Page 1 of 2
Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers raises?
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:42 pm
by _cinepro
Wow. When the LA Times is printing this, you know things are bad!
Basically, the City Council is going to ask for a .5% increase in the city sales tax. Here's the concern:
Like most California cities, Los Angeles is facing serious budget problems because of both the deep recession and poor financial decision-making. Angelenos and their elected representatives must avoid a perpetual downward spiral: budget problems that lead to a diminished police presence and reduced services, and a resulting loss of confidence and public safety, leading in turn to loss of business, lower tax revenue and further cuts. If a sales tax could prevent such a disaster — even one that pushes the city's tax rate from 8.75% to 9.25% — it should by all means be considered.
But taxes, too, can spur downward spirals, and before expecting voters here to adopt this one, the council has some explaining to do. For example, it's hard to shake the suspicion that the real purpose of this tax would be to fund the next round of raises for city workers; or that even if that's not the purpose, it would be the result.
Los Angeles' public servants for the most part work hard and are good at their jobs, and they deserve to be fairly compensated. But their pay must be based on the resources the city already has at its disposal. New tax revenue — if voters ultimately approve it — must pay to keep threatened services intact or to restore services already cut. If that means preventing layoffs, that's one thing. But new tax revenue must not merely provide a new pool of funds to put on the bargaining table when city leaders begin negotiating the next contract with public labor unions a year from now.
Let's not forget that the negotiations that resulted in the current contracts took place just as warning signs of the economic meltdown were becoming apparent, yet still Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the council practically gave away the store, agreeing to 25% pay increases over five years for most city workers. Since then there have been concessions, give-backs and layoffs, but the city is still in much worse financial condition because of that deal.
The next contract will be negotiated next year and is due to take effect in June 2014. For elected officials who must cultivate their relationships with powerful city unions, a no-raise contract is practically unthinkable and unspeakable. But for council members, mayoral candidates and anyone else on the management side who expects voter support, it's time to make it clear that raises are not a foregone conclusion. And they'd better start coming clean about their plans for this new tax.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 9433.story
Yay unions! Making life better for everyone!
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:04 pm
by _Droopy
1. Public Sector unionism never, under any circumstances, should have been allowed legal standing in in the United States. Its far too late to outlaw it now, but Kennedy never should have allowed this monster to grow and fester (and he was counseled then this road was a long and crooked one).
2. Since the revelations of the past year that substantial numbers of unionized federal and state workers and administrative staff make, on average, twice what the same employees in the private sector make for doing the same kinds of work, plus (taxpayer-funded) gold-plated medical and pension benefits and protection from layoffs and firing even for poor work performance (its almost impossible to get rid of even grossly incompetent public school teachers in California and other states, requiring years of administrative work and even litigation to make any headway), the unions have become, if anything, even more brazen and aggressive in pressing their claims for the transfer of ever greater quantities of wealth from their fellow citizens to themselves.
The public sector unions, as with what remains of the big trade unions of the past, sense that they are literally untouchable and beyond the rules of civil society governing the rest of the body politic. Sensing this, they "test the waters" ever further, immune to broad public disapproval and disdain for their attitudes and demeanor.
I lived in San Diego from 1974 to 1982, and, I mean, this was a great place to live in the seventies (and before). It was still a nice place to live (save for housing costs) well into the 1980s. After that, the "golden state" has been in a continual and, apparently, unstoppable death spiral who's end, if its present trajectory continues, is going to be, to say the least, disagreeable.
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:29 pm
by _Eric
Wow. When Droopy agrees with you, you know things are bad!
Maybe the OP should relocate to Utah or another state that is more inclined to make fiscal decisions he/she agrees with.
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:03 pm
by _Droopy
Eric wrote:Wow. When Droopy agrees with you, you know things are bad!
Maybe the OP should relocate to Utah or another state that is more inclined to make fiscal decisions he/she agrees with.
Then why don't you relocate to Cuba, Eric?
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:18 pm
by _Analytics
Droopy wrote:Eric wrote:Wow. When Droopy agrees with you, you know things are bad!
Maybe the OP should relocate to Utah or another state that is more inclined to make fiscal decisions he/she agrees with.
Then why don't you relocate to Cuba, Eric?
Good one.
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:28 pm
by _cinepro
Eric wrote:Wow. When Droopy agrees with you, you know things are bad!
Maybe the OP should relocate to Utah or another state that is more inclined to make fiscal decisions he/she agrees with.
I would if I could. Right now my business is rooted in the Los Angeles area. But I don't live or work in the city of Los Angeles, so I can avoid some of the lunacy of the LA City Council. But I do shop in Los Angeles, so I'll be seeing the sales tax increase.
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:49 pm
by _Eric
Droopy wrote:Then why don't you relocate to Cuba, Eric?
Because I love this country and, more specifically, the city of Los Angeles.
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:38 pm
by _cinepro
Yay for unions x2!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/po ... .html?_r=0 Having helped President Obama win re-election, labor leaders will meet with him on Tuesday and intend to offer their robust support for what they view as his mandate: stand tough against cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and keep pushing to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Organized labor’s emphasis on broader policy, rather than union-specific legislation, is somewhat of a change from 2008, when leaders pushed for bills that would make it easier to organize workplaces.
I wonder how the unions would view cuts in defense spending. Are defense contractors typically unionized?
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:34 pm
by _Droopy
cinepro wrote:Yay for unions x2!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/us/po ... .html?_r=0 Having helped President Obama win re-election, labor leaders will meet with him on Tuesday and intend to offer their robust support for what they view as his mandate: stand tough against cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and keep pushing to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Organized labor’s emphasis on broader policy, rather than union-specific legislation, is somewhat of a change from 2008, when leaders pushed for bills that would make it easier to organize workplaces.
I wonder how the unions would view cuts in defense spending. Are defense contractors typically unionized?
All of them may not be (I don't think Martin-Marietta or Grumann in central Florida were), but I'm pretty sure General Dynamics was when I was in San Diego in the seventies. And then there's Boeing, of course. The Boeing union would probably rather see the entire company burn to the ground than let its workers take non-union contracts.
Re: Los Angeles tax increase...just to give city workers rai
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:38 pm
by _Droopy
Eric wrote:Droopy wrote:Then why don't you relocate to Cuba, Eric?
Because I love this country and, more specifically, the city of Los Angeles.
Well, that pretty much
is Cuba, at this point, isn't it? I think that, most likely, the country you love (or those aspects of it) isn't the same country I love. Either that, or your concept of 'love" and mine are vastly different.
If it came down to a choice between Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and Ho Chi Minh, who would you rather see as President of the United States?
If between Mitt Romney and Ho Chi Minh, who would you vote for?