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
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
In typical spin you omit a portion of the formula to suit your purposes. You are correct the previous formulas had a sliding scale beginning at 2.5% @ age 50 and going up to 2.9999% @55. You forgot to mention the years of service multiplier and starting age factors with no cap. ======================== I didn't "spin" or "omit" anything. But I did prove up that JF was "spinning" when he said prior to the 3%@50 they received 2.99% with no cap. That is just not true. I proved that. JF said that prior to the cap on the 3%@50 the PD and FD received un UNCAPPED 2.99%. I proved straight up that was a flat out bogus lie. The truth wass they received 2.5% and they also had to work to age 55, not 50. So they basically received a HIGHER multiplier and a LOWER retirement age with the new deal, which is contrary to whaty you and JF both have stated. Do the math, I am right and you know it. Did you even even read the document you linked to, or my comments???????????? Did you go to 24.0403, and Table 1, did you read 24.0403 section (e)??, which referenced section (g), which stated that if the member did elect to go with the 2.99% plan he would be capped at (the accrual shall cease at the) "level attained on March 31, 1997."....did you see that part JW??????.......what means if they stayed in the 2.50% (2.99% after age 55) plan they were CAPPED at the level they attained as of 3-31-1997-NO MORE MULTIPLIER! There was no open ended, get as many 2.5% (2.99% after age 55) years as you wanted, it was CAPPED! Why do I have to spoon feed this to you?????????— January 27, 2009 2:58 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
JF and JW's silence is deafening. A tacit confession. It has been more than four minutes since my definitive fact based pension post was posted (which completely blasted them out of the water) and not a peep. I kinda miss those two already- even though JW calls me a troll and makes attempts to have my typographical error filled posts removed.— January 27, 2009 1:38 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Under the previous system, it's my understanding there was no cap...i.e. employees could retire at 100, 110...120 percent of their salary. When the 3 at 50 rule was implemented, retirements were capped at 90%. I'm sure JF can correct me if I have omitted something. ====================================== Yes, thank you for finding the truth-it was not hard either to figure out I was 100%^ correct and you and JF were blowing a bunch of welfare queen smoke up everyones rear. Go to section 24.0403, specifically sections (e),(f),(g),(h),and Table 1. Then try actually reading and analyzing it (for a change). There is no 2.99% multiplier-it is 2.5% at age 50. It then uses a sliding scale from age 50 to age 55, then, and ONLY THEN does it go to 2.99%, but 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. Also be sure to view the date of this document-it is dated 2002, not 1997. So, using the scale, if you want to work past age 55, and you are at the 2.5% level, using the sliding scale, you would be at just below 89% (88.75%)at AGE 55 (or less than the current pension which allows 90% at age 50)! Assuming this was, say 1994, and you worked to AGE 58, your pension would be just under 100%. So do the math my little Einstein buddies. Retire at age 50 and get 90% today under the new system (75% under the old system), or work to age 58 (nder the old system that JF said gave 2.99% for every year worked over age 50....errr...I think I just shot that whopper down)and get just under 100%, but lose EIGHT FULL YEARS of retirement, and then by extension ADD IN EIGHT FULL YEARS of work in place of retirement. Man, I knew I was right. I hate being right all the time.— January 27, 2009 1:33 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
You wrote, "YOU HAVE TAKEN NO CUTS IN PAY" when, in fact, we took a 4.3% pay cut by eliminating most of retirement pick-up. ============================= 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. How about resonding to the statements I make and stop trying to wiggle out of every litttle lie I catch you in JF (by responding to something other than what I addressed).— January 27, 2009 1:13 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
My vote... he's a troll. By JustWondering ================ My vote... you're a gov welfare queen.— January 27, 2009 11:33 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
Johnny's silence is deafening. A tacit confession. It has been more than two hours since your plea to defend himself and not a peep. ===================== It's 11:30 AM, I just logged on saw your comment JW. How about giving me more than 2 hours before announcing my demise next time JW. I will read all posts since last night and respond-but not until I finish my morning work.— January 27, 2009 11:32 a.m.
San Diego Home Prices Down 38 Percent from Peak Three Years Ago
In my defense I did not see the depression that started in September of 08.— January 27, 2009 11:29 a.m.
San Diego Home Prices Down 38 Percent from Peak Three Years Ago
I called 30% max-Don you called much more- you killed me on this one!— January 27, 2009 11:28 a.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
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%. =================================== Not true. The pensions NEVER paid 2.99999% before the spiking began (no where), which was AFTER the prison guards started this nonsense in 1998. Please prove me wrong. DROP, everyone knows it is a scam, and so do you.— January 26, 2009 7:34 p.m.
San Diego City Employees pension fund ailing
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". ========================= Actually that is 100% true. If anyone is telling whopper it is you JF, for imstance; 1) "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." YOPU HABVE TAKEN NO CUTS IN PAY AT ALL! IN FACT THE PD JUST RECEIVED 10% RAISES IN A DEPRESSION. Nice try. But wait, there's more: 2) Your retroactive pension scam was "... spread over a 30 year career."...which we know is a whopper of a lie. In fact there were hundreds if not thousands of employees that retired within a year of that pension spiking scam.— January 26, 2009 7:31 p.m.