Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
I think I am correct because I have seen the 3%50 pension payments for Contra Costa County, ================================ So you're saying that DeMaio is a liar, right? Are we agreed on that?— January 28, 2009 12:18 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Johnny, DeMaio says that benefits cost 61% of salary. You say they cost 100%. You can't both be right. Which one of you is lying?— January 28, 2009 10:33 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
How about resonding to the statements I make and stop trying to wiggle out of every litttle lie I catch you in ============== You first. I asked this days ago and got no response. DeMaio says that benefits cost 61% of salary. You say they cost 100%. You can't both be right. Which one of you is lying?— January 27, 2009 7:59 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Johnny, you're trying to argue with people who have kept track of the system for 20+ years. Never did I write that the multiplier was 2.9999 at 50. I very clearly wrote, "At the age of 55 the pension multiplier increased from 2.9999% to 3.0% for an increase of .0001%. At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%." You replied to that in post #578 by writing, "The pensions NEVER paid 2.99999% before the spiking began". So obviously you read what I wrote. Then you turned around and wrote, "nder the old system that JF said gave 2.99% for every year worked over age 50" in post #591 a day later. Also on the 26th, I wrote, "At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%." You then pointed out how wrong I was by pointing out that under the old system you could get 75% at age 50, but under the new system you can get 90%. Hmmm... 75 is 17% less than 90. The same numbers I posted! Amazing! You wrote, "if you read further you will see that the 2.99% is CAPPED and shall "cease" at it's current level as of March 31, 1997-thereby stopping ALL future increases over 90% as of that date." Um, yeah, that's exactly what I said. Before MP1 was enacted, retirements were uncapped. After MP1, the cap is 90%. Interesting that you're so cocksure that ALL future increases were stopped. Maybe you should read the prior section, specifically 24.0402.g which lists several ways in which an employee may exceed 90% under very limited circumstances. You sure ALL (shouting in caps, no less) were capped at 90%? Frankly, I think you're having a hard time keeping up with your lies. My story hasn't changed a lick because it's backed up by facts and documents.— January 27, 2009 7:34 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
A cut in the "retirement pick up" (yet another scam) is NOT a cut in pay, it is a cut in benefits. You took NO cut in pay. ========================= It's a cut in a benefit negotiated in lieu of a pay raise. Pick up replaced a pay raise -- removing it is a pay cut. My take home check is smaller. In most people's minds, that's a cut in pay. I guess not yours. Don't forget, we also took a "real" 5% pay cut in 1993.— January 27, 2009 7 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Please prove me wrong. ============== Man, it took a whole 30 minutes for Just Wondering to prove you wrong. The 2.9999% took effect 1/1/97. NEVER, eh? So let's see. You were wrong about retirement factors. You're wrong about the percentage of salary that benefits cost. DeMaio's figures show that. I guess you don't even believe him. You're wrong about firefighter and police officer pay. Again, DeMaio's figures show that. You wrote, "YOPU HABVE TAKEN NO CUTS IN PAY" (sic) when, in fact, we took a 4.3% pay cut by eliminating most of retirement pick-up. Unclassified employees took a 7% cut in pay. You said thousands of employees retired within a year of the pension changes. Interesting, given that the FD has less than a thousand employees. Citywide there are only 11,000 employees. So 10% retired? Frankly, Johnny, there are only two options. You're either deluded or you're a troll repeating the same crap over and over to provoke a reaction.— January 26, 2009 10:04 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
And there were hundreds, if not thousands that took the 50% pension increase immediatley-after days, weeks or months. I don't see why we are still sweating our positions. We are never going to come to a consensus. ======================================= Well, your first statement explains why I "keep sweating" it. You keep hurling insults and lies like "50% pension" increase. Or "virtually all firefighters make $200K". On the UT website, you've been so abusive you've been banned several times. At the age of 55 the pension multiplier increased from 2.9999% to 3.0% for an increase of .0001%. At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%. Even with DROP, the pension did not increase 50%. You've been presented with credible sources that debunk your $200K statements several times, yet you cling to that statement like those who claimed the earth was flat. I don't mind a bit if you don't like my pay and benefits. But when you throw these wild exaggerations around in a public forum, you'd better bet I'm going to counter them with documented proof of your falsehoods. Simply tell the truth and my post count will go way down.— January 26, 2009 4:27 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
20 years is not 30 years, which is how long you said it was spread out: "when spread over a 30 year career". =========================== Boy your critical thinking skills suck. As previously stated, I already had ten years of service at the time. As also previously stated, SDCERS has stated that the average member works 25 years before DROP and 5 years post-DROP. Oddly, that's 30 years. If you had any idea of reality, you could trip me up here. You don't, so I'm not too worried about it.— January 26, 2009 4:16 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
JF, the 10% increase was not spread out over 30 years-if it was we would not be BK. It was applied IMMEDIATLY and retroactively to everyone, incluidng the ones who retired the day after it was implemented-that is not spread out over 30 years. =================================== Really? I won't get the retroactive increase for 20 years after they were implemented. A few folks were eligible shortly thereafter, but the vast majority of folks paid in to the new system.— January 26, 2009 12:10 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
...but only those that permit the employees to keep their money and benefits. =================== Not true. I've posted several times that I believe the PSC should be eliminated for all but certain circumstances and that it should be cost neutral. I've also posted that I feel that SPSP should be reigned in or eliminated. I've pointed out that employees have already taken significant cuts in benefits. But I've also pointed out that the citizens haven't taken a lick of responsibility or pain in this mess. Show me where a citizen has taken any real loss in their life. Show me where a citizen has taken even a 1% increase in their overall tax burden. Golly, the potholes are bad. Such a shame. When the citizens take a 1% increase in taxes to match the employees 5-10% cut in pay then I'll back down a little.— January 26, 2009 12:04 p.m.