuming you are building out a retirement portfolio, would be much, much better off if legal constructs existed that made participation in a pension-like vehicle possible. Annuities as they exist today aren't a good answer due to questions around solvency and (lack of) government backing/enforcement.
A pension fund of one or two is very risky and so you need to take a lower withdrawal rate, especially if you find yourself starting your withdrawal in times of very high valuations.
A pension fund of one or two is very risky and so you need to take a lower withdrawal rate, especially if you find yourself starting your withdrawal in times of very high valuations.
What’s the problem with annuities? They exist to solve that problem.
Inflation and downside risk if the company turns out to be a fraud, financial failure, etc.
It’s a problem if my 401(k) provider fails too.
Well, in practice, most people don't have the proper education to invest well for their own retirement, so they end up doing it poorly or not at all, and then end up in bad situations. In many other developed countries, like a lot of European countries, pensions are even more common than the USA. You can say it is paternalistic, but it also takes away the freedom for people to shoot themselves in the foot.
It does not take much education with the availability of target date retirement funds these days. Also, plenty of governments have shot their populations in the foot on behalf of the people anyway by underfunding and corruptly or idiotically investing pension funds.
Government workers aren’t poorly educated though. And workplaces are allowed to set default and auto-increasing contributions to make up for poor financial literacy.
lets ban alcohol to take away the freedom of people to commit duis
California public teachers don’t have Social Security. They people into their retirement system pension plan instead.
As a result of previous leaders of California teachers’ unions choosing to risk receiving higher benefits from the state of California (which cannot print USD, exposing benefit recipients to more risk) rather than the benefits that come from the federal government (which can print USD and always make good on its promise, minimizing benefit recipients’ risk).
In this scheme, earlier generations of California teachers will make out great. Latter generations of California teachers will suffer. The typical result of DB pension schemes.
In this scheme, earlier generations of California teachers will make out great. Latter generations of California teachers will suffer. The typical result of DB pension schemes.
The reason for pensions is that people don't generally invest enough money unless they legally have to.
Then the state is stuck picking up the bill for homelessness and healthcare and crime.
Then the state is stuck picking up the bill for homelessness and healthcare and crime.
"people don't generally invest enough money"
Looking at the exploding sovereign debt around the world, this seems to be true on the governmental level as well. At least if we speak about "own" money instead of "owed" money.
The EU has basically given up on Maastricht stability criteria for the euro by now. "No more than 60 per cent of GDP in debt" is about as reachable as the Moon for most members.
Looking at the exploding sovereign debt around the world, this seems to be true on the governmental level as well. At least if we speak about "own" money instead of "owed" money.
The EU has basically given up on Maastricht stability criteria for the euro by now. "No more than 60 per cent of GDP in debt" is about as reachable as the Moon for most members.
The states do not invest enough money either. And they do not legally have to (they are exempt from all the DB pension funding rules that apply to non government entities).
Old people barely commit any crimes and Medicare is already a right… Most retired people (pension or not) can’t afford private health insurance.
We would do well to remember these shenanigans the next time Ms. Yee is up for re-election.
This isn't true. Like all other governments, California has no choice but to publish financial statements. You can find the rollups here: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_state_rpts.html. If you want the salary of every single public employee working in San Francisco, go here: https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/san-francisco/?pa....
I'm perfectly happy to be outraged about some of this. Why does the top earning deputy sheriff earn three times in overtime his regular salary, for instance? I have a hard time believing he seriously put in 160 hours a week of work that deserves compensation. But there is no need to lie about it. They have no obligation to show you the literal checkbooks of each official with the power to withdraw from a public fund without charging for it, but that isn't the same thing as "hiding spending." You can view the most recently published comprehensive annual financial report here: https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr19web.pdf. You can search the record of disbursements from public contracts here: https://suppliers.fiscal.ca.gov/psc/psfpd1/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/ZZ....
I'd like to know why this writer feels this isn't good enough.
I'm perfectly happy to be outraged about some of this. Why does the top earning deputy sheriff earn three times in overtime his regular salary, for instance? I have a hard time believing he seriously put in 160 hours a week of work that deserves compensation. But there is no need to lie about it. They have no obligation to show you the literal checkbooks of each official with the power to withdraw from a public fund without charging for it, but that isn't the same thing as "hiding spending." You can view the most recently published comprehensive annual financial report here: https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr19web.pdf. You can search the record of disbursements from public contracts here: https://suppliers.fiscal.ca.gov/psc/psfpd1/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/ZZ....
I'd like to know why this writer feels this isn't good enough.
Did you try clicking on your links?
For example, I clicked on: https://suppliers.fiscal.ca.gov/psc/psfpd1/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/ZZ... (your last link) and got this:
And your "comprehensive annual fiscal report" that you're touting is for... the year ended in June 2019 (2.5 years ago). How is that useful?
For example, I clicked on: https://suppliers.fiscal.ca.gov/psc/psfpd1/SUPPLIER/ERP/c/ZZ... (your last link) and got this:
You must have cookies enabled in order to sign in to your PeopleSoft application.
Return to Sign In with cookies enabled.If your attempt fails, please contact your System Administrator.
And your "comprehensive annual fiscal report" that you're touting is for... the year ended in June 2019 (2.5 years ago). How is that useful?
Not sure what to tell you. The link worked fine for me and I don't have a login. As the sibling said, the audited financial statements take a while to complete. But budgets and financial statements and reconciliations between them are public, have to be by law, and you're also free to sit in on the legislative sessions when the budgets are approved. None of this is "easy" but I don't know what people honestly expect. They can't just open up the agency ERPs to anyone without an account, for obvious reasons.
I see this entire comment didn't go over well. People love to shit on governments. I used to be a budget officer in the US Army, in charge of the 1st Cav's efforst to digitize all records at the time the DoD was attempting to produce the first GAAP-compliant auditable financial statements ever in its history. We were digging out paper receipts from filing cabinets in rooms people had forgotten existed to upload into the SAP ERP, an extremely time-intensive and error-prone process, at the same time the sequester was going on and all the civilian staff had been furloughed, and half the headquarters was deployed to Afghanistan in the middle of this.
This is actually hard. Governments are held to much higher transparency and accountability standards than private companies, all while constantly having their own budgets cut and staff reduced, with no investment in automation or interoperability between disparate information systems and sources of truth.
People just expect this to be magic and free for some reason.
I see this entire comment didn't go over well. People love to shit on governments. I used to be a budget officer in the US Army, in charge of the 1st Cav's efforst to digitize all records at the time the DoD was attempting to produce the first GAAP-compliant auditable financial statements ever in its history. We were digging out paper receipts from filing cabinets in rooms people had forgotten existed to upload into the SAP ERP, an extremely time-intensive and error-prone process, at the same time the sequester was going on and all the civilian staff had been furloughed, and half the headquarters was deployed to Afghanistan in the middle of this.
This is actually hard. Governments are held to much higher transparency and accountability standards than private companies, all while constantly having their own budgets cut and staff reduced, with no investment in automation or interoperability between disparate information systems and sources of truth.
People just expect this to be magic and free for some reason.
That's the most recent audited report. Auditing the state's entire financial report takes a long time. The report for year ended June 2020 should be published later this month (scheduled for December 22), according to the California State Auditor: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/bsa/aip
OK, I'll buy that. But why is the first link hidden behind a login? https://suppliers.fiscal.ca.gov/
That I cannot answer (not sure where that link comes from, maybe nonameiguess can tell you). Looks like suppliers.fiscal.ca.gov is a externet location for vendors that do business the state, not a public website.
I don't know exactly how it's going to end for some of these states like California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. These places are the Venezuela's of the US. The amount of fiscal dysfunction is almost unfathomable, and at this point my only question is whether these places go broke in my lifetime or not. I assume they'll just get bailed out by a sympathetic federal government. It's just algebra.
> I don't know exactly how it's going to end for some of these states like California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. […] I assume they'll just get bailed out by a sympathetic federal government. It's just algebra.
All of the states that you list receive among the lower amounts of federal aide AFAICT:
* https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal...
* https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
* https://voxeu.org/article/which-50-states-practise-personal-...
It's the more-blue states that you seem to be criticizing that keep the rest of the more-red states afloat. Perhaps the more-red states should follow the policies of the more-blue states so they're in a 'more terrible' place and be less dependent of federal spending.
All of the states that you list receive among the lower amounts of federal aide AFAICT:
* https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal...
* https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
* https://voxeu.org/article/which-50-states-practise-personal-...
It's the more-blue states that you seem to be criticizing that keep the rest of the more-red states afloat. Perhaps the more-red states should follow the policies of the more-blue states so they're in a 'more terrible' place and be less dependent of federal spending.
Balance of payments includes federal programs like snap, medicaid, and social security [1]. None of that has anything to do with the state's balance sheet.
> It's the more-blue states that you seem to be criticizing that keep the rest of the more-red states afloat
This is not true. Almost all spending is deficit, the government is not taxes in, taxes out. In fact, the surplus generated by every net-positive state is consumed many times over by a single state: Virginia [0]. Last I checked Virginia leans blue, but again, it is utterly irrelevant.
[0]: https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...
[1]: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/502321-no-blue-states-do...
> It's the more-blue states that you seem to be criticizing that keep the rest of the more-red states afloat
This is not true. Almost all spending is deficit, the government is not taxes in, taxes out. In fact, the surplus generated by every net-positive state is consumed many times over by a single state: Virginia [0]. Last I checked Virginia leans blue, but again, it is utterly irrelevant.
[0]: https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-...
[1]: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/502321-no-blue-states-do...
Not only that, but these statistics that always get cited leave out federal subsidy of state and municipal bonds through tax exemption of interest payments - allowing states to pay less than they would otherwise. And the states with most the most taxpayer supported debt (both state and municipal) tend to be blue states. The explicit purpose of this system is to reduce the debt burden for state and local governments, yet its not considered a subsidy by these stats because the federal government isn't directly giving anyone money.
From your article:
> These are the exact same states with the lowest and highest balance of payment ratios, respectively. It is hypocritical to decry the tax code for taxing high-income states more than low income states while intentionally designing tax policies with that effect.
The above is an example of a tax code that is progressive. Plenty of red-leaning folks, including Rand Paul or KY, want a flat tax. The very progressiveness that helps their states is what they attack:
> As a lower-income state, Kentucky receives the full benefit of federal programs like Medicare, but pays relatively little in income or payroll taxes, so it gets much more than it pays in. And that is actually how the social safety net is supposed to work. We want individuals who for whatever reason are hurting financially to receive support from the more fortunate, which necessarily implies large transfers from rich states like New Jersey to lower-income states like Kentucky.
> What’s not OK is when states that are huge net beneficiaries of progressive taxation and the social safety net preen and posture about self-reliance and the evils of big government. It’s even worse when they assert some kind of moral superiority over the metropolitan areas that pay their bills.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/opinion/kentucky-tornado-...
* https://archive.md/ExBqu
The The Hill article linked to also references ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), which also is pushing for a non-progressive flat tax:
* https://www.alec.org/model-policy/flat-tax-option-act/
ALEC, while labeled as "non-partisan", certainly has clear leaning (as it's original under §History illustrate):
> ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues, such as reducing regulation and individual and corporate taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions, and opposing gun control.[8][9][10][11]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_...
> These are the exact same states with the lowest and highest balance of payment ratios, respectively. It is hypocritical to decry the tax code for taxing high-income states more than low income states while intentionally designing tax policies with that effect.
The above is an example of a tax code that is progressive. Plenty of red-leaning folks, including Rand Paul or KY, want a flat tax. The very progressiveness that helps their states is what they attack:
> As a lower-income state, Kentucky receives the full benefit of federal programs like Medicare, but pays relatively little in income or payroll taxes, so it gets much more than it pays in. And that is actually how the social safety net is supposed to work. We want individuals who for whatever reason are hurting financially to receive support from the more fortunate, which necessarily implies large transfers from rich states like New Jersey to lower-income states like Kentucky.
> What’s not OK is when states that are huge net beneficiaries of progressive taxation and the social safety net preen and posture about self-reliance and the evils of big government. It’s even worse when they assert some kind of moral superiority over the metropolitan areas that pay their bills.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/opinion/kentucky-tornado-...
* https://archive.md/ExBqu
The The Hill article linked to also references ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), which also is pushing for a non-progressive flat tax:
* https://www.alec.org/model-policy/flat-tax-option-act/
ALEC, while labeled as "non-partisan", certainly has clear leaning (as it's original under §History illustrate):
> ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues, such as reducing regulation and individual and corporate taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions, and opposing gun control.[8][9][10][11]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_...
Despite the lack of transparency California is projected to have a $31 billion budget surplus next year so they seem to be doing something right, at least for now.
California is not doing anything special. The tech sector provides high paying jobs fueling high housing costs in the San Francisco Bay and other places used as second homes (WFH): Wine country (Napa/Sonoma), the Coast (Santa Cruz, Stinson, Big Sur) or the Sierras (Lake Tahoe).
High paying jobs + high housing prices ---> higher taxes
Taxing tech corporations is more complex and most have stored IP in low tax havens. Note that this is not specific to tech, Wal Mart, Goldman Sachs and others do the same thing.
OP stated:
> at this point my only question is whether these places go broke in my lifetime or not
I think that would be hard to do when running a $30+ billion budget surplus.
> at this point my only question is whether these places go broke in my lifetime or not
I think that would be hard to do when running a $30+ billion budget surplus.
IMO a $31B surplus reeks of over-taxation! If I was a California resident I’d be demanding lower taxes now!
It's transparency that tells you whether that $31 Billion is an actual surplus, or whether there are huge off-balance sheet liabilities hiding in that state budget -- e.g. future pension obligations and the like, as well as mandated spending on other initiatives, or long term contracts signed by the state which require spending.
At least in California the state isn’t allowed to borrow for operating expenses. And there are limits on capital bonds. We won’t go broke in the traditional sense.
There are however unfunded pension liabilities. If that goes broke, we can hope that government workers finally get moved over to a 401(k) type system (I write this as an ex-government worker.)
There are however unfunded pension liabilities. If that goes broke, we can hope that government workers finally get moved over to a 401(k) type system (I write this as an ex-government worker.)
One article in their website suggests tying education spending to performance, and that teachers in Baltimore are overpaid [1]. Another says that a $100,000 salary is "too high" for Texas public workers [2]. I think my favorite would be this one [3], where they assert that a $150,000 salary in San Francisco is excessive.
These public workers are in charge of essential duties. Suggesting that a firefighter or a teacher are "overpaid", is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
[1] https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-baltimore-city-public-sc...
[2] https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-texas-is-in-trouble-...
[3] https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-...