American attitudes, where are we at today.

alfadriver wrote: Plus, I need to file my taxes, too. darn it. did them a month ago.

If you owe them money, there is absolutely no reason to file until April 14.

Duke wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Plus, I need to file my taxes, too. darn it. did them a month ago.

If you owe *them* money, there is absolutely no reason to file until April 14.

I'm going to file for an extension, and throwing an estimated amount towards the bill since I don't have all of my tax documents from all my retirement accounts in yet. Just seems easier to me that way.

I was a good boy this year and filed back in Feb and recieved my modest refund last week. Feels nice not to procrastinate for a change.

I'm already a tax refund baller.....but I usually beat even the scammers to filing.

mtn wrote:

The_Jed wrote: Found it:

All over the state, public executives are exercising new authority. Instead of raising teachers’ salaries, the Mequon-Thiensville School District, near Milwaukee, froze them for two years, saving $560,000. It saved an additional $400,000 a year by increasing employee contributions for health care, said its superintendent, Demond Means. And it is starting a merit pay system for teachers, a move that has been opposed by some teachers and embraced by others. Ted Neitzke, school superintendent in West Bend, a city of 31,000 people north of Milwaukee, said that before Act 10 his budget-squeezed district had to cut course offerings and increase class sizes. Now, the district has raised the retirement age for teachers and revamped its health plan, saving $250,000 a year. “We couldn’t negotiate or maneuver around that when there was bargaining,” Mr. Neitzke said. “We’ve been able to shift money out of the health plan back into the classroom. We’ve increased programming.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/business/wisconsins-legacy-for-unions.html?_r=0 Good stuff, it's about time we reined in the salaries of those overpaid teachers! (sarcasm) Now their pay falls behind the cost of living, they have to pay more for healthcare and they have to wait longer to retire, if they get to retire at all. Not a fan of Scott Walker.

I am not against teachers, and I believe they need their unions. But really, they're complaining about the retirement age rising from 55 to 57? Give me a berking break.

I do get tired of hearing about how underpaid teachers are … here in NC … one of the LOWEST paying states for teachers …

first yr = $33,000 (10 months) … not many other 4 yr degree (non technical degrees) start any better than that … at 20 yr = as much as $52,000 … neither figure might be much to all y'all ….but as an assembler on the factory floor ( with 2 Associate Degrees) I never over $30,000

and I had to wait until I was mid 60's to retire (not 57) … with no state supplied ins.

and I have a paid for home with 14 acres of woods, a new car, an old truck, and a racecar

I know I'll be flamed for not crying for the poor underpaid teachers … but I just can't do it

and when I was coming along (college in the late 60's) the running joke was that if you couldn't pass anything else you got an Education degree

wbjones wrote: I do get tired of hearing about how underpaid teachers are … here in NC … one of the LOWEST paying states for teachers … first yr = $33,000 (10 months) … not many other 4 yr degree (non technical degrees) start any better than that … at 20 yr = as much as $52,000 … neither figure might be much to all y'all ….but as an assembler on the factory floor ( with 2 Associate Degrees) I never over $30,000 and I had to wait until I was mid 60's to retire (not 57) … with no state supplied ins. and I have a paid for home with 14 acres of woods, a new car, an old truck, and a racecar I know I'll be flamed for not crying for the poor underpaid teachers … but I just can't do it

In 2006, I took my Journalism degree and started with State Farm as a claim rep at nearly $40k/yr. And that was almost a decade ago.

Here in OK they start at $31,600.

But part of what you are leaving out of that equation is that schools are so underfunded, many teachers end up buying classroom supplies for different lessons/etc.

Also, because of the low salaries you aren't attracting the "Cream of the crop." Undergrad and Graduate scores for teachers are typically at the bottom of the scale.

If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools. But I guess the general public would prefer slightly cheaper property taxes and falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, than putting a bit more money forward.

(P.S. Don't have kids and don't want them. But I'd prefer an educated populace.)

alfadriver wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

please explain this to me. I hear the same mantra over and over on this. If essentials of life are not taxed (food, medicine), then how does the lower income bear the burden? Are they purchasing things the cannot afford? If so, that's a life choice and they're berkeleying up.

The math is pretty easy- between the amount saved and the amount needed to survive, the tax is a higher burden on the lower income. I did a spreadsheet about this for a previous election.

Interesting...

You spent some hours while the FairTax proponents spent years and $20 million and you believe your research is better.

z31maniac wrote:

wbjones wrote: I do get tired of hearing about how underpaid teachers are … here in NC … one of the LOWEST paying states for teachers … first yr = $33,000 (10 months) … not many other 4 yr degree (non technical degrees) start any better than that … at 20 yr = as much as $52,000 … neither figure might be much to all y'all ….but as an assembler on the factory floor ( with 2 Associate Degrees) I never over $30,000 and I had to wait until I was mid 60's to retire (not 57) … with no state supplied ins. and I have a paid for home with 14 acres of woods, a new car, an old truck, and a racecar I know I'll be flamed for not crying for the poor underpaid teachers … but I just can't do it

In 2006, I took my Journalism degree and started with State Farm as a claim rep at nearly $40k/yr. And that was almost a decade ago. Here in OK they start at $31,600. But part of what you are leaving out of that equation is that schools are so underfunded, many teachers end up buying classroom supplies for different lessons/etc. Also, because of the low salaries you aren't attracting the "Cream of the crop." Undergrad and Graduate scores for teachers are typically at the bottom of the scale. If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools. But I guess the general public would prefer slightly cheaper property taxes and falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, than putting a bit more money forward. (P.S. Don't have kids and don't want them. But I'd prefer an educated populace.)

And between the two of you, we have exactly my opinion. I want them to be paid more, because I want people like my teachers to go into teaching (my parents probably pay $25k a year in property taxes, because they wanted us to have a good education)

I also want them to be paid like someone else of their skillset. Which means that you work until you are 62-67, and if you want to retire earlier than that, berking save for it on your own. Like I am.

oldsaw wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

please explain this to me. I hear the same mantra over and over on this. If essentials of life are not taxed (food, medicine), then how does the lower income bear the burden? Are they purchasing things the cannot afford? If so, that's a life choice and they're berkeleying up.

The math is pretty easy- between the amount saved and the amount needed to survive, the tax is a higher burden on the lower income. I did a spreadsheet about this for a previous election.

Interesting... You spent some hours while the FairTax proponents spent years and $20 million and you believe your research is better.

It was actually closer to $35 million I believe.

z31maniac wrote: If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools. But I guess the general public would prefer slightly cheaper property taxes and falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, than putting a bit more money forward.

Actually, I'd rather the rural land owners not bear most of the burden....property taxes for 1200 acres and 3 100+ year old farmhouses are astronomical.

The ‘old problem’ with democracy in our two party system is that most people do not vote for effective representation, they vote for specific issues and install the resulting figureheads who represent those specific issues, but who are not necessarily suited for effectively representing/balancing the broad cross section of people who they are in fact obligated to serve. This has been true from the beginning, but has been exacerbated by the staggering success of global corporatization which has very effectively narrowed our point of view (these are your choices, and you may only choose from these), while simultaneously devaluing local issues and prioritizing perceived national/international issues.

That a politician claims to share my beliefs so strongly as to promise action that would negatively impact my fellow citizens is a negative, not a positive, because that kind of person would then be happy to act in ways that may negatively impact ME if their priorities change later, or if they prove that their words do not match their actions, as has happened occasionally with politicians. I am strong in my beliefs and my convictions, and do not need an advocate to represent me, I want a representative that fairly balances my needs WITH the needs of those who are different from me. Unfortunately candidates like this are not on the pre-determined menu of choices we are given, so there is no chance even to put ‘my’ kind of person into office.

Our current system of tax laws isn't just about revenue. It's about control. Behaviors that the government wants to restrict are taxed heavily- smoking, alcohol, fuel usage, etc. Behaviors that they want to encourage- buying a hybrid, installing solar, etc, are given tax breaks. There are a couple problems with this. Big brother can decide what is best for you, and hit you in the pocketbook if you don't agree. The other main problem is how many politicians fail to grasp this concept, and tax the "wrong" things when they want extra cash. If you tax it, you will get less of it. Yet in many areas, business taxes are increasing. Guess where those businesses go. The more you tax it, the less you get. Very simple.

I think there are some very uninformed opinions about the poor. The poor are most often referred to as a permanent group of people, like a race or culture. As if they were all born poor and will all die poor, and we need to help them because they are just an unfortunate class. The truth is, poor is usually a traditional period. Most people move through it on their way to greater wealth, hopefully when they are young and single. The more we help those who do not need it, the longer they stay poor. Worse yet, we encourage them to start a family in that condition. We make excuses for them and make poor comfortable for a while. So rather than move up to the next phase of their life- and work to get out of poverty- they stay longer. Or forever. We didn't do them a favor. The young can deal with being poor, they have time to pull themselves out of it. But being old and poor sucks.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

Your first paragraph pretty much sums up the tax code nightmare we've adopted.

One important aspect regarding the FairTax option is that it eliminates ALL those pesky taxes and replaces them with a single, consumption based tax on new goods and services. Research, development, manufacturing and marketing are all effected by taxation and those costs are factored into a selling price. Remove those embedded costs and things immediately get cheaper.

z31maniac wrote: If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools.

This is a common fallacy.

More money in K-12 does not produce a more educated populace.

once you've studied the FairTax and realize that it DOES make sense, you'll also realize that that is the very reason that it won't ever happen

when was the last time you can remember politicians doing things that actually make sense ?

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

I've spent a lot of years working in and around poor people. Very few move out of it. It is a deeply rooted, powerful cultural mindset that lasts through multiple generations.

Except for "poor college students". But, they are not really poor, or they wouldn't be in college.

wbjones wrote: once you've studied the FairTax and realize that it DOES make sense, you'll also realize that that is the very reason that it won't ever happen when was the last time you can remember politicians doing things that actually make sense ?

Right.

Return to my comment on page 1 about chaos.

mtn wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

wbjones wrote: I do get tired of hearing about how underpaid teachers are … here in NC … one of the LOWEST paying states for teachers … first yr = $33,000 (10 months) … not many other 4 yr degree (non technical degrees) start any better than that … at 20 yr = as much as $52,000 … neither figure might be much to all y'all ….but as an assembler on the factory floor ( with 2 Associate Degrees) I never over $30,000 and I had to wait until I was mid 60's to retire (not 57) … with no state supplied ins. and I have a paid for home with 14 acres of woods, a new car, an old truck, and a racecar I know I'll be flamed for not crying for the poor underpaid teachers … but I just can't do it

In 2006, I took my Journalism degree and started with State Farm as a claim rep at nearly $40k/yr. And that was almost a decade ago. Here in OK they start at $31,600. But part of what you are leaving out of that equation is that schools are so underfunded, many teachers end up buying classroom supplies for different lessons/etc. Also, because of the low salaries you aren't attracting the "Cream of the crop." Undergrad and Graduate scores for teachers are typically at the bottom of the scale. If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools. But I guess the general public would prefer slightly cheaper property taxes and falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, than putting a bit more money forward. (P.S. Don't have kids and don't want them. But I'd prefer an educated populace.)

And between the two of you, we have exactly my opinion. I want them to be paid more, because I want people like my teachers to go into teaching (my parents probably pay $25k a year in property taxes, because they wanted us to have a good education) I also want them to be paid like someone else of their skillset. Which means that you work until you are 62-67, and if you want to retire earlier than that, berking save for it on your own. Like I am.

I agree with Z31Maniac.

The biggest problem I have is that ACT10 hosed the teachers on several fronts. Let's say I was a teacher instead of a machinist and I started at $32,000 per year. I've been in the machining trade for just shy of 8 years, so for the sake of simplicity, I'll call it 8. I'll assume a 3% annual raise that would put me at a tick over $40,000.

I have a wife and two children to support. Now, thanks to ACT10, my pay is stuck at that level for two years and I'm taking home less because I have to contribute a larger percentage to my health insurance, which for me now (as a machinist, not a hypothetical teacher) is $86 per week. Let's say it went up to $100 and my in-network coverage is reduced and my co-pays increased as well.

One child needs glasses, the other needs braces, I have to get my knee operated on and my wife needs an emergency appendectomy. Then the car breaks down. Hello, square one.

How is hypothetical me supposed to save for retirement?

So long as Congress has a fully vested pension after 5 years, I begrudge the teachers none of their meager benefits.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Boost_Crazy: I've spent a lot of years working in and around poor people. Very few move out of it. It is a deeply rooted, powerful cultural mindset that lasts through multiple generations. Except for "poor college students". But, they are not really poor, or they wouldn't be in college.

I spent the first 26 years of my life as a poor person and you are absolutely correct. I'm doing my best to not pass on the affliction.

wbjones wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

z31maniac wrote: www.fairtax.org

Sales-based taxes fall disproportionately heavier on people the lower their income is.

that's why I posted that he was doing a dis-service to the FairTax by calling it a national sales tax and letting it go at that the way it's set up the poor don't carry anymore tax load than they do now

What is it going to define as "necessities" that are untaxed? Food and medicine: good. What about clothes? Cars? Gasoline? Appliances? Will you put in place a law that leaves Shoes For Crews untaxed but Manolo Blaniks taxed highly?

Let's say it does effectively balance these things so that lower income folks pay the same or a lower tax burden. Who does it move that burden onto? It's not going to move it onto the wealthiest earners who are able to save the most. It's probably going to shift it to the upper end of the middle class who have some discretionary income for luxuries or nicer durable goods. It's also likely to fall more heavily on small businesses and startups, particularly if they do production. I can't imagine the startup brewery I'm working for now being able to survive if all the equipment and raw materials we purchase suddenly jumped 15%-20% in price. Or are you going to add a business exception where people get a license to buy things tax free? I see potential for that to become a loophole. It also doesn't differentiate the highly profitable 3M plant from the barely squeeking by craft brewery.

Even if we set aside whether or not a sales tax is more "fair" or not... it's horribly impractical. Sales are a volatile thing to tax. They will produce a very inconsistent revenue stream. When the economy is weaker, there will be far less tax revenue, right when it is needed the most. Income tax don't really disincentivize people from earning more, but higher cost of goods definitely cuts back spending. That means a recession would lengthen with a higher sales tax because people are going to be dissuaded from moving money around in the economy.

SVreX wrote:

z31maniac wrote: If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools.

This is a common fallacy. More money in K-12 does not produce a more educated populace.

How is it a fallacy? It's a proven fact, study done by Harvard, that the teachers in our schools, on average, are at the very bottom of testing scores on entry exams for both undergrad and grad schools.

Do you think anyone would go into STEM degrees if a starting Electrical Engineer made $30k a year?

I don't believe teachers are underpaid for working only 180 days a year and then retiring with a very generous pension and benefits. I can only address my state where the financial situation is dire, brought on by an unsustainable unfunded pension liability for the public sector workers. The problem was created by the state legislature decades ago by statute, not contract. I won't mention political party, but in this state it has controlled an 80+% majority of the legislature since the 1930s. It's been and still is heavily influenced by the public and private sector unions. The legislators who created the billions in unfunded pension liability today are long gone. The situation is so dire that something needs to be done. The question now being debated is whether the statutes created by the state legislature decades ago can be legally considered an implied contract and therefore untouchable, or if they can be modified to save the state from financial catastrophe. All public sector retirees are involved, but the teachers have the best pensions and retirement benefits by far. Residents of this state already pay taxes in the top ten percentile nationwide, much of that going to pay for public sector pensions. If this isn't changed, then taxes will be further increased, and that includes machinists, insurance claims reps, CEOs, and even the retires themselves. As I said I'm only addressing the situation in my state, but I assume other states such as Wisconsin are faced with similar financial problems.

having a few friend who are teachers.. they do not only work 180 days a year. School is in session from Sept to June.. and during that time, they rarely have any real time off. They work before school, they work after school, they work on weekends, and they -have- to attend so many training days a year to keep their certifications.

It is a fallacy to think they only work half a year

The_Jed wrote:

mtn wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

wbjones wrote: I do get tired of hearing about how underpaid teachers are … here in NC … one of the LOWEST paying states for teachers … first yr = $33,000 (10 months) … not many other 4 yr degree (non technical degrees) start any better than that … at 20 yr = as much as $52,000 … neither figure might be much to all y'all ….but as an assembler on the factory floor ( with 2 Associate Degrees) I never over $30,000 and I had to wait until I was mid 60's to retire (not 57) … with no state supplied ins. and I have a paid for home with 14 acres of woods, a new car, an old truck, and a racecar I know I'll be flamed for not crying for the poor underpaid teachers … but I just can't do it

In 2006, I took my Journalism degree and started with State Farm as a claim rep at nearly $40k/yr. And that was almost a decade ago. Here in OK they start at $31,600. But part of what you are leaving out of that equation is that schools are so underfunded, many teachers end up buying classroom supplies for different lessons/etc. Also, because of the low salaries you aren't attracting the "Cream of the crop." Undergrad and Graduate scores for teachers are typically at the bottom of the scale. If we paid better, we could actually attract the cream of the crop into our schools. But I guess the general public would prefer slightly cheaper property taxes and falling behind the rest of the industrialized world in education, than putting a bit more money forward. (P.S. Don't have kids and don't want them. But I'd prefer an educated populace.)

And between the two of you, we have exactly my opinion. I want them to be paid more, because I want people like my teachers to go into teaching (my parents probably pay $25k a year in property taxes, because they wanted us to have a good education) I also want them to be paid like someone else of their skillset. Which means that you work until you are 62-67, and if you want to retire earlier than that, berking save for it on your own. Like I am.

I agree with Z31Maniac. The biggest problem I have is that ACT10 hosed the teachers on several fronts. Let's say I was a teacher instead of a machinist and I started at $32,000 per year. I've been in the machining trade for just shy of 8 years, so for the sake of simplicity, I'll call it 8. I'll assume a 3% annual raise that would put me at a tick over $40,000. I have a wife and two children to support. Now, thanks to ACT10, my pay is stuck at that level for two years and I'm taking home less because I have to contribute a larger percentage to my health insurance, which for me now (as a machinist, not a hypothetical teacher) is $86 per week. Let's say it went up to $100 and my in-network coverage is reduced and my co-pays increased as well. One child needs glasses, the other needs braces, I have to get my knee operated on and my wife needs an emergency appendectomy. Then the car breaks down. Hello, square one. How is hypothetical me supposed to save for retirement? So long as Congress has a fully vested pension after 5 years, I begrudge the teachers none of their meager benefits.

I have close friends who teach in your district and the Peoria district. I have a degree in Mathematics, with minors in Economics and Business, and until just recently, made about the same money as them. Now I make about 10% more than a starting teacher in my area. Actually, probably closer to 7% more.

I'll say that I agree with you, but from what I see, there is a hell of a lot more to it than what you're laying out there. I've typed something up a bunch of times and deleted and retyped it--my opinions are strong on this. I've been this close to going into teaching, and money was not a factor in the reason I didn't. I think it really comes down to financial education, financial responsibility, and social responsibility. It is lacking on all fronts, starting with parents (not attacking you here, just in general). Teachers are underpaid, but not as bad as they and everyone else makes them out to be. I do think they need to be paid better, but they also need to have realistic expectations in regards to their retirement contributions and retirement age and etc. That is the thing that really gets me. And I do think the unions have ruined it. I want to see teachers get pay raises separately, and I want it based on their performance (NOT TEST SCORES).

In reply to mad_machine:

Be that as it may ... I also have friends and relatives who are teachers. But the summer off, a couple weeks off at Christmas, a week off in February, a week off in April, all the standard holidays and then some ... even with their "extra effort" I'm not convinced they're working as many days as other public sector workers, such as the technical workers (DOT engineers), clerical workers, maintenance workers, etc. But their pensions are better than theirs by far, thanks to the NEA and their lobbyists.