More on teacher pay

[FinanceDude]

I was told overall it was Mass. Oh, well, you can have that claim to fame!
I'd don't live there (thank goodness), but I have some relatives who do. They're not real happy about the Big Dig.

The Big Dig is more like the Huge Mess...........makes the fraud in Iraq look legit.........

 

[astromeria]

BTW Astro....... you mentioned your son took no education classes at all and is teaching in a middle school. Is he working on some type of provisional or temporary certificate? Does he have some kind of deadline to achieve certification? Is the school district paying for him to attend classes to achieve certification? Just wondering how that works.

He took his first ed class last summer at his own expense (school district doesn't pay a dime for this state requirement...or maybe it's a No Chid Left Behind requirement, I forget). He has already learned how to teach science (he taught camp crafts/nature studies every college summer and got some training from the Boy Scouts). He's basically holding his nose and wasting his time to get this degree--he wouldn't bother for a pay increase, only because it's required to keep his job. I think it would be tax-deductible since it's a job requirement, but he doesn't itemize...can't afford a house yet. I think he waited till the very last minute to start on the degree (summer after his fifth year).

 

[bosco]

I don't know about anyone else, but I find little that is more pathetic than Americans whining about their taxes. Considering the unenviable situation in terms of infant mortality, poverty, medical care, the huge deficits, the relative tax rates compared to other industrial nations, and the historically huge disparity between the haves and have nots (and let's face it,most of us on this board are the haves), it is obvious to me that one of the biggest problem in the US is that people aren't taxed enough.

I don't like taxes either, any more than I like making mortgage payments. But at least I make them.

 

[youbet]

He took his first ed class last summer at his own expense (school district doesn't pay a dime for this state requirement...or maybe it's a No Chid Left Behind requirement, I forget). He has already learned how to teach science (he taught camp crafts/nature studies every college summer and got some training from the Boy Scouts). He's basically holding his nose and wasting his time to get this degree--he wouldn't bother for a pay increase, only because it's required to keep his job. I think it would be tax-deductible since it's a job requirement, but he doesn't itemize...can't afford a house yet. I think he waited till the very last minute to start on the degree (summer after his fifth year).

Not trying to pry (OK, maybe a little ) but does your son hold a teaching certificate for the state where he is employed as a teacher? He could be taking the summer classes to qualify for certification (and is currently teaching on a provisional certificate) or he could already be certified and taking classes under the continuing education requirements of the No Child Left Behind program.

 

[astromeria]

I don't know--he never talks about this stuff (and if he did, I'd forget--this ain't the kind of info that sticks in my mind, to be honest). I only discovered by accident that he got tenure practically a year after the fact! Neither of us is rule- or hierarchy-oriented. Someone who graduated from my HS about the same time I did told me he's regarded as one of the best teachers at the school. He did tell me he is often told he should go into administration, but so far he has no interest in anything that takes him out of the classroom. He's a natural, apparently.

EDIT I checked with my son. He assured me he never took an ed class until he took the masters-level class last summer, and only took that because the state requires him to get a masters to continue teaching beyond some arbitrary number of years. He's dragging his feet, hoping the requirement will go away. He finds the extra pay isn't worth participating in boring classes--and they interfere with his life outside of work. He's certified and tenured nevertheless. Perhaps his being male (practically a rarity in middle schools) along with his outstanding undergrad grades and science major plus excellent teaching skills are considered meeting requirements as far as his own school is concerned.

 

[youbet]

I don't know--he never talks about this stuff (and if he did, I'd forget--this ain't the kind of info that sticks in my mind, to be honest). I only discovered by accident that he got tenure practically a year after the fact! Neither of us is rule- or hierarchy-oriented. Someone who graduated from my HS about the same time I did told me he's regarded as one of the best teachers at the school. He did tell me he is often told he should go into administration, but so far he has no interest in anything that takes him out of the classroom. He's a natural, apparently.

OK. Well, he must have taken the required ed classes to be certified Astro. Perhaps you just weren't aware that he took them. He couldn't be granted tenure in the public system without certification and he couldn't get certification without the required classes.

The important thing is that he's enjoying his career and doing well. That's great.

 

[FinanceDude]

I don't know about anyone else, but I find little that is more pathetic than Americans whining about their taxes. Considering the unenviable situation in terms of infant mortality, poverty, medical care, the huge deficits, the relative tax rates compared to other industrial nations, and the historically huge disparity between the haves and have nots (and let's face it,most of us on this board are the haves), it is obvious to me that one of the biggest problem in the US is that people aren't taxed enough.

I don't like taxes either, any more than I like making mortgage payments. But at least I make them.

So what about the 50 million Americans that pay NO TAXES? Doe you bleive that's fair?

I read somewhere that a flat tax of 15% would increase govt coffers by $100 billion a year..........

 

[bosco]

So what about the 50 million Americans that pay NO TAXES? Doe you bleive that's fair?

I read somewhere that a flat tax of 15% would increase govt coffers by $100 billion a year..........

yes, actually, I do believe that's fair. They are probably the same 50 million with no health insurance. I know--let's tax kids piggy banks too. They should learn the system at an early age!

I think a flat tax is regressive and unfair. Unless you first exempt a reasonable allowance for basic food and housing. Oh, but that would leave 50 million untaxed. Flat tax and (un)fair tax are examples of what I mean. People on the high end of the scale looking to hang onto more, even if it is at the expense of those on the low end. Brief one-word definition: Republicans. Otherwise known as "the party of cheap labor."

 

[FinanceDude]

yes, actually, I do believe that's fair. They are probably the same 50 million with no health insurance. I know--let's tax kids piggy banks too. They should learn the system at an early age!

I think a flat tax is regressive and unfair. Unless you first exempt a reasonable allowance for basic food and housing. Oh, but that would leave 50 million untaxed. Flat tax and (un)fair tax are examples of what I mean. People on the high end of the scale looking to hang onto more, even if it is at the expense of those on the low end. Brief one-word definition: Republicans. Otherwise known as "the party of cheap labor."

Really? So the report that states 94.7 percent of all taxes are paid by people that make over $150K a year is false??

I remember when Ross Perot revealed he paid $2 million in taxes on an income of $500 million dollars one year...........but he's not a Republican........

 

[youbet]

Rich Republicans are vocally against taxes and use every trick in the book their high paid accountants and tax preparers can muster to avoid paying them!

Rich Democrats are not vocally against taxes and use every trick in the book their high paid accountants and tax preparers can muster to avoid paying them!

Both rich Republicans and rich Democrats like to see us plebians take sides and feud.........keeping our eyes and focus off of them!

Party loyalist = patsy!

It's about economic classes, not party labels.

 

[bosco]

Really? So the report that states 94.7 percent of all taxes are paid by people that make over $150K a year is false??

I remember when Ross Perot revealed he paid $2 million in taxes on an income of $500 million dollars one year...........but he's not a Republican........

what percentage of all income is made by those making over $150k per year? Without that statistic, the one you cite is meaningless.

rich people of all parties will evade taxes. It's the Repbulicans who lead the charge to keep taxes low for the wealthy (as well as opposing minimum wage increases). What Ross Perot does or does not do is utterly meaningless to this discussion, IMO.

btw, your two facts seem to work against each other--if rich people are so overtaxed, then how come Ross got off so cheap?

 

[FinanceDude]

btw, your two facts seem to work against each other--if rich people are so overtaxed, then how come Ross got off so cheap?

May be Ross has better tax people.........

 

[shiny]

May be Ross has better tax people.........

We studied him in my Estate and Gift tax class in law school. He invests in mainly municipal bonds.

 

[ladelfina]

bosco.. exactly right

what percentage of all income is made by those making over $150k per year? Without that statistic, the one you cite is meaningless.

There's a lot of Heritage Foundation b.s. out there about how "unfair" taxes are on the rich because they pay "the most" taxes. Given the constant increase in ultra-high earners and income disparity, the numbers game becomes ever easier and easier for them to rig.

Look at it this way, even under a "flat tax" scenario:
Let's assume the average salary of the bottom quintile is $10,000, the second quintile, $25,000, the third, $50,000, the fourth, $75,000, and the fifth, $100,000. At a flat 17% tax rate in our simplistic example, those in the upper quintile are paying on average $17,000 each in taxes.

Now change the scenario as follows: 1°, $10,000; 2°, $25,000; 3°, $50,000; 4°, $75,000; 5°, $1,000,000. Suddenly, with no change in the tax code, this upper quintile is paying on average $170,000 in tax in our simplified example! Horrors!

They're paying 10x more than before!!! (No kidding, 'cause they are MAKING 10x more.. duh!)

--
Funny how when the rich get taxed, it's "income redistribution", but when a CEO makes 500x his workers' salary rather than 50x or 100x... it's not! That always cracks me up.

 

[Robert the Red]

Really? So the report that states 94.7 percent of all taxes are paid by people that make over $150K a year is false??

Yes. Rich people pay most of the INCOME tax, but the many other non-trivial taxes (e.g., SS, Medicare, sales and property taxes) more or less make the net current system a flat tax rate.

 

[mathjak107]

after last years tax bill i think i bought my own tomohwak missle

 

[Leonidas]

after last years tax bill i think i bought my own tomohwak missle

Kewl - when are you going to launch it? I want to come watch.

 

[Nords]

Kewl - when are you going to launch it? I want to come watch.

Darn, I wish I'd been allowed to copy those videos before I retired...

 

[Spanky]

According to the tax distribution for year 2000 ( http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf), the highest 1% (in income) pay 33.6% of the tax revenue.

 

[Patrick]

According to the tax distribution for year 2000 ( http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf), the highest 1% (in income) pay 33.6% of the tax revenue.

Like that's fair! Tax 'em some more! Those dirty bastards aren't paying enough!

 

[jazz4cash]

According to the tax distribution for year 2000 ( http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf), the highest 1% (in income) pay 33.6% of the tax revenue.

I am trying to digest footnote #2..........
The highest 1% starts at AGI w/ additions of 297k
The highest 5% starts at AGI w/ additions of 134k
The highest 10% starts at AGI w/ additions of 101k
the additions are employers share of FICA and the like.

 

[samclem]

Considering the . . . huge disparity between the haves and have nots (and let's face it,most of us on this board are the haves) . . .

This becomes easier to understand if you substitute "earned and earned-nots" for "haves and have nots." Some wealthy folks (and I guess you would include many on this board) received their wealth from their parents, but the vast majority did not. And, even if the money did come from somewhere else--that is a case of a person with the money (Mommy or daddy) deciding what to do with their property. That is one of the characteristics of "property" that makes it valuable-you can do things with it as you choose. Freedom--many people really like it.

Funny how when the rich get taxed, it's "income redistribution", but when a CEO makes 500x his workers' salary rather than 50x or 100x... it's not! That always cracks me up.

Someone who controlled the money (e.g. the Board of Directors, etc) voluntarily decided how much to pay the CEO. Workers, CEO, etc all enter into voluntary contracts with businesses or other employers to sell their services for a price, for the mutual benefit of both. How this can be likened in any way to taxation, where the person whose property is being seized has no right to refuse, is a mystery to me. They are entirely different in character.

 

[mathjak107]

just saw an article in this months kiplingers , 5% of the wealthiest people pay 50% of the income tax

 

[bosco]

just saw an article in this months kiplingers , 5% of the wealthiest people pay 50% of the income tax

but what percentage of the money do they have? Once again, the most important data is ommited from this statistic. Maybe those 5% receive 90% of the income.

 

[bosco]

This becomes easier to understand if you substitute "earned and earned-nots" for "haves and have nots." .

I'd say it's pretty naive to believe that because you "have it" that you "earned it."