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 said BENEFITS = 100% of salary. Pensions = 60% of salary. I stand by those numbers. ====================== So DeMaio is lying? One of you is. I'm not quite sure why you have this obsession when all of the evidence is against you. I think you've started to believe your own exaggerations.— January 26, 2009 6:41 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Second, don't forget the retirement age was lowered from 55 to 50, which is a drop of almost 10% in years ============== No it wasn't. The retirement age was always 50. Before there was a sliding scale percentage that went from 50 to 55. The city lost/settled in court and agreed to 3% at 50.— January 26, 2009 6:35 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Yes, Johnny, you're a genius. Speaking of which... I'll cut and paste because we might as well take this to 600 posts. Johnny, you just can't get over this $200K thing, can you? At least we're making progress. First it was ALL firefighters make $250K, then it was ALL make $200K, including OT, now it's virtually all make $200K. Maybe in the next year or two, you'll reach reality. You've been squawking about how retirement costs 100% of salary. That's pure BS. The figures from DeMaio show that. Same with health care. I'm assuming you believe DeMaio's numbers. A top step firefighter makes $67K/year base. Add 26% retirement and 9.5% health care and you get $114K. A battalion chief makes around $100K. With health care and retirement that's $135K. A firefighter would have to make $85K and a battalion chief would have to make $65K in OT to make $200K. I'm oversimplifying a little, but I'm hitting the high notes. I'm probably about 10% low due to retiree health care and offset. Offset is lower for us, so I didn't calculate it. The only reason retirement costs 26% is due to amortization of unpaid past bills. Normal retirement cost is half that. Even including benefits, few firefighters (of any rank) make it to $150K. Yeah, you're a genius alright...— January 25, 2009 10:05 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
A ten percent increase is actually a lot. =============== Not when spread over a 30 year career.— January 25, 2009 10:01 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
I agree. PSC should only be allowed in cases of military service or to allow employees who were part time and then went full time to catch up. That's what the original intent was. People who knowingly bought time at a falsely deflated rate should have to either pay or lose the benefit. Time bought should certainly not be used for vesting. I know of no one in the FD who has used purchased time for vesting, but it may have happened in other departments. The conflict of interest issue is interesting. You'll note that the city now pays outside counsel around a half million dollars a year to say no. That would pay for staffing another fire engine. There has to be a better, and cheaper way. Moorlach may have a case, but it's a self mitigating problem. I doubt he'll be able to take benefits from already retired folks. Here in SD, employees who are retiring right now have paid into the 3% at 50 system for 1/3 to 1/2 of their careers. That percentage increases every day. Eventually all employees will have paid in the current system for their entire careers. Here's the thing. The 3% at 50 wasn't all that much of an increase. The average retiree enters DROP at 52. The old factor was 2.7%. The new 3.0% factor is around a 10% gain. It would take millions of dollars to try to unwind those retirements, recalculate DROP, etc.— January 25, 2009 4:43 p.m.
DeMaio’s Demands
Johnny, you just can't get over this $200K thing, can you? At least we're making progress. First it was ALL firefighters make $250K, then it was ALL make $200K, including OT, now it's virtually all make $200K. Maybe in the next year or two, you'll reach reality. You've been squawking about how retirement costs 100% of salary. That's pure BS. The figures from DeMaio show that. Same with health care. I'm assuming you believe DeMaio's numbers. So a top step firefighter makes $67K/year base. Add 26% retirement and 9.5% health care and you get $114K. A battalion chief makes around $100K. With health care and retirement that's $135K. A firefighter would have to make $85K and a battalion chief would have to make $65K in OT to make $200K. I'm oversimplifying a little, but I'm hitting the high notes. I'm probably about 10% low due to retiree health care and offset. Offset is lower for us, so I didn't calculate it. Even including benefits, few firefighters make it to $150K.— January 25, 2009 6:44 a.m.
DeMaio’s Demands
Huh, first you pan the UT and then you praise them. What's it going to be? What part of legal, vested benefit don't you get? I also advocate eliminating SPSP, but the pensions must stay. I find it very ironic that you advocate for the middle class, quoting Lou Dobbs and such and then try to eliminate benefits for the last middle class folks who still have a decent pension and benefits. Why aren't you working towards increasing benefits for all workers?— January 24, 2009 7:50 p.m.
DeMaio’s Demands
Johnny, Once one of DeMaio's numbers is suspect they all are. The savings DeMaio posted will get us out of this current jam. Then what? He still doesn't provide a funding fix for the FD. He still doesn't explain how to fund the library or any of a thousand other projects the citizens of this city would like to see happen. DeMaio will never have the votes on council to reduce benefits the way he's like to. Therefore, there will have to be a compromise. To DeMaio (and you) there is no compromise -- it's reduce benefits or nothing. That's even more obstructionist than you accuse the unions of being. They have already given up benefits...— January 24, 2009 2:39 p.m.
DeMaio’s Demands
Sorry, one more link for this morning: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/tevli… Dorian, pretty weak story to not cover "the other side" of the story. At least you should've researched DeMaio's numbers. I found all of these source documents in about five minutes.— January 24, 2009 9:50 a.m.
DeMaio’s Demands
in fact I do not even think he mentions a comparison to any other city. ==================== From the article you're currently commenting on, "Reform the city employees' fringe benefits. DeMaio says the benefits amount to 61.28 percent of the city’s payroll, double the national average." Once again, Johnny... you're having a knee jerk reaction with not a lick of actual research. You didn't even read the article you're actually commenting on.— January 24, 2009 9:44 a.m.