Posts Tagged ‘taxes’

CITY OF RIVERSIDE: MEASURE-Z: PROPAGANDA PAID BY YOU, TO BE USED AGAINST YOU..VOTE NO ON MEASURE-Z!

Posted: October 10, 2016 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

thumbnail_canstockphoto16393754%20female%20with%20axe%20cutting%20taxes%20no%20on%20z

DON’T GET HOSED AND TASED BY THOSE BEHIND THE TAX…VOTE NO ON MEASURE-Z

Let’s all remember that the City is out of money, or they want us to believe they are out of money, right!  Well here we go again, the City of Riverside sent out this mailer to all of its residents, which would be well over 100,000 households.  How much do you think you the taxpayer paid for this?  I’m sure most of us just threw it in the trash.  If the City can afford to send each household this information, then you would think that the City is doing okay.  We saw this exact same thing with Measure-A  pamphlets back in 2013, the City uses taxpayer monies to send these “informational pamphlets,” but in essence, are psychologically designed for a vote in their favor.   Don’t be fooled, as you were last time, these informational pamphlet were structured, written and fashioned to have you vote Yes on Measure-Z.

Why are we receiving this informational pamphlet?  THE CITY NEEDS TO ASK US FOR MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY SCREWED UP!

Unbeknownst to the taxpayer is the claim that if you Vote No on Measure-Z, you will lose important City services.  Let me make this perfectly clear, we lost City services a long time ago, and we will NEVER get them back.  The City chose to invest and squander our money on such things as “Government Entertainment,” as in the Fox Theater,  instead of taking care of basic services for its citizens.

img041               img043

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

This “informational pamphlet” strategically shows a playground full of kids (because its all about the kids, isn’t it?), along with Public Works Employees, a Police Officer and a Fire Fighter.  The title is “Measure-Z, What’s It’s All About.”  Again, the City is going to tell the taxpayer how to vote, as they did with the water measure in 2013 known as Measure-A.  When you foolishly passed this measure in 2013, you voted to tax yourself 11.5%!  What the City promised us then never materialized, and what they promise us now will never happen.  What is really egregious, is that the City and their cohorts really do believe you will fall for this and vote YES on Measure-Z.  They are going to trick the unsuspecting taxpayer into showering them with billions of dollars.

Instead of holding staff and leadership accountable, our Council decided to concoct a “Spending Pledge” a few weeks ago.  REALLY?  How stupid and foolish this makes the Council looks.  So rather then taking responsibility and accountability they’ve resorted to “pinky promises” in order to sway public opinion.  Five of the eight electeds’ on the Council Chamber have held there positions for 7 years or longer.  They own this fiscal mess.  Measure-Z (Sales Tax Increase) is their attempt to remove accountability for running this ship aground….sort of a “You can trust us this time, we even placed our names on it!”  These men are spending addicts.  So what do they really need this money for?  More Government Entertainment, Pensions and Raises.

You have to be a fool to give spending addicts more money!  Vote “No on Measure-Z!”

img044                 img045

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The above pamphlet tells you, the taxpayer, why the City needs the additional money.  For years the City leadership Has been boasting about our City being financially sound, you can all remember them saying “We have 40 million in reserves” they are now telling us that the City never fully recovered from the economic recession that started in 2008.  Even Police Chief Sergio came out in the Summer of 2015 to tell City Council the Police Budget was sound.  The City is lying.  The City will never recover because they have misspent, over spent, passed special interest projects and new employee contracts without any funding sources.  They were irresponsible with taxpayer monies and NOW THEY WANT MORE!

This November 2016, you will also be voting on another tax, Measure-O (Riverside Unified School Bond).  If it passes, this will increase your property taxes $100.00 per every $100,000.00 your house is worth.  So if you have a $400,000.00 home, your new additional property tax will be $400.00, and then add your new sales tax (Measure Z), which can be an additional $100.00 or more per year.  You now have a total approximation of $500.00 per year additional tax. Then I’m sure all of you do remember there will be a sewer increase this year, and don’t forget Public Utilities  will also have their hand out soon.  You will also need to look at the State and the Federal Government, they may need more money as well.

How much more can you afford ? And who will be most impacted by this?  The Most obvious is the poor, disabled, seniors and the retiree.  TMC predicts this will also have a HUGE impact on Churches, a 10% tithe at the very minimum will be difficult if we have an additional 5 to 10% tax each year.  Taking $40 to $400.00 out of your packer each month for additional taxes will be devastating for many.

img046                img053

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

This pamphlet was done by design to touch emotional center, voting with your heart, as opposed to voting with your head.  Did the City purposely use two black police officer to show how diverse they are? With a small child to show they are connected to the community?   This informational Pamphlet is simply just a bunch of BS and about the financial mess the city is in.  They will not cut anything they will make the taxpayer go without the basics. Some say this is all about the increases to Police and Fire and   Some  state that Police and Fire make less than Teachers, I personally find that an insult to Teachers, but Transparent California tells a different picture on Fire and Police.  It seems that they are making more than Corporate Execs and Doctors!  The Riverside Police Department have incredible amounts of OT (Remember that’s how they pad their pensions), Other Pay and Benefits before finally tallying up the final total.  If you come from the Corporate Private Sector as I do, OT as this is never seen.  Overtime as this would lead a corporation to Bankruptcy, and that may be where the City is going.

tcrpdone              tcrpdtwo          tcrpdthree

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Well how about Fire, it appears they Need more Money also, check the incredible amounts of OT, Other Pay and Benefits before the final tally is totaled.  What this tells me is that Union Contract Negotiations must be Public.  We have the right to know and be engage, after all the taxpayer is the Employer.  What we see here is that City Leadership has not been looking out for the best interest of the taxpayer, but for other interest.

tcfireone           tcfiretwo            tcfirethree

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Back in 2013, the City sent out at taxpayers expense, and informational flyer, known as the Water Measure, or Measure-A.  In this taxpayer paid pamphlet, the City of Riverside threatened the taxpayer, that if this Measure-A didn’t pass the following would occur:  the City would be forced to cut $6.7 million in local services, there may actually as residents faced with more gangs, graffiti and rundown streets.  They actually stated that 79 City positions would be eliminated which included Police Officers, Firefighters, School Crossing Guards (we know what happened there), youth recreation programs (we know what happened there), senior services (they actually threatened the Goeske Center Seniors they needed to vote for this or we won’t fund you).

pgone     measureajpg     pgthree     pgfour

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

In the above 2013 Measure-A informational pamphlet, the first page also shows children, police officers with a child and public work employees. Quite the same formula as the current.  In 2013 Mayor Rusty Bailey lied about Measure A, he has lied again today about Measure-Z.  What else has Bailey Lied about? TMC HAS THE STORY! COMING SOON..

rustysletterpgone     rustysletterpgtwo

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CONTRIBUTIONS SUPPORTING YES ON MEASURE-Z HAVE BEEN POURING IN, you may ask “Who are they?”  All the elitist bastards that will benefit handsomely, one in particular, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey.  But also the usual suspects such as the so called Non-Profits and Unions.

Bottom line folks, the City of Riverside never had a revenue problem, they have a spending problem, and spent they did.   As with the Renaissance Project, with then City Manager Brad Hudson, who spent, over spent and misspent your monies like a drunken sailor. TMC wrote about this in detail.  Most importantly we told council about that as well, and we predicted the City would be out of money and in trouble in 2015.  WE WERE RIGHT.   Now current leadership City Manager John Russo continues to lie and spin the truth on how all this happened.  He now wants to continue the reckless spending practices.  They just can’t help themselves.

Councilman Paul Davis, Andy Melendrez, Rusty Bailey, Mike Gardner and Chris McArthur were the responsible parties for getting us in this mess,   This is how it works: Police and Fire Unions  work to benefit themselves by laundering member dues, paid for by taxpayers, to return in campaign funds for the benefit and control of elected official.  You may ask why Tim Strack, from the Fire Union, is giving over a $100,000.00 to the Yes on Measure-Z campaign.  Why? Because its all about money and their own personal gain, its never been about you and the basic services of the city.  Public Safety has found a way to hose and tase the taxpayer into submission, and this is wrong!  Ultimately, sounds like strong arm tactics, when referencing the importance of their jobs to the community.  This is a no, no, and could also be inferred as ‘coercion.’  But when you have no leadership to effectively protect the taxpayer, you have nothing.

In 2014, the Riverside Police Union President, Brian Smith and the Chief of Police Sergio Diaz conspired to railroad and politically remove Councilman Mike Soubirous.  Unions in any capacity should never be involved in Public Sector Politics without our input for this reason.  It our money not theirs, and we should be protected.

FORMER PRESS ENTERPRISE COMMENTATOR, DAN BERSTEIN, HIS TAKE ON WHY TO VOTE NO ON MEASURE-Z!

CONTRIBUTORS SUPPORTING YES ON MEASURE-Z THAT YOU AS A TAXPAYER SHOULD BE AWARE OF, BECAUSE THEY ALL BENEFIT SUBSTANTIALLY:

SEIU

seiuone

FIRE

fireone     firetwo

RPD

rpoaone

MAYOR BAILEY: BUT ALSO RECEIVED PLENTY FROM FIRE AS TO HAVE HIM IN THEIR BACK POCKET!

baileyone    firebaileyone     firebaileytwo

THE RAINCROSS GROUP

trgone

THE RIVERSIDE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

grccone

ARTICLE LINKS:

TMC: 04.10.2013: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING, WATER IS FOR FIGHTING OVER..AND EVERYBODY WANTS A PIECE OF THAT ACTION.

TMC: 05.10.2013: CITY OF RIVERSIDE: MEASURING UP TO MEASURE A.

PRESS ENTERPRISE: 01.20.2015: RIVERSIDE: FIREFIGHTERS GET RAISES IN NEW CONTRACT.

PRESS ENTERPRISE: 09.16.2015: RIVERSIDE: POLICE CONTRACT INCLUDES RAISES.

PRESS ENTERPRISE: 09.23.2015: RIVERSIDE: POLICE CONTRACT APPROVED.

PRESS ENTERPRISE: 06.13.2016: RIVERSIDE: DEAL WITH FIREFIGHTERS KEEPS ALL STATIONS OPEN.

PRESS ENTERPRISE: 09.21.2016: WHAT KIND OF CONTRACT DEAL MADE WITH POLICE ASSOCIATION.

PRESS ENTERPRISE: 09.23.2016: OPINION: CITIES BAILING OUT PENSIONS WITH TAX HIKES.

REMEMBER FOLKS DON’T BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE THAT THESE PARASITES ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE TAXPAYER!   THE MONIES ALLOCATED TO PASS MEASURE-Z ARE HUGE!  THESE PEOPLE ARE IN IT FOR PERSONAL GAIN, OUR LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY SPECIAL INTEREST. VOTE NO ON MEASURE Z

REMEMBER MY FELLOW TAXPAYERS DON’T GET HOSED!

dtg-cap-dread-scott-fire-hose-2014-10-10-bk01_z

VOTE NO ON MEASURE-Z

THIS TAX ONLY SERVES, AND CONTINUES TO SERVE THE PUBLIC SERVANT ELITES AND ESTABLISHMENT ELITES OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE.

DONATE: Come On Folks, Help and Support No On Measure-Z by donating to the following links:

GO FUND ME: NO ON MEASURE-Z RIVERSIDE

CONTACT LIST:

  1. noonmeasurez@yahoo.com
  2. NO ON MEASURE-Z WEBSITE RIVERSIDE
  3. FACEBOOK NO ON MEASURE-Z RIVERSIDE

Or simply make checks payable to and mail to:

NO ON MEASURE-Z COMMITTEE I.D.# 1389248

BOB BUSTER, TREASURER, 7401 DUFFERIN AVENUE, RIVERSIDE, CA, 92504, 951-780-4749

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “REPREHENSIBLE,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “VILE,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE!  YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.”  TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED.  I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU.  RATED ONE TWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS..  … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT!  CONTACT US:  thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: PUBLIC RECORDS, KEEP OUT!

Posted: June 28, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
5

This really isn’t about fees, its about access to public records that may maintain heightened level of government transparency, and that is what the county doesn’t want!   Because, the way, I see it, “since when have we’ve been honest?”  The $50.00 per hour fee for public record retrieval would definitely be a deterent and allow a transpicuous government to be non existent.  County Officer Ray Smith, who drafted the proposal,  stated “This is a way to try and recoup taxpayer dollars spent on extensive requests that take people away from their other duties.” I don’t know how to take this, but it appears that we, the taxpayer, are an imposition and a burden on the system.  Higher fees, as the County of Riverside would like to impose, will make it difficult for the public to gather information through the public records request act.  Government services were to always be available to the public, due to the taxes.  Government abuse of the check book  has enabled them to get around increase taxes that the public would ordinarily vote down, by implementing creative fees and revenue enhancers.  These fees and revenue enhancers do not need a vote of the people.  Is it the right of government that police, the fire department and other government agencies charge the taxpayer additional fees for services they should ordinarily be receiving? Double and/or triple secret taxation without representation?  In the private sector, if a vendor cannot do the agreed upon job  according to the agreed upon fee agreement, you find someone who will.  This would be illegal because the public records act for duplication of records depends on “statutory fees”, that is, fees that are based and enacted by statute.  The fee by law should be for the “direct cost” of the duplication, nothing more.  This would fall under California Government Code section § 6253 (b).   These fees are set by Legislation not by local ordinance, this was enacted to prevent abuse.  When government tries to impose high fees for public records, this means they are hiding improprieties, this is a “red flag”.   The less access the public has due to high cost of fees the better for government.  Higher County fees such as this would be an abuse of government, who are there to for the pleasure of the taxpayer, not for themselves, and that is what I call government arrogance and a breach of their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer.

UPDATE:06/29/2011: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERVISORS REJECT PUBLIC RECORDS FEE.

UPDATE:07/12/2011: AS STATED IN THE PRESS ENTERPRISE: “… taxpayers have a right to know public employees’ compensation. It’s taxpayers’ money.”  People forget that government and it’s personnel are financed by taxes from the earnings of the taxpayer.

 SUMMARY OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST ACT 2004, and GUIDE TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST ACT

ALSO EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.

RIVERSIDE CITY HALL: VEHICLE IGNORANCE PREVAILS: IRS RULES FOR PUBLIC USE

Posted: June 1, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
1

In light of the City of Riverside being a public entity reporting the use of publicly owned vehicle appears more trickier due their exempt status over the private sector.  If a vehicle is noted as a safety officer vehicle, it maintains exempt status.  Placing cold plates on public vehicles would indicate exempt status. Both of these would not be TAXABLE.  Therefore city council members who had cold plate vehicles, paid no taxes.  An imminent abuse of the use of cold plates are that public vehicles can be used for personal purposes and not be taxed.  This isn’t rocket science, and city hall knows it, but inadvertently play the “I didn’t know that” card, then when that they do know, “we will make it right and fix it” card. Then there is the cover-up part, “Now, we can go forward and put this behind us, and get to something really important, the work of the people.”

A monthly $350.00 fuel expense, by the way, is taxable according to the IRS.  One city council member, Mike Gardner, takes the $350.00 fuel expense.  Pocketing the money for other than  what it was intended would be a form of abuse.  You just can’t pocket the money for personal use just because you have a Segway. Regardless, his $4,200 per year allowance is taxable.  Still, in my opinion $350 is to much.  Since no one has an idea of how to track themselves, the best way is to submit your expenses for reimbursement. In this manner they our forced to be responsible for documenting their own expenses. But the cast of characters have done more than consistently perjure themselves, and in my opinion, have broken the law without having to take responsible punishment.  Preferential treatment? That’s a good question.  You, me and  especially the public at large would definitely not be able to get away with any of this activity.  The five year old explanations abound, “I dunno”, “I didn’t know that” or “the difference between personal use and business can be blurry”.  Well I’m here to clarify, because the IRS is very clear regards to the use of vehicles for business.  Many people think there is a culture of entitlement looming in City Hall, and that many there are very bad people, but it doesn’t compare with the IRS, who can just be bad to work with.  This makes me worried that even Chief Financial Officer, Paul Sundeen, should have counseled city hall personal regards to these rules, especially City Attorney, Greg Priamos should have given the legal implications of these rules.  But we probably didn’t think of calling BB&K for a consult. Not only are there legal implications for councilpeople who didn’t report personal use, but the city could have implications for not reporting the value of the vehicle as wages and/or documenting the use.  This should be embarrassing for the city but also a reflection of a lack of leadership qualities and a dereliction of duty.  City Hall states that council members can utilize their public vehicles for personal use as long as they report it to the IRS.  No one in the private sector could even think of getting away with this.  Steve Adams states he uses his taxpayer vehicle half the time for business and half the time for personal, based on a 50/50 rule. Folks it doesn’t exist!  Andy Melendrez says sixty percent of the time he uses it for business and forty for personal, based on a 60/40 rule. Again,it doesn’t exist.   According to City Finance Director, Bret Mason, he agrees there is no formula, council members are responsible for reporting their personal mileage totals for tax purposes.  Well, folks, again even Bret is wrong.  It is the Cities fiduciary duty to the taxpayer to be the watch dog of public vehicles, and to follow IRS rules according to their Fringe Benefit Guide.

I believe many of these elected officials just don’t get it.  You join the armed service to be of service to your country by defending it.   Public service is the same, you run to be elected because you want to be of service to the community.  Therefore, no perks or entitlements.  This would lead to corruptible offenses and abuses, of which we now see.  All you have to do is hear what comes out of their mouth as in the case of city councilman, Paul Davis, who whines that the $350.00 monthly allowance wouldn’t even cost his gas, let alone a car payment, insurance and maintenance.  Would you want this person representing your community? This is a slap and insult to the community at large.   But why should the City of Riverside be the exception, where other small cities no where the size of ours are following IRS rules and have no confusion as to the requirements.  City councilman Steve Adams who later this year turned in his Chrysler 300, insisted the city uses the 50/50 rule to ensure council members don’t underpay their taxes, since the IRS counts personal use of a city owed vehicle as a taxable benefit.  Steve a career politician is unfortunately wrong on this issue, and its not me saying it, it’s the IRS.  You can run, but you cannot hide from the IRS…  when I contacted the IRS this is what was collaborated except the run and hide part. The City is beginning to find themselves in the unfortunate position of being the fish out of water, a place you don’t want to be.  Especially when you are being watched.

Paul Davis ran up 6,879 miles in six months and claimed no personal use; well that’s a document I’ll be requesting, to see the where, why, and when the city business took place. Andy Melendrez states Tom DeSantis, Ex-Assistant City Manager, told him of the 60/40 rule. Well if you know Tom’s track record here at the city and the county, it’s not completely consistent, and I believe he was documenting car use on post-it notes.  Adams, Rusty, Hart and Melendrez claimed fifty percent and reported that business portion to the IRS.  But Andy Melendrez, stated earlier of the 60/40 rule. OK these people are representing the people, but do they really know what they are doing? That’s the question. Further, if doing the people work is such a hardship, why would they feel inclined to do it at all?  There are sacrifices for the common good to make things better.  Again, these are people who do not care about our city, this I deduce based on their statements.

Without getting deep into details of IRS tax law, anytime you use a public vehicle for personal use, it is taxable and considered income.  The income is based on the value of the vehicle.  Otherwise, you are required to substantiate the business use in order to exclude the value of the vehicle use as income.  Responsible parties for documentation are yourself/councilperson and the City.  Therefore, when records/documentation are not provided by the employee/councilperson, the value of that vehicle as provided by the original purchase price or lease value, for the period of time the employee/councilperson uses it, is converted to wages by the employer/City.  It is then up to the employee/councilperson to substantiate business use to the IRS.  If records/documentation are provided by the employee or councilperson, the business portion will be deducted minus the personal use if it applies, with the value of the personal use converted to taxable wages.   Cold Plates, un-taxable, nice while it lasted…..IRS well, they don’t take tax evasion lightly.

UPDATES EMINENT- CITY EMPLOYEE PAST UNDOCUMENTED CAR USE: LEGAL OR ILLEGAL?  STAY CONNECTED, ANONYMOUS SOURCES WITH DOCUMENTATION WELCOMED-TMC INVESTIGATES..