Forum Post: Abusing the Tax Payer
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 27, 2012, 11:53 a.m. EST by Planetoid
(-32)
from Sacramento, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We all know Kalifornya is fooked up. Now we see just a little slice why...
First off, why are they renting vehicles? Why is that considered cost effective? -she asks , knowing damn well that she just puts the key in the ignition, hits the gas and it moves.
It doesn't bother me that there are those government employees that take vehicles home. I would object if they were using them for vacations etc. It really depends on what they do and if they could be called out at any point in a 24 hour period. Sometimes this can get real petty.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for them to have taxpayer vehicles, but out here where I live (the east coast), its pretty heavily abused, and very often a clear case of using taxpayer money to give yourself a real nice perk. Very expensive luxury cars (like $60,000-$70,000) for lots of employees, a free pass 24/7 on paying tolls, completely uncontrolled usage of credit cards that are then used at expensive restaurants etc. (driven to in that expensive taxpayer car), all the usual stuff. Both parties, I might add.
I have a problem with uncontrolled usage of credit cards. I also think that you have to be really ignorant to pull that because it's just a matter of time before you get caught. I understand that those cars may be necessary for conferences/ meetings that require a little distance traveling. That doesn't mean that this alone should allow someone to take the vehicle home. Funny that one can see both parties finally acting as one and agreeing at the local/state level.
I have read where newspapers have gone way overboard on who is taking a vehicle home. So, over time I have developed my own criteria for when it would be acceptable. If we are dealing with someone who is making $70,000 and up and does not travel extensively by nature of the position then I don't agree with it.
I don't see those people get nailed.
I do think that it is a little shot out to film an employee that is allowed to take the vehicle home that may have gotten off of work or is on lunch break stopping to get a pair of shoes or wine. It's silly.
I agree there are many legitimate uses of a government vehicle. The building inspector needs one, and it may make perfect sense to let him take it home at night and go straight from his house to his first inspection rather than spend the first hour of every day driving in to the office to pick it up. Why make him drive in? And so on.
There are already IRS rules in place that require you to pay taxes on the value of personal use of company or government vehicles; and undoubtedly, rules controlling the use of them in most cities. As always, the problem isn't the rules, it's the chickens guarding the henhouse that's the problem. In places where you have a culture of corruption (Like where I live, the Philly/Jersey area), bureaucrats and politicians will always try to bend/break the rules, an there's and endless series of scandals (real ones, not gotcha's) and prosecutions. Other places, same basic rules but a more honest political culture, you just don't have anywhere near the problems. The culture of corruption is the problem, and that's very hard to change. Around here, it's baked into the process of government.
Hahahahaha! New Jersey. The state where 25 people in a department are arrested at the same time and in the same building and the rest of the country yawns. NNM.
The reality is that most of the people that work for the government are micromanaged. A candidate will stand on a stage and tell you what you want to hear. If elected, there is a very real possibility that he/she will move in their own people in key areas. The problems start when the assumption is made that all of those people that are micromanaged are in cahoots. The nature of the work continues and it does not matter whom is elected. I am not reading any major comprehension of this.
So, this great piece of investigative journalism has thrown up lots of numbers but basically until the investigation is over-the total number of caught state workers is one.Good job on that. The total may be four. Good job on that.
So it's OK to steal from the tax payer if you make less than $70,000. Interesting criteria.
Twist much?
Nope, just reading your idiocy.
Spoken like someone who wouldn't recognize the demands of any job at any level. I used $70,000 to try to take into account those states where the cost of living is different. It would vary by state.
Nor would I consider it stealing from the tax payers if your job requires a lot of travel. Where you are dealing with situations that it is more cost effective to be on the road by 4:30 AM to make a 3/2 hour drive in an effort not to spend money on the hotel. Most of the people that work for any state are not making anywhere near that amount and do most of the ground work.
In some areas, you will find where you are just reimbursed later, you know, after you turn in all receipts and gas mileage for your own car.
I don't expect you to grasp that.
Can you grasp that in virtually all cases politicians are corrupt? In virtually all cases they either purchase or lease these cars from family members and friends who own dealerships.
Perfectly. But, maybe you can help me out here.
Baker, the supervisor, made over $100,000 dollars a year. He bought liqour on the clock and resigned. Excellent. The other three employees are being investigated.
Would you mind telling me where the investigative journalism is on those rental vehicles and the relationship between the elected officials and the dealerships/rental agencies? Is it plausible that the lack of gotcha investigative journalism is intentional?
Of course it's plausible. And if the elected official has anything to do with it, most likely unreported.
Ok. Are there any other groups in the great state of California that might benefit as well?
I'm sure there is. Corruption is everywhere.
We saw the same thing in California that we did in other states when it came to pensions. It wasn't that those that did the work were not paying into their pensions and it was a huge price tag. It was the fact that the elected officials had failed to pay into the system and were now faced with the ramifications of those actions.
Public education. We know for a fact that we have intentional spin to demonize educators that benefits those who intend to profit. John Stossel, a self professed Libertarian, is notorious for spinning shit.
Exactly - the trouble has never been with the pensions them-self it has always been that many many many many many many many many many many many many many many were never fully funded right from the start.
Yelp. I'm sure a great many people woke up to the headlines going....the fuck?
This particular type of incident has made the papers many times in municipalities nationwide. Corruption is a disease, a virus, and it has infected all levels of politics; you could say that politics, by its very nature, itself is a disease.
Thank you for not answering my questions.
Ok, ok... no, I think plausible is the wrong word; in fact, I think "probable" is the wrong word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McNamara_%28fraudster%29
http://www.sohojournal.com/content/levy-spota-deal
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/02/nyregion/gm-dealer-s-many-ties-to-li-officials.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Unfortunately, none of those address California and the current situation,
I heart you. Thank you.