Note: I keep being told pension payments are 28% of our total annual budget. It's half that – 14% of a $2 billion budget. The reason it's being pitched as 28% is because the payments are wrapped into the General Fund of $1 billion, instead of having its own line item, being included in the section of the budget entitled "Trust and Agency Funds," or the line item "Debt Management Funds." If someone can explain why, I'd appreciate it. Doesn't change the math of the situation, but as someone who has been involved in budget development in the past, and most likely will be in the future, I'd like to learn the reason, if there's a legit one to give. On to my comments.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the half-cent sales tax is the only viable option for fixing Jacksonville's pension problem. In fact, there are other, if not better, options rather than a payday loan granting us relief equal to 3% of our annual budget and saddling us with $2 billion+ in extra payments. I don't know about you, but I was taught to avoid putting things on credit which won't be around when it's paid off. While we face large balloon payments on our current track, at the end of this proposed plan we're looking at balloon payments upwards of $450mil, and we'll have no pension to show for it.
The primary goals of the proposal are clear to me based on the wording of it. The first thing mentioned is to close "up to three" pensions. The second provision in the language is a MINIMUM increase in employee contribution to pension plans of 2% - in other words at least a 2% pay cut. Let's be real. That language means three pensions are on the block and, more than likely, a larger employee contribution than an additional 2%. All this as the Mayor presents a budget without salary increases for our employees, his supervisees. I understand a "fiscal conservative" doesn't want to raise taxes - and who wants to have to pay them, no matter how small? But it's irresponsible, as a community, to force future generations to pay for mistakes they played no part in. We cannot continue to hide the cost of government. The endeavor costs money. Period. We should be efficient and effective, not gut the people who make it work and cripple spending power. By continuing to kick costs down the road, we do no favors for anyone. Especially our children and future Jacksonville residents.
Here's an alternative solution. An increase of one mill in our already low property tax rates, which equals $150/year or $.41/day for the median property in Jacksonville, would generate roughly the same amount money as that initial savings, all while not turning our backs on public employees or imposing billions in debt on future generations. It would force our leaders to make our collective commitments work and present us with the REAL cost of living in a city with pretty basic public services. Sure balloon payments we'll be forced to make will eventually outpace that millage increase, but then those extraordinary payments will be gone quickly and we won't add debt equaling the annual budget of Jacksonville to the backs of future generations. Don't THEY deserve to decide their own financial trajectory for this city? Don't THEY deserve parents and grandparents who are willing to pay for their own mistakes (ie not keeping close tabs on the dumpster fire which was the Police and Fire Pension under Keane).
As a new resident to the city (late 2014) and homeowner, I am MORE than happy to contribute to an actual, long term fix to this problem. But I am not ok now, nor will I ever be, with giving myself slightly more relief at the cost of my children's ability to control their own destiny. This country wasn't built on putting things off till later. It was built on taking one on the chin to make sure things get put in the right place. There is NO good solution to this issue. Don't let anyone tell you there's an easy fix. But to me, and many others, shoving it off on posterity, hoping unforeseen, but cyclical, economic variables won't inevitably make the issue worse, is simply ignorant of history. The Mayor likes to talk a lot about Detroit and how our current pension track could turn us into them, pre-bankruptcy. I argue adding more debt and hiding the cost of government, when there are other solutions, brings us closer to that reality.
^^ Your first post is a great one and spot on. I hope to see you post here regularly.
+1 My Friend... very well said!!
Yeah, totally.
To address the "up to three pensions" comment. I think (and the language doesn't spell it out) the intent is to close them all out. However the various unions would need to agree to the terms. If two agree and one doesn't, or parts thereof, the COJ will only be able to close two. No matter what happens at the end of August, the unions have the final vote.
You lost me with the proposal of "an increase of one mill" to solve the problem. No one who has studied the budgets, not the pension task force, the CAO and CFO, Milliman, City Council, etc., believes that a one mill increase will get us out of this disaster. It's wishful thinking.
One mill currently provides about $47.5 million in revenue. This year we paid $260 million into the pension. Payments are ballooning; next year it will be $290 million, and $326 million after that. That means the payments will swallow more than one mill's worth of revenue in just two years - and it keeps going up from there.
To draw revenue at levels that will be more than just a bandaid, it will be much higher than one mill. We're talking two mills at minimum, with other estimates as high as 3.43 mills (a 30% increase). If we're interested in not hiding the cost of government, we need to start talking about this problem in terms of what it will actually cost us all to fix.
Tacachale, I addressed that one mill would be overtaken quickly with the upcoming balloon payments, but is projected to then stabilize significantly, allowing for more revenue without added debt. See this great breakdown from the Times Union and the graphs it includes on payments. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents)
But you're getting my central point! A half-cent tax is not going to fix the central issues with our budget. Our leaders try to hide what it actually costs to run government and end up doing more damage in the long run. I'm ALL about a comprehensive discussion about the budget - what can be consolidated, what needs more $$ - and then what that will ACTUALLY cost to pay for it. I'm never in favor of paying tomorrow, at penalty, what could be paid today, with belt tightening and/or additional contribution. If the whole point is to pass off a better country than how we found it to the next generation, it's the only right way to look at and build budgets.
Bottom line is, I'm open to any viable solutions which fixes it right now. Not in 15-30 years. Right now.
Quote from: benmarcus on July 28, 2016, 01:46:10 PM
Tacachale, I addressed that one mill would be overtaken quickly with the upcoming balloon payments, but is projected to then stabilize significantly, allowing for more revenue without added debt. See this great breakdown from the Times Union and the graphs it includes on payments. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents)
But you're getting my central point! A half-cent tax is not going to fix the central issues with our budget. Our leaders try to hide what it actually costs to run government and end up doing more damage in the long run. I'm ALL about a comprehensive discussion about the budget - what can be consolidated, what needs more $$ - and then what that will ACTUALLY cost to pay for it. I'm never in favor of paying tomorrow, at penalty, what could be paid today, with belt tightening and/or additional contribution. If the whole point is to pass off a better country than how we found it to the next generation, it's the only right way to look at and build budgets.
Bottom line is, I'm open to any viable solutions which fixes it right now. Not in 15-30 years. Right now.
Under the current plan, things don't stabilize until 2034. It ranges between $342 million and $382 million from 2019 till then. Even just compared to this year's cost of $260 million (not to mention back before 2013 when it was only like $100 million) the gap far exceeds one mill's worth of revenue. And that's besides the fact that there's no way to ensure the money will be devoted to the pension crisis, as the property tax would be. There are some who say that there should be the sales tax
and a property tax increase.
I don't think our (current) leaders are trying to hide how much it costs to run the government. In fact, they're more clearly saying what it
does cost for the first time in years, folks just aren't liking it.
If you're okay with a 2 or 3 mill property tax increase, by all means vote that way. But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: benmarcus on July 28, 2016, 01:46:10 PM
Tacachale, I addressed that one mill would be overtaken quickly with the upcoming balloon payments, but is projected to then stabilize significantly, allowing for more revenue without added debt. See this great breakdown from the Times Union and the graphs it includes on payments. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents)
But you're getting my central point! A half-cent tax is not going to fix the central issues with our budget. Our leaders try to hide what it actually costs to run government and end up doing more damage in the long run. I'm ALL about a comprehensive discussion about the budget - what can be consolidated, what needs more $$ - and then what that will ACTUALLY cost to pay for it. I'm never in favor of paying tomorrow, at penalty, what could be paid today, with belt tightening and/or additional contribution. If the whole point is to pass off a better country than how we found it to the next generation, it's the only right way to look at and build budgets.
Bottom line is, I'm open to any viable solutions which fixes it right now. Not in 15-30 years. Right now.
Under the current plan, things don't stabilize until 2034. It ranges between $342 million and $382 million from 2019 till then. Even just compared to this year's cost of $260 million (not to mention back before 2013 when it was only like $100 million) the gap far exceeds one mill's worth of revenue. And that's besides the fact that there's no way to ensure the money will be devoted to the pension crisis, as the property tax would be. There are some who say that there should be the sales tax and a property tax increase.
I don't think our (current) leaders are trying to hide how much it costs to run the government. In fact, they're more clearly saying what it does cost for the first time in years, folks just aren't liking it.
If you're okay with a 2 or 3 mill property tax increase, by all means vote that way. But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
Measures like this inherently hide the cost by pushing the REAL payments down the road. As I said in the original piece, it's simply poor economics to take out a boatload of debt on something which won't be there when you pay it off. Why not start this tax, right now? Why not a full penny instead of half, so public employees don't have to be forced to take a paycut and lose their pensions. How do we expect to improve as a city when the current idea on the table is to cut public employee pay, make it even less attractive to work for city government and police than it was before and just hand our kids a bill for $2 billion?
At the end of the day, it appears this city doesn't have enough cash to truly meet it's obligations and we're trying to get it on the cheap. If the solution is a sales tax AND millage increase, so be it. If it's a 2-3 mill increase, so be it. But as I said, I'm not going to accept a half-cent tax which doesn't even start, let alone truly address the issue, for decades when it means piling more debt onto the city. That's irresponsible economics.
Quote from: benmarcus on July 28, 2016, 03:14:55 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: benmarcus on July 28, 2016, 01:46:10 PM
Tacachale, I addressed that one mill would be overtaken quickly with the upcoming balloon payments, but is projected to then stabilize significantly, allowing for more revenue without added debt. See this great breakdown from the Times Union and the graphs it includes on payments. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2016-06-30/story/report-proposed-pension-fix-gives-ammunition-supporters-and-opponents)
But you're getting my central point! A half-cent tax is not going to fix the central issues with our budget. Our leaders try to hide what it actually costs to run government and end up doing more damage in the long run. I'm ALL about a comprehensive discussion about the budget - what can be consolidated, what needs more $$ - and then what that will ACTUALLY cost to pay for it. I'm never in favor of paying tomorrow, at penalty, what could be paid today, with belt tightening and/or additional contribution. If the whole point is to pass off a better country than how we found it to the next generation, it's the only right way to look at and build budgets.
Bottom line is, I'm open to any viable solutions which fixes it right now. Not in 15-30 years. Right now.
Under the current plan, things don't stabilize until 2034. It ranges between $342 million and $382 million from 2019 till then. Even just compared to this year's cost of $260 million (not to mention back before 2013 when it was only like $100 million) the gap far exceeds one mill's worth of revenue. And that's besides the fact that there's no way to ensure the money will be devoted to the pension crisis, as the property tax would be. There are some who say that there should be the sales tax and a property tax increase.
I don't think our (current) leaders are trying to hide how much it costs to run the government. In fact, they're more clearly saying what it does cost for the first time in years, folks just aren't liking it.
If you're okay with a 2 or 3 mill property tax increase, by all means vote that way. But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
Measures like this inherently hide the cost by pushing the REAL payments down the road. As I said in the original piece, it's simply poor economics to take out a boatload of debt on something which won't be there when you pay it off. Why not start this tax, right now? Why not a full penny instead of half, so public employees don't have to be forced to take a paycut and lose their pensions. How do we expect to improve as a city when the current idea on the table is to cut public employee pay, make it even less attractive to work for city government and police than it was before and just hand our kids a bill for $2 billion?
At the end of the day, it appears this city doesn't have enough cash to truly meet it's obligations and we're trying to get it on the cheap. If the solution is a sales tax AND millage increase, so be it. If it's a 2-3 mill increase, so be it. But as I said, I'm not going to accept a half-cent tax which doesn't even start, let alone truly address the issue, for decades when it means piling more debt onto the city. That's irresponsible economics.
If passing a sales tax to take effect now were feasible, I'd agree it's the best option. However, it's not an option as it wouldn't have gotten through the Florida Legislature and the governor, due to there already being a half-penny sales tax levied until 2030 (the Better Jacksonville Plan). As we have it, this proposal is our option for using sales tax to help with this pension crisis.
The plan isn't taking out new debt. What it does is put off paying part of the current debt until the tax comes into effect to cover the rest. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. On one hand, it's more expensive in the long run and puts a chunk of the burden on future taxpayers. On the other, it can't be reappropriated toward other things like the property tax can, and it also puts a lot of the burden on the surrounding counties and visitors, rather than exclusively Jax residents and property owners.
The tax
rate will also be less onerous on tax payers than a property tax hike. It will be the same rate we pay now, extended for a longer time. As I say, the property tax would be a 20 or 30% hike that will also have to be in place for decades. The only option that's cheaper than those involves unprecedented cuts to city services. There really aren't any other options, at least none that have survived vetting.
Quote
Posted by: Tacachale
« on: Today at 02:57:02 PM »
But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
But in fact, as doing a 1 mil increase and hanging in there on regularly scheduled payments will be much less expensive in the long term, it is indeed a "cheaper fix".
I would be more likely to believe that the sales tax "fix" was a good plan if it wasn't for the fact that we have a Mayor that is using "or else" tactics, information indicating we may not have seen all the facts, a "plan" that is still dependent upon others to agree regardless of the vote and a Mayor that thinks past unethical practices on the part of top city appointees are just fine. Makes me wonder what they will really use the "extra" funds they will have available to do.
Quote from: strider on July 28, 2016, 04:04:17 PM
I would be more likely to believe that the sales tax "fix" was a good plan if it wasn't for the fact that we have a Mayor that is using "or else" tactics, information indicating we may not have seen all the facts, a "plan" that is still dependent upon others to agree regardless of the vote and a Mayor that thinks past unethical practices on the part of top city appointees are just fine. Makes me wonder what they will really use the "extra" funds they will have available to do.
Where have I been for the last 18 months?! This is right on. We need real choices, not false ones.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 03:54:19 PM
If passing a sales tax to take effect now were feasible, I'd agree it's the best option. However, it's not an option as it wouldn't have gotten through the Florida Legislature and the governor, due to there already being a half-penny sales tax levied until 2030 (the Better Jacksonville Plan). As we have it, this proposal is our option for using sales tax to help with this pension crisis.
I' will disagree with this statement based on the fact that Curry is a No-Tax-at-All-Cost republican and by pushing the sales tax increase after his term, he can still claim he never raised taxes.
As it is, he's still going to claim that by claiming this as an 'extension' opposed to a 'new' tax.
C'mon Taca, your arguments on this hasn't changed and keeps getting weaker and weaker as more information is gathered and more scrutiny is applied to the overall effect. The sheriff even played along until the budget was submitted and then let his true feelings be known.
Quote from: strider on July 28, 2016, 04:04:17 PM
Quote
Posted by: Tacachale
« on: Today at 02:57:02 PM »
But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
But in fact, as doing a 1 mil increase and hanging in there on regularly scheduled payments will be much less expensive in the long term, it is indeed a "cheaper fix".
I would be more likely to believe that the sales tax "fix" was a good plan if it wasn't for the fact that we have a Mayor that is using "or else" tactics, information indicating we may not have seen all the facts, a "plan" that is still dependent upon others to agree regardless of the vote and a Mayor that thinks past unethical practices on the part of top city appointees are just fine. Makes me wonder what they will really use the "extra" funds they will have available to do.
As I said, 1 mill isn't going to cover the ballooning payments after only 2 years. After that, there will either need to be additional new revenue (the other mill or two previously mentioned), or massive cuts. And that's just to tread water. There really aren't two ways about it.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 28, 2016, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 03:54:19 PM
If passing a sales tax to take effect now were feasible, I'd agree it's the best option. However, it's not an option as it wouldn't have gotten through the Florida Legislature and the governor, due to there already being a half-penny sales tax levied until 2030 (the Better Jacksonville Plan). As we have it, this proposal is our option for using sales tax to help with this pension crisis.
I' will disagree with this statement based on the fact that Curry is a No-Tax-at-All-Cost republican and by pushing the sales tax increase after his term, he can still claim he never raised taxes.
As it is, he's still going to claim that by claiming this as an 'extension' opposed to a 'new' tax.
C'mon Taca, your arguments on this hasn't changed and keeps getting weaker and weaker as more information is gathered and more scrutiny is applied to the overall effect. The sheriff even played along until the budget was submitted and then let his true feelings be known.
If you choose to believe that a sales tax taking effect today would have gotten through the legislature, governor, and a referendum, fine, but either way, it's not on the table.
My argument has been the same for months, since most of the information has been the same. It's always been clear that the only solution for the pension crisis involves new revenue. That's means either a sales tax (this proposal or a similar one), or a substantial property tax increase (much more than people like to think it will be). Otherwise, it's massive cuts. Pick your poison.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
If you choose to believe that a sales tax taking effect today would have gotten through the legislature, governor, and a referendum, fine, but either way, it's not on the table.
You've held this line as well throughout the discussion, and I agree with you that it wouldn't pass, but my reasoning is probably much different than yours.
It wouldn't pass because Curry CAN'T raise taxes under his leadership and still aspire to hold any position down the road. He'll put the city in jeopardy to ensure he's not labeled as 'the accountant mayor who couldn't budget his city without raising taxes'.
He's not going to try and sell a tax increase now, for him it's political suicide. As far as he's concerned, the city can go bankrupt after he leaves office. It's amazing how the passage of time insulates you from your mistakes.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
If you choose to believe that a sales tax taking effect today would have gotten through the legislature, governor, and a referendum, fine, but either way, it's not on the table.
You're right that it's not currently on the table. But I think the Mayor needs to learn what democracy means and be forced to not only present us with more options, but advocate for what we collectively want AFTER a thorough discussion is had. Simply saying yes because it's the only option currently on the ballot isn't democracy. It's rubber-stamping.
I think we all agree, here, that this tax proposal will not fix the issue, and may potentially do more harm than good in the long term. That's reason enough to vote no and force our leaders to take a hard look at how they're conducting business.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 28, 2016, 04:44:29 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
If you choose to believe that a sales tax taking effect today would have gotten through the legislature, governor, and a referendum, fine, but either way, it's not on the table.
You've held this line as well throughout the discussion, and I agree with you that it wouldn't pass, but my reasoning is probably much different than yours.
It wouldn't pass because Curry CAN'T raise taxes under his leadership and still aspire to hold any position down the road. He'll put the city in jeopardy to ensure he's not labeled as 'the accountant mayor who couldn't budget his city without raising taxes'.
He's not going to try and sell a tax increase now, for him it's political suicide. As far as he's concerned, the city can go bankrupt after he leaves office. It's amazing how the passage of time insulates you from your mistakes.
Yes, there is clearly some self-preservation in the anti-tax stance of Curry and other leaders. Local voters typically punish politicians who suggest raising taxes; just ask Bill Bishop. But it's also true that the legislature and Governor Scott are anti-tax and wouldn't cotton to a sales tax they have to sign off on. Either way, it's not on the table.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 05:00:45 PM
Yes, there is clearly some self-preservation in the anti-tax stance of Curry and other leaders.
So would you agree when self-preservation gets in the way of potentially offering what's best for your constituents? That they are unfit for the positions that they hold? And I'd like you to explain.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
Quote from: strider on July 28, 2016, 04:04:17 PM
Quote
Posted by: Tacachale
« on: Today at 02:57:02 PM »
But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
But in fact, as doing a 1 mil increase and hanging in there on regularly scheduled payments will be much less expensive in the long term, it is indeed a "cheaper fix".
I would be more likely to believe that the sales tax "fix" was a good plan if it wasn't for the fact that we have a Mayor that is using "or else" tactics, information indicating we may not have seen all the facts, a "plan" that is still dependent upon others to agree regardless of the vote and a Mayor that thinks past unethical practices on the part of top city appointees are just fine. Makes me wonder what they will really use the "extra" funds they will have available to do.
As I said, 1 mill isn't going to cover the ballooning payments after only 2 years. After that, there will either need to be additional new revenue (the other mill or two previously mentioned), or massive cuts. And that's just to tread water. There really aren't two ways about it.
Of course, one mil is not going to cover the pension payments. The purpose of the one mil as presented earlier was to provide the relatively small amount of funds to use elsewhere. I never said anything about the idea being anything BUT cheaper. It will be painful to pay our pension obligation from the budget and not have much "extra" funding for doing other things. But since we really do not seem to have a guaranteed to work plan yet with the sales tax "plan", it seems to me the best course of action is to pay our debt no matter how painful and if we need to raise the property tax one mill now, another mil in two years, that is the price we all have to pay to keep the FUTURE costs of the pension in line. Perhaps without much budget left, the unions will find a solution to help us tax payers so we can do what we need. In business, we take hits to ride out bad decisions and so should a City. Since some of those fine Mayoral appointees apparently seem to be able to bring in funds for themselves from extra curriculum activities, perhaps we can cut their city salaries a bit. Maybe we should stop giving Sleiman back funds he used to make a road he needed to make his development work. Perhaps we should not change contracts after the fact to let developers keep funds they would have originally been required to pay back. Maybe we could simply start insuring we actually get something from a vendor when we give them a open ended contract.
I fear the pension sales tax idea is not to solve a problem but rather to allow a larger problem to simply continue.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 28, 2016, 05:19:28 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 05:00:45 PM
Yes, there is clearly some self-preservation in the anti-tax stance of Curry and other leaders.
So would you agree when self-preservation gets in the way of potentially offering what's best for your constituents? That they are unfit for the positions that they hold? And I'd like you to explain.
I don't think that even if Curry had pushed for a sales tax taking effect today, that it would have gotten through the Legislature or the Governor, let alone passed at referendum. We know this because he had a hard enough time getting the current proposal through the legislature, and it still might fail at referendum. So no, I don't think he's "unfit for the position" or whatever. I think he's come up with an option to solve the pension crisis, a problem he inherited from his predecessors, that we now all have a chance to vote on. It isn't a perfect solution, but none of the alternatives are any better.
Quote from: strider on July 28, 2016, 05:33:21 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
Quote from: strider on July 28, 2016, 04:04:17 PM
Quote
Posted by: Tacachale
« on: Today at 02:57:02 PM »
But I really hope people aren't voting no thinking there's a cheaper fix, because there isn't one.
But in fact, as doing a 1 mil increase and hanging in there on regularly scheduled payments will be much less expensive in the long term, it is indeed a "cheaper fix".
I would be more likely to believe that the sales tax "fix" was a good plan if it wasn't for the fact that we have a Mayor that is using "or else" tactics, information indicating we may not have seen all the facts, a "plan" that is still dependent upon others to agree regardless of the vote and a Mayor that thinks past unethical practices on the part of top city appointees are just fine. Makes me wonder what they will really use the "extra" funds they will have available to do.
As I said, 1 mill isn't going to cover the ballooning payments after only 2 years. After that, there will either need to be additional new revenue (the other mill or two previously mentioned), or massive cuts. And that's just to tread water. There really aren't two ways about it.
Of course, one mil is not going to cover the pension payments. The purpose of the one mil as presented earlier was to provide the relatively small amount of funds to use elsewhere. I never said anything about the idea being anything BUT cheaper. It will be painful to pay our pension obligation from the budget and not have much "extra" funding for doing other things. But since we really do not seem to have a guaranteed to work plan yet with the sales tax "plan", it seems to me the best course of action is to pay our debt no matter how painful and if we need to raise the property tax one mill now, another mil in two years, that is the price we all have to pay to keep the FUTURE costs of the pension in line. Perhaps without much budget left, the unions will find a solution to help us tax payers so we can do what we need. In business, we take hits to ride out bad decisions and so should a City. Since some of those fine Mayoral appointees apparently seem to be able to bring in funds for themselves from extra curriculum activities, perhaps we can cut their city salaries a bit. Maybe we should stop giving Sleiman back funds he used to make a road he needed to make his development work. Perhaps we should not change contracts after the fact to let developers keep funds they would have originally been required to pay back. Maybe we could simply start insuring we actually get something from a vendor when we give them a open ended contract.
I fear the pension sales tax idea is not to solve a problem but rather to allow a larger problem to simply continue.
Ok, but without more revenue we're looking at some very significant cuts. Next year's budget is pretty spartan. Usually the sense in this forum is that the city's level of service and quality of life is too low, not too high.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 05:47:27 PM
So no, I don't think he's "unfit for the position" or whatever. I think he's come up with an option to solve the pension crisis...
Let me stop you there for a second. I'm pretty sure ALL of the analysis that been done has proven that this doesn't
solve anything. It merely lessens the impact of the issue for today. Carry on
Quote....a problem he inherited from his predecessors, that we now all have a chance to vote on. It isn't a perfect solution...
Sorry, gotta interrupt you again.
Let me get this straight. And please feel free to correct me if the next statement isn't exactly what you meant, I'm just trying to put it in terms I understand... This 'imperfect solution' that we, "all have a chance to vote on."
We get a chance to vote on a referendum that will allow our kids a chance to vote on the same issue 25 years from now that wasn't caused by their mayor either, but inherited from predecessors and their lack of dealing with an issue while while in office because it might hamper their future 'employment' in government.
Gotcha.
Quote... but none of the alternatives are any better.
You mean the alternatives that were never proposed to begin with?
Honest question, Taca:
Is LSD your drug of choice or do go the more natural route with peyote or mescaline? Because if I'm right, based on your perception of things, you must also enjoy seeing flavors and tasting colors. ;)
All right, riddle me this: what is the better solution? Be prepared to show your work.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
All right, riddle me this: what is the better solution? Be prepared to show your work.
And I've already done it. Feel free to pull my old posts from June back up here on this thread as well. Mine was a comprehensive, tiered plan that included raising millage, adding a 'new' sales tax now and figuring out a fee to tie in with JEA or something along those lines. It also required actually applying the funding mechanisms that we currently have on the books but are in 'moratorium.
It generated funds immediately, some would have to pass referendum, some wouldn't, and with a stepped increase over the 4 years of his (hopefully only) term, we would actually have excess. The millage could be backed down and the fees canceled if market conditions were warranted and the sales tax would continue. None of the money would be tied directly to the PPFP, but would allow the city some discretionary goodwill during collective bargaining.
Yes. He would have to raise taxes.
Yes. He would have to kiss the ring in Tallahassee.
No. He probably wouldn't get re-elected.
But he would get credit, eventually, for making an extremely progressive, non-self serving decision that would endear him in the history books of Jacksonville. Basically, he'd Jacksonville's Tom Coughlin of mayors.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on July 28, 2016, 06:34:55 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
All right, riddle me this: what is the better solution? Be prepared to show your work.
And I've already done it. Feel free to pull my old posts from June back up here on this thread as well. Mine was a comprehensive, tiered plan that included raising millage, adding a 'new' sales tax now and figuring out a fee to tie in with JEA or something along those lines. It also required actually applying the funding mechanisms that we currently have on the books but are in 'moratorium.
It generated funds immediately, some would have to pass referendum, some wouldn't, and with a stepped increase over the 4 years of his (hopefully only) term, we would actually have excess. The millage could be backed down and the fees canceled if market conditions were warranted and the sales tax would continue. None of the money would be tied directly to the PPFP, but would allow the city some discretionary goodwill during collective bargaining.
Yes. He would have to raise taxes.
Yes. He would have to kiss the ring in Tallahassee.
No. He probably wouldn't get re-elected.
But he would get credit, eventually, for making an extremely progressive, non-self serving decision that would endear him in the history books of Jacksonville. Basically, he'd Jacksonville's Tom Coughlin of mayors.
I am very interested in seeing this. Can you post the link here?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,27095.msg447167.html#msg447167
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
All right, riddle me this: what is the better solution? Be prepared to show your work.
For starters, there is no reason we can't raise the millage right now. That way we can start paying down the pension liability in 2016, not borrowing against revenues that won't show up until 2031.
This may be related to the topic, I think.
We are paying two half percent sales taxes: the BJP tax that Curry wants to extend beyond its 2030 edpiry,the JTA toll removal tax. When does it expire, if ever?
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 28, 2016, 09:40:00 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
All right, riddle me this: what is the better solution? Be prepared to show your work.
For starters, there is no reason we can't raise the millage right now. That way we can start paying down the pension liability in 2016, not borrowing against revenues that won't show up until 2031.
Yes, we sure could. The downside is that it's a 2 or 3 mill hike (or more) in a single term or it's not going to solve the problem any more than the last couple of bandaids.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 28, 2016, 09:58:14 PM
This may be related to the topic, I think.
We are paying two half percent sales taxes: the BJP tax that Curry wants to extend beyond its 2030 edpiry,the JTA toll removal tax. When does it expire, if ever?
The JTA tax to fund road improvements from the BJP doesn't expire until 2030. The City still has $146 million give or take of bonds secured by that sales tax. To be clear, this is the half cent sales tax allocated to JTA for transportation and not the separate BJP tax Curry is seeking to extend.
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on July 29, 2016, 12:27:39 PM
Has there been any explanation given as to why Curry cannot do his "pension negotiating" before a new tax...err... redistributing other peoples money....err "revenue stream" is approved? Of course, I know if it is approved he will roll his sleeves up and start negotiating those changes! The sheeple can count on that! But just curious...
I'm pretty sure I asked that question already also. Crickets.
It seems that whenever common sense ideas are brought up, they get ignored. Probably because it's really tough, or really stupid, to take a position against common sense. I don't feel that there are many stupid people on these boards.
^Common sense is not so common.
OK, let's say we pass this "pension Sales Tax". Then NOTHING is negotiated with the pensions. Isn't the use of the sales tax for this purpose tied (by the state) to the idea that change to the pension plans must be made? So then the trouble and expense of the vote is for naught?
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on July 29, 2016, 12:27:39 PM
Has there been any explanation given as to why Curry cannot do his "pension negotiating" before a new tax...err... redistributing other peoples money....err "revenue stream" is approved? Of course, I know if it is approved he will roll his sleeves up and start negotiating those changes! The sheeple can count on that! But just curious...
I don't know, but I think they're only targeting a 10% contribution from current employees regardless of what happens. Perhaps that could be higher, but the main savings would be from new employees going on cheaper plans, which has to be done through collective bargaining. There's a certain amount where we won't be able to take anymore without risking losing good employees. The current plan's comparable to other Florida cities.
My question is why didn't either of the last two mayors invoke the pension agreement's emergency rules to impose a new contract and reduce benefits after the Great Recession. They were explicitly written to help in that kind of crisis. Unfortunately, the media doesn't report on things like that anymore.
^ Except the actuarial reports are explicit. The reports are telling us additional contributions will be needed and that this plan is terrible.
When a person brings a glass of water to a grease fire, don't let them dump the water on the fire because "it's the best option we got." Aggravating an issue (as water does to a grease fire) is not a solution it is disastrous.
The below video explains Mayor Curry's solution a lot better than I ever will...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WAQcQuARU8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WAQcQuARU8)
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 10:18:35 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on July 28, 2016, 09:40:00 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 28, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
All right, riddle me this: what is the better solution? Be prepared to show your work.
For starters, there is no reason we can't raise the millage right now. That way we can start paying down the pension liability in 2016, not borrowing against revenues that won't show up until 2031.
Yes, we sure could. The downside is that it's a 2 or 3 mill hike (or more) in a single term or it's not going to solve the problem any more than the last couple of bandaids.
fine...so be it....that would put our rate about even with Tampa and Miami
Quote from: strider on July 29, 2016, 03:26:01 PM
OK, let's say we pass this "pension Sales Tax". Then NOTHING is negotiated with the pensions. Isn't the use of the sales tax for this purpose tied (by the state) to the idea that change to the pension plans must be made? So then the trouble and expense of the vote is for naught?
correct
Ben Marcus: Mayor's Pension Fix is a Pay Day Loan
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/Misc2/i-7KVPCzp/0/X2/Mayor-Lenny-Curry_312511_ver1.0_1280_720-X2.jpg)
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-aug-ben-marcus-mayors-pension-fix-is-a-pay-day-loan
Ben Marcus is 100% correct. I have a hard time believing the Mayor's answer to this "emergency" is a tax that kicks in in 2031.
DAMN. How stupid are we as citizens to support this? And this Mayor is supposed to be an Accountant? WTF is going on in Jacksonville.
Pass a small incremental RE tax increase and do a 1 cent sales tax increase NOW. Freedom isn't free, nor is a great city. VOTE NO and lets get a better plan in place before this turd of a plan passes.