Surplus swells as Gov. Jerry Brown's last budget grows to $199 billion

[SassyIrishLass]

SassyIrishLass, post: 20008593

If you don't even know what unfunded debt is you certainly should leave the thread because you truly are clueless.

Hint: California is not addressing the mounting pension debt it is accumulating. As they don't it keeps increasing and at a point will become so huge it will cave in on itself and becomes insolvent. It's probably already at that point.

They teach this in business, finance and economics, Foo. Actually it's first year shit

I asked what you meant by ‘unfunded debt’ in your statement? If you were talking about the pensions why didn’t you refer to that as an unfunded liability because that is what it is and I would not needed to ask for clarification,

You were not talking about unfunded debt.

unfunded debt noun short-term debt requiring repayment within a year from issuance

Vs.

California’s largest public pension programs have significant unfunded liabilities.

So you see, you are the idiot once again.

It's a debt dumbass...an unfunded one that is going to crush California.

Cease bothering me with your elementary knowledge on this topic

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 20008667

What spending did they cut, and what taxes did they raise?

Do you really want to know or would I be wasting my time looking up what’s alt day been posted?

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's more than comical, people that have some need to try to paint CA with some colossal financial burden and how bad it is but these very same people voted gleefully for Lying Trump who with the Republicans passed a tax bill that drove the yearly deficit to $1.5 trillion dollars, will drive the national debt through $30 trillion dollars with no end in sight.

They act as if all of THEIR actions are hidden and no one can see their galactic hypocrisy. We see you ignorant sycophants.

False dichotomy. You point to one extreme and then to the other. The $1.5 trillion added debt from the tax legislation was fiscally irresponsible. It's also irresponsible to not return billions in surplus to the people the state stole it from in the first place considering how unaffordable it already is for so many people living there. As has been pointed out multiple times and you apologists continue to ignore, your state is only paradise for a select portion of the population. You have a massive wealth disparity between your elite and working class and you have a massive exodus of population leaving your state.

And you have the nerve to call others ignorant.

your state is only paradise for a select portion of the population
yep if you live along the wealthy coast....inland there is a lot of unemployment,im sure those people have a very different view of California....

yea thats real funny isaac.....nothing like people being unemployed to bring out the chuckles...you must live along that wealthy doing great coast....

 

[HappyJoy]

SassyIrishLass, post: 20008593

If you don't even know what unfunded debt is you certainly should leave the thread because you truly are clueless.

Hint: California is not addressing the mounting pension debt it is accumulating. As they don't it keeps increasing and at a point will become so huge it will cave in on itself and becomes insolvent. It's probably already at that point.

They teach this in business, finance and economics, Foo. Actually it's first year shit

I asked what you meant by ‘unfunded debt’ in your statement? If you were talking about the pensions why didn’t you refer to that as an unfunded liability because that is what it is and I would not needed to ask for clarification,

You were not talking about unfunded debt.

unfunded debt noun short-term debt requiring repayment within a year from issuance

Vs.

California’s largest public pension programs have significant unfunded liabilities.

So you see, you are the idiot once again.

It's a debt dumbass...an unfunded one that is going to crush California.

Cease bothering me with your elementary knowledge on this topic

An unfunded debt by definition is due within a year.

You have already shown you don't know what a surplus is, so why do you keep talking?

 

[asaratis]

Here's a good read on California:

<a href="Why California is a SHITHOLE}">Why California is a SHITHOLE</a>

 

[Nova78]

Time for the feds to quit sending federal money to a state that is 25% illegal.

 

[Andylusion]

SassyIrishLass, post: 20007470

It's a yes or no question you feeble moron. As long as that debt is outstanding and unfunded a surplus is impossible. It's simple economics

What do you mean by ‘unfunded debt’?

If a government has all the funds to service all its obligations it needs not take on any debt.

Please explain. Don’t run.

So here is what unfunded debts are. This is going to be detailed, because the topic is just complicated.......

Actually a better, more defined term is, unfunded obligations. A great example would be the California teachers retirement.

So, the government takes money from teachers paychecks, and puts it into the retirement system.

Now the retirement system purchases assets (usually crap), that grows very little in value.

But the retirement has a defined benefit, which means pensioners are promised a certain payout, regardless of what the assets do.

So if the assets do not produce enough growth, to cover the defined benefit, you end up with an unfunded obligation.

To have a perspective, let me compare to my IRA investments.

I take money out of my check every month, and have it invested in an IRA fund, into high-growth mutual funds. I have no defined benefit, because I have no idea what my investments will do. If my investments do really super great, I'll end up a millionaire. If my investments do poorly, I'll end up with half a million. I have no idea how well my investments will go, so I have no idea what my benefits will be.

Either way, I'll get out of my investments, whatever growth they provide.

In the state run retirement, there is no connection between how well the invests do, and how much benefits they get. If the investment do super well, then everyone gets exactly what benefits are defined for them. The surplus is kept by the state, and used for other beneficiaries.

However, if the investments do poorly, and the growth from those investments do not cover the cost of the benefits, then you end up with an unfunded obligation.

The retirees are promised X benefit. But the value of the assets does not cover that benefit. The short-fall is the unfunded obligation.

Now I mentioned before, that the assets purchased by these plans are usually crap. There is in fact a very specific reason for this.

It's called politics. Because the retirement system is run by the state, it is naturally politicized, and used as a political football.

When you invest, the more risk there is in the investment, the greater the interest is on that investment.

For example, my investments gave me a 23% return on my investment last year. Why? Because they were high risk investments. My investments go up and down, all the time.

Unfortunately, in politics, an opponent could use the fact the retirement system assets dropped in value, as a political football, to claim you are badly managing the system.

Even if the short term drop in value, that quickly recovers, posed no problem to the retirement system.... your political opponent could still use that to hammer you in an election.

So naturally state retirement systems often invest in absolute garbage. Stuff that has extremely low risk. The problem is, low risk, also has low growth.

So you defined benefits, that require growth in order to fund those benefits, and you have a political system with incentives to invest in extremely low growth investments.

The result is $1.3 Trillion dollars in unfunded obligations.

This is why nearly every pension system around the world, is in trouble.

World faces pensions crisis, warns OECD

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's a debt dumbass...an unfunded one that is going to crush California.

Cease bothering me with your elementary knowledge on this topic

You didn’t say ‘debt’ - you said ‘unfunded debt’ which you were not referring to. You were referring to ‘unfunded pensions’ and I’m supposed to read your stupid careless mind?

When you use the incorrect terminology in a sentence it is not ignorance on my part to ask for clarification..

You are now corrected but you remain an idiot saying a state cannot have a budget surplus or deficit if it has unfunded liabilities such as pension obligations.

This makes your argument even more stupid since California can’t pay its employees their due pensions this year if they do not retire for twenty years.

That debt is not due in current budgets so current surplusses can and do exist. They must pay all current unfunded liabilities due this year in order to have a surplus this year.

You might as well admit you are an idiot since you prove it more with every response.

 

[HappyJoy]

Time for the feds to quit sending federal money to a state that is 25% illegal.

The feds make money from California.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So here is what unfunded debts are. This is going to be detailed, because the topic is just complicated.......

Actually a better, more defined term is, unfunded obligations. A great example would be the California teachers retiremen

I prefer the term ‘obligations’ when referring to pension funds. Unfunded debt refers to short one term loans. IdiotSass used the wrong terminology, I asked her to clarify. She corrected her error.

 

[Andylusion]

So here is what unfunded debts are. This is going to be detailed, because the topic is just complicated.......

Actually a better, more defined term is, unfunded obligations. A great example would be the California teachers retiremen

I prefer the term ‘obligations’ when referring to pension funds. Unfunded debt refers to short one term loans. IdiotSass used the wrong terminology, I asked her to clarify. She corrected her error.

Well to be fair to her.... the mass media calls it debt too. I've seen numerous articles, calling it debt.

Give people a break, when you know what they mean....

 

[Andylusion]

Time for the feds to quit sending federal money to a state that is 25% illegal.

The feds make money from California.

Logically, the Feds should make money from every state. Does California not benefit the Federal Government? Defense? The monetary system? Treaties? International trade? The court system?

The Feds should make money from everyone.

 

[HappyJoy]

Time for the feds to quit sending federal money to a state that is 25% illegal.

The feds make money from California.

Logically, the Feds should make money from every state. Does California not benefit the Federal Government? Defense? The monetary system? Treaties? International trade? The court system?

The Feds should make money from everyone.

They don't.

 

[Kondor3]

Who posted the stupid article about plastic bags the grocers charge $0.10 to buy. You know the Chinese are making these bags; which males Two Scoops tremendouse happy.

What a dumb article coming out the Orange County Republic stronghold.

Expect a virtual visit from one of our resident Grammar Nazis sometime soon.

English as a second language?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Andylusion, post: 20008932,

Well to be fair to her.... the mass media calls it debt too. I've seen numerous articles, calling it debt.

Give people a break, when you know what they mean....

if she referred to it simply as debt, that was fine. She is ignorant so she referred to it as ‘unfunded debt’ when she did not mean unfunded debt,

I noticed ‘unfunded debt’ didn’t make sense and then asked for clarification, so she attacks me.

Had she used the term ‘debt’ like the press does / fine, no issue. But she didn’t.

She is ignorant. That’s fair.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SassyIrishLass, post: 20008809

t's a debt dumbass...an unfunded one that is going to crush California.

No it is an ’unfunded liability’ not an ‘unfunded debt’ in financial terms.

Do we have to look up ‘unfunded one’ now that you are making things up?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SassyIrishLass, post: 20008617

Kansas's woes are completely different than California's. They got caught up in energy losses and grain issues causing a drop in excise tax revenues.

You don’t mention the 2012 tax cuts that they just reversed.

But they are having a budget surplus too,

The Department of Revenue reported Monday that tax collections last month were almost $490 million when the state's official fiscal forecast predicted $450 million. The surplus was 8.8 percent.

Kansas collects $39.5M more in taxes than expected in March


Oh my god / stupid libs using that non-existent ‘surplus’ word again,


Oh my god / Kansas is $33 billion in debt. And these stupid libs in Kansas are still referring to a surplus as a surplus.

So Sassy, what ‘surplus’ are they referring to?

 

[Nova78]

Taxing its self to a surplus is not an accomplishment .California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with $103 billion going toward welfare,

 

[BrokeLoser]

Taxing its self to a surplus is not an accomplishment .California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with $103 billion going toward welfare,

California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients.
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.
However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 20% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state.