Taca, thanks for the response.
I haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into that report, Cat, maybe Mike can provide some thoughts at that end. And I have no clue what the percentage of the budget it is. I can tell you that $150 million a year (and growing) out of the general budget every year is not sustainable. No one in the government or the finance field will say that it is. We could do a lot more with that money every year, than just paying down our own debts.
The repeated mantra by all of us, including me, is that these payments are unsustainable. We keep hearing and saying that the amount we owe will grow and grow until it becomes a killer tomato and ransacks our city. I'm not so confident that is true, anymore.
What is the actual point of unsustainability? I don't think it is 8 percent or even 20 percent of the budget but who cares what I think?
We should have some real models, and maybe we do, as to what happens if we "bite the bullet" and pay our obligation without some gimmick. If the "extra" cash is just another way of building out the stadium; well, you can probably guess where I stand with that.
I doubt our libraries are going to get an influx of cash or that we'll suddenly have neglected better-looking parks. It's also doubtful that our medians will be maintained more regularly as a result of Curry's plan.
How will the "extra" dollars be spent? I want to know now that information before I vote.
We can argue whether this is a tax increase or not (Curry says it isn't). But either way, the fact is that the BJP tax has a built in sunset. It goes away in 2030 and can't be replaced without another referendum. Whether this is a new tax or an "extension", it's not switching a dedicated pot of money.
Yes and no. BJP2 talks were happening. Curry is managing to destroy a tax that has a lot of goodwill in this city. Goodwill that was created by Mayor Delaney. I would give Delaney mad props about creating a tax that has goodwill, but I have a feeling that he has probably played more than a small part in developing Curry's pension proposal.
I tend to think that fiscally conservative voters in this city will balk at this plan once it becomes clearer as to what he wants to do. Although I'm barely beginning to understand his plan, I'm feeling a sense of outrage.
Let's be clear, Lenny Curry wants to spend present day pension dollars on "who knows what", based on a tax that will only begin to be collected in 2030. How is this okay with Jacksonville's conservatives?
As I say, I don't know what the percentage of the budget is, but its pretty clear if you look at the budgets that spending $150 million (and growing) out of the general fund each year is straining our ability to run the government effectively. There's a lot of opportunity cost to missing out on those funds. Saving even part of it would go a long way.
Unless I'm missing something we're paying 8 percent now and we'll top off at below 20 percent.
As a voter, I will need to know how our government is strained by the pension. It's not enough to say public safety.
We're not saving anything. If this money goes into a piggy bank, let's have that conversation. If it's going to parks. Let's talk about that.
I'm not willing to use the "saved" money, which should be going to pay off debt, to make more debt. Somehow or other, I think we'll use the extra money to fund an additional and unnecessary project. We'll issue bonds...yadda yadda yadda, we have more debt.
Yeah, there will still be money coming from other sources behinds the tax. Just hopefully at a more manageable level.
Right, so the sales tax is not even a real hero.
We may end up in a position where we're even more screwed with this approach.
What if we don't have the extra funds to pad the sales tax? By 2030, we may have obligated our pension "savings". Let's not get stuck in a predicament where we have to pad the pension sales tax with a significant portion of our operating budget. That would be so terrible. If we don't make the right decision this year, it is likely that we will end up in that kind of a predicament.
This plan is way too risky and too many people are going along with it because "we don't have a choice." We do have a choice. We pay it off.
Maybe, we should pretend that Brown proposed this plan. Then, I think we would see that it's asinine.
