Teachers are paid much better than they should be. When a Captain with much more responsibility makes less than some education major teaching 3rd graders to add raisins and to NOT stick them up their nose, then there is a pay problem. Then there are high school coaches who make insane bank.

Not all Captains have "much more responsibility"

Some are just engineers, or nurses, or pilots. While they might have a tough job, they don't actually manage/lead anyone until they become commander of a squadron or whatever.

What data are you basing this off on?

What are specific compensation numbers?
An elementary school teacher can make anywhere from 28K to 70K

I'm still laughing at the mental image of a kid with raisins and crayons stuck up his nose, what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, homie, would like to revise you're statement regarding "some captains"? Cuz last time I checked, "some Captain" who you say has no responsibility is an aircraft commander and responsible for the lives of every engineer, navigator, co-pilot, loadmaster, etc. on his plane. If being the one person in charge of making sure everyone completes the mission alive and in a plane that doesnt crash isnt a big responsibility, I'd kinda like to know what is. Especially since "some captain" is responsible for making sure my husband always makes it home. And my husband is responsible for making sure the pilot doesnt crash into a mountain flying at 300 feet, while "some engineer" is responsible for making sure he's done his job right so he doesnt cause a problem that could kill everyone else. And "some nurse" in the military is responsible for being at work and knowing what the hell she's doing if that flight does go down and she has to save someone's life. Like my husband or the rest of the crew. But hey, what does "some captain" have to be responsible for?

ETA: And news flash, as an officer, even straight outta school, you are responsible for the enlisted you work with and junior officers, and as you move up in rank it just keeps growing. You dont have to be a group, wing or squadron commander to have "responsibility". :skep:

Nice personal story and all but pretty useless in this thread.
Stay on fucking topic.

The point of this thread is to get smittie to admit that he was molested by his 3rd grade teacher hence his disgust for those who teach.

:rofl: I'm sorry, please forgive me!

She stuck raisins up his nose didnt she? And made him eat the rubber cement...seriously, how many kids did this crap? Was I just not cool enough to stick things in my ears or nose?

Why do you assume it was a she?
Cant men be 3rd grade teachers?
Your F'n sexist.

All other arguments aside, this mentality is why American student performance will continue to slide in relation to other industrialized countries. And I'm sure it will be "the teachers' fault" the whole time...

That said, "some captain"* makes a minimum of $44,542.80 a year gross, before peace-time add-ons like COLA and BAH. I don't know a single public school teacher who makes that kind of money. The ones with masters' degrees and 15 years or more experience are lucky to make close to that. You can look here, http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state, to compare starting salaries, but I guarantee you those numbers are overestimates when you're talking about public schools.

I will grant you, the teachers I know are in southern states. I understand teachers in other states get paid more, but they also pay quite a bit more to live. Just take a look at gas price comparisons, for instance.

Put "some captain" anywhere near a war zone, well... My base pay as a lowly E-6 was $37,778.40 based on pay tables for last year. With hazardous duty pay, BAH, etc., I was taking home about $60K a year. Tax free.

As to which one has the harder job; I hated every day in Afghanistan. But I'd take 5 more years of that before I took one year as a teacher in an American public school. 15 if we're talking inner city...



*Assuming an O-3 captain, not a Navy / Coast Guard O-6 captain.

The point I was trying to make is, not every officer is in a war zone, making life and death decisions. That's a lot more Army and Marines than it is Air Force or Navy. All depends on specialty of course. A combat air controller or PJ in the Air Force has a lot more responsiblity than an AF engineer, in my opinion, because he is reponsibile for kicking ass, saving lives, being a strong team player, and motivating others......Not just "I am responsible for $100 million worth of equipment".......Tons of people can say that. Couple friends of mine were AF engineers who simply worked in a lab. They did not have to evaluate anyone. And as for pilots? Shit, for the first 2 years they are busy becoming an expert in what they do. Obviously, later on they will be responsible for training and potentially leading others, and such, but come on.

And sorry, but this so-called $47K salary for teachers is complete BS..........They must be averaging across people who've been doing it for decades.......And probably only using schools in large metro areas. You get a starting job in a small Midwest town, you're not going to make more than like $25K to start.

They were never that nice to me. If they did I would have loved school.

My disgust for teachers is how they like to put themselves on a pedestal as if they have the most horrible job on the planet and they are paid with whips on their backs. They keep saying "more money, more money, and by the way we need more money". We give them more money and they still suck (and if you find a good government school, odds are the numbers are stacked). I'm curious where the magical number is. If we give them 40trillion dollars and then give teachers a starting salary of $500k a year will that do it?

I just feel that on the Federal side of things, if we are going to spend a lot of taxpayer money, then it should be spent on legitimate functions of the Federal government such as the military. Not a state issue where the only reason the federal government cares is because of teacher's unions and scared mommies and daddies who are afraid that they'll have to spend their own money on their own kid's education instead of that new pimpin ride or a new LED TV.

Meh..

Our local schools are awesome.
Your schools suck.

Boooyakashaw

Your education was all private / home schooling, then?

From a quick google search, the Department of Education budget is about $46 billion. Department of Defense, not including the wars, $680 billion. Where is this "more money" that we've been giving teachers? Possibly on a pallet flying to Iraq?

Sounds about right. Either that, or they lay off many of the others, dumping their workload onto the watchmen, but keeping his pay the same.

I just spent an entire day in a meeting where we were told at the beginning to voice all of our complaints and that a rep was there to inform us how to resolve issues, etc. We all had our bitch session, along with ideas how to fix things, then at the end we were basically told thanks for your opinion, but nothing is going to get changed anytime soon. If you're lucky, things might get changed in the next 5 years. Thanks for wasting my day, jackasses!! I could have actually been getting shit done since my workload is higher than can get done without working OT (for which I don't get paid). Now I had to waste an entire day and get farther behind on all the paperwork you want me to push while I make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed, when in reality, it doesn't matter one bit.

:lol
:zowned:

It's a deterrent. :idk: But of course not needed.

It's a dare, not a deterrent, that started the whole world building the damned things.

Yes they misread my post. You cannot pay 2 million people 100k a year...but you can pay them much less. And you have to if you want to employ so many, maintain bases all throughout the world and pay for overpriced weapons.

Plus you can't really compare military to civilian jobs. It isn't like someone's going to say "Hmm, I'll forgot about joining the military, because I just got offered an alarm installer job for $1K more than I could make in the military". Most people who are interested in the military aren't going to pass it up for a silly $1 to 10K, because there are lots of intrinsic things about the military that they like.

Yup
Apples and Oranges goes way beyond take home pay.

Unfortunately I was government educated. My father was military and stationed in DC. Expensive housing and shit pay never got us much in that part of the country. I also got the added benefit of seeing my father 6months out of the year while he was on TDY, during peace time. I bet teachers get to see their kids all the time.

I on the other hand will never let my children go to a government school. For what many spend on a car payment I can send my kids to the best private schools. Most prefer a new bitchin ride (or motorcycle) and give a big "fuck you" to their kid's futures.

Also for your numbers. I don't doubt them one bit. But you are also forgetting how much the states and local governments spend on education. I doubt the states send much to the DOD.
This is for Georgia
http://app.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa...prev_order=asc

The state spent a total of roughly 6.2billion dollars. The local also spent roughly 6.2billion. For the sake of argument let's just say they spent 12billion total per state (some states will be more and others less). Multiply 12billion x 50 and that equals roughly 600billion dollars spent on education just from the states.

So education gets $650billion total with help from local, state, and federal governments. The DOD only gets their money from the federal government.

Damn, I have the exact opposite view of government schools. I'm not one to pat myself on the back, but I came out a better person from going to base schools than if I would have gone to public schools. With the exception of 10th - 12th grade, all of my schooling took place on base. I think I came out of school better educated and better prepared for things than many people in the public school systems. The class sizes were smaller, the teachers seemed more apt to give a shit about the individual students, and there seemed to be far less external bullshit brought into the the learning environment.

You're right, I was only looking at federal funds. But regardless of whether the money comes from the state or the federal government, it ultimately comes from us.

That said, total expenditures on education, including state and local money, work out to about $10,000 per student in this country in 2007.* Accounting for inflation and possible *cough* budget increases, let's call it $15,000 per student. Hell, call it $20,000, per student, per year in 2011.

The current DoD budget is $680 billion, again not including war budgets. There are currently about 2,940,000 servicemembers, including reservists. So even with reservists, who actually get paid a fraction of active duty salaries, the DoD is spending $231,000 per servicemember, per year in 2011.

Doesn't seem to matter how much the states and local governments are contributing, a student costs us 8% of what a servicemember does. Again, not even counting the war budgets, which add (very conservatively) another $100 billion per year.

Obviously, these are simplified estimates. Besides, we can batter numbers around all day, but what's the point? At the end of the day, what good does it do to defend a country that can't offer any legitimate competition in the world market? The fact is that you are correct, and most parents would choose to spend their money on something other than their children's education. That just underscores my point in other threads that the problem with education isn't teachers, it's parents. But as a country, can we afford to stand by and allow the average American to raise a litter of illiterates? I, for one, don't want to be paying a soldier $100K a year or more if he can't even read the goddamn package instructions on an MRE (they are half pictures, by the way).


*http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Strange how this thread evolved.

Obama's proposal isn't something I'm all that gungho about, but where are the counter-proposals from the GOP? How do they propose to improve the economy? :scratch: So far I haven't heard shit from them, other than the same old tired "decrease regulations" which would be a fucking disaster. Yeah, let's allow Big Oil and Big Banking to do whatever they want, screwing us and screwing the environment like they already did. Yeah, great idea.

And I am sorry to disappoint the armchair rich people in here, who think it is macho to defend rich people or something, but higher taxes on the rich is a good idea IMO. The whole "it is unfair to raise taxes on anyone" idea is total BS, because the rich WERE paying much higher taxes years ago, until the the cuts in the 80's. And there was never any guarantee that those cuts would be permanent. So they can't act as though it would be some kind of treasonous, unprecendented action.

And what is with this whole tax breaks for Big Oil that has been going on forever? What kind of fuckign shit is that? Since when have those fat cats ever needed more money? Fuck Texas.

Well schools aren't exactly in need of B-2 bombers or high end satellites that can probably read our thoughts 5 minutes before we think them. It is hard to compare school's needs and the military needs.

I feel in reality, we could teach children everything they need to know to get to a point they are ready for college with a white board and a sharpy. L'hopital wrote the 1st calculus book and he did that in the late 1600s. He didn't have fancy power points, Macbooks, touch screen projectors, graphing calculators (which I never used once), or even a basic calculator. English shouldn't require more than a pen and paper. Social Studies shouldn't require anything more than a $50 textbook and maybe a globe.

The military on the other hand needs a lot of technology and a lot of money. The Navy SEALS shouldn't roll into Bin Laden's crib with an old Huey and a M1 Garand. They need top secret high dollar helicopters with high dollar satellites and high dollar night vision (and training) to pull it off. I wouldn't want the people who are facing danger to have anything less.

I also want to point out that I don't isolate the teachers as the only problem. No doubt parents have a big role. But I also know that from personal experience how bad teachers can be and it is easier to fix teachers.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this before but a great movie to watch is called Waiting for Superman. It's a documentary about the government school systems. Pretty damn eye opening also for the parents who say "my school district is fine"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTfaro96dg

What about computers? Chemistry labs? Gymnasiums? Athletic fields?

Even though we are 10-20 years ahead of anyone else in military tech, the military industrial complex keeps exaggerating the threat from Russia/China/Iran etc. so they can convince Congress to buy more of their shit. And then there's black budgets we don't even know about.

Stealth helicopters are nice and all, but we wouldn't have needed them if we hadn't basically created Al Qeada in the first place.

Aside from your engineer friends (which I agree are pretty useless as leaders/managers of anything other than construction/research type projects), officers, not just Captains are leading/managing people from the day after they pin on their shiny little butter bars. Young LT's dont just spend several years learning their job, although if they are smart, they latch on to experienced NCOs/SNCOs and learn as fast and as much as they can...but wait, I digress... Ah yes, most young LT's step immediately into a job leading (or managing if you prefer) anywhere from a dozen to more than a hundred. This experience leading puts them in position to actually be squadron commanders by the time they are "just Captains".

Pilots, hmm... I'm not a big fan of them in general (because a lot can be real dick-heads, but I guess that can be said about us all at times) but one thing you have to give them credit for is that about 99% of them possess the personality traits that make good leaders. They are mostly type A people that dont hesitate to make decisions when they need making. Granted most pilot training can take up to 2 years, but that training is not just how to fly a plane, hell you could teach anybody to be a rudder-monkey in less than 6 months. A majority of that training is further teaching them how to be good/effective/responsible leaders, from how to manage (that word again) a crew (of a dozen people or more) to planning a mission that involves hundreds of people that they have the lead on. B ut what about those single-seat fighter pricks you ask? Every fighter that I can think of flys in multi-ship formations, they dont just say "Hey, lets meet up somewhere up there and fly around together"... Formations have leaders and are made up of elements that each have leaders, even in training...

Not sure how much you actually know about Combat Controllers, PJs or other tough fuckers in the Air Force (there are actually quite a few, STS/Combat Weather-no joke/TAC-Ps)... Combat Controllers arent necessarily leaders (I'm not saying that they aren't good at what they do or arent able to make tough decisions) but usually a CCT or TAC-P is embedded with other units and calls in strikes on what he is told to call in strikes on. PJs usually operate in 5-6 man teams with one CRO (Combat Rescue Officer) usually a LT or young Captain (definate leadership there, wont argue), a Team Lead (usually a SNCO) and 3 or 4 other young GAs that are there to support and do what they are supposed to. Are they any less bad-ass? Not at all, I actually have a little under 2 dozen of them here under my command (fucking scary thought that the AF has resorted to me) and they are straight up the next-best-thing-to-supermen...

I'm not even going to get into the whole pay discussion other than to say this:
- I didn't join to make a bunch of money and get rich, none of us did. I have my own reasons just like everyone that has ever signed their name on the line, raised their hand and took that oath.
- I make decent money, I wont lie. Its allows me (when I'm home) and the wife to be comfortable and enjoy some of the things we like.
- Do I make enough? I feel I am paid decent for what I've done. I do think there are some folks out there doing some shit that should be paid a whole lot more.


And for anyone that thinks the military gets paid too much, well I cant speak for everyone else, but fuck you very much and I would personally like to thank you all for paying for CHIs new house (tho its a rental), her new furniture (new to us, old shit from a thrift store), oh and I guess for making my truck payment...

I'm done rambling now, back to my nice vacation in the Med... Mythos and pitas...

And Saddam and Osama Bin Laden and the Tailban...and etc. etc. etc. Let's create the problem...so we can fix it! It is all about money.

Actually it's all about expediency. It all looked good, at the time, but no one bothered to take the long view. Gotta win that next election. Screw posterity.

this.

Too busy KEEPING the job rather than DOING the job...

Computers and Chemistry labs. Fair enough. I'm curious how much we blow on nice athletic fields and gymnasiums. Want to play sports? Go join some private team somewhere else. Watching my local news this morning I noticed some wannabe news man featuring some high school. The gym these high schoolers were using is nicer than the gym I pay membership for. Not necesarry one bit.

Stealth Helicopters and nice stuff like that is necesarry for the military. We need to be top dogs even nif right now there isn't a threat from a major country.

That is simply propaganda you have been poisoned to believe.

If we would simply quit constantly fucking with other countries in the name our "oil interests" we would not need to spend trillons of dollars overseas that WE DON'T FUCKING HAVE.

qualify rich please.

and rich being based on yrly income, not net worth.

Doesn't matter, what matters is that they got tax cuts several years ago, with no guarantee that those cuts would be permanent. Now "they" are crying like a baby, acting all suprised that anyone would even CONSIDER raising taxes, when in fact they were higher years ago.

Doesn't matter what group of people you take more money from, rich or poor or middle class, they will always protest it. What else is new?

Yeah, because every small town in America is going to have private gyms, much less private football fields, indoor basketball courts, pools, etc.

Athletics is simply a necessary thing in the develoment of any kid that will grow up to be worth a shit. And unless you totally transform schools into some kind of military boot-camp or Buddhist monk style environment where you FORCE kids to perform martial arts, running, bodyweight exercises, and other things that don't require physical facilities, you will need to spend money on facilities for SPORTS.

Word.

At he collegiate level, those giant gyms/fields/stadiums are a SOURCE of revenue not a drain on it.

At the local level, there are many benefits to the community outside of the Friday night games to having a those facilities.

Sorry that you got picked last for kickball, smittie, but sports are a very necessary part of coming of age.

Good post. I just spit out "combat air controller" without knowing their exact team position/structure...... I just assumed that one of "those" people in that MOS would have a team lead responsibility.

In terms of "deserving" money, I do believe that military people are more deserving of money than plenty other fields, such as the average banking geek, certain medical technicians, many lawyers, etc. The difficult thing is that, like I mentioned before, you can't make a direct comparison between military and civilian. Maybe that overpaid banking geek who only works 38-40 hours a week is actually "suffering" from a boring, unfulfilling job, while his buddy in the military feels that his job is exciting and rewarding, due to unique aspects of the military that can't be replicated in the civilian world.

I would also like to point out that, while a teacher does not make any life-or-death decisions, they DO need to use leadership skills, motivational skills, persuasion skills, etc......IF they are self-motivated and serious about their job of not only giving knowledge to kids, but inspiring them, which is a very difficult thing to do. That's a pretty big IF, and there is a HUGE variance between shitty teachers and great teachers. I don't believe school leadership does a good job of evaluating teachers either.

if you tax the rich more, you should tax "the poor" the same........

Dont disagree with you one bit, those are all very important traits/skills for teachers to have/use... although I prefer education thru fear and intimidation...

I don't believe that's ever happened in our country's history, since we've always had a progressive tax curve IIRC.

Tax the poor enough, and they won't be able to participate in the consumer economy, which is 2/3 of our GDP

I could see it for the primary and even middle schools. High schools? The lazy ass fat ass kids are are always going to be lazy ass fatass kids are done with sports by high school. High School should be pure academia. You go in in the morning and learn about English, math, science, etc. Things that'll help you get through college and life. Why waste it on sports with fancy stadiums and equipment?

There are also tons of academic style classes that could go too. An example is high school anatomy. The people interested in anatomy (such as future doctors, nurses, vets, etc) will learn that in college. Doctors won't even learn anatomy until they graduate with their bachelors and get into med school. Why waste paying a teacher to teach something people won't use and won't transfer over to college?

I could also go on about the media programs of the school. They spend a few thousand for a nice camera so 10 students can run the "student news" in the morning. Then the fancy Imacs to put the crap together aren't cheap either.

There are tons of waste in school that can be cut. But that would also cut teacher jobs (though potentially increase pay for others) which the NEA would never ever permit. Which the NEA has never given one shit about students anyways.

WTF is up with talking about cutting all the enjoyable parts of public school to save money while the country squanders billions upon billions upon billions on wars in shitholes that will always be shitholes?

Smittie wants us to be a bunch of robots I think. Ever heard of fun and quality of life? For fuck sakes...

"The Rich" are currently taxed at a lower rate than they have been in the last 80 years. They can afford it a little more than can "The Poor."

A lot of kids don't develop enough confidence to do sports until high school.

Also, for those who don't go on to college, high school is their last opportunity to be in sports.

And then there's the whole issue of how would colleges be able to acquire any talent if high school sports didn't exist ......

And as far as Anatomy lessons? Why don't you think that subject is valuable? Learning what's inside the human body is going to be more valuable to the average layman than Astronomy or Shakespeare, in my opinion.

Agree 1000%.

Want to cut costs? Get out of these other fucking countries and stop starting wars in the name of the money transfer scheme.

Sports builds teamwork, drive and direction. Not to mention it keeps people active. It also gets the chicks.

Negative.

1988 - 1992 were lower.

Also, the top bracket starts at a MUCH lower dollar figure today (when adjusted for inflation*) than preceding years.

So, technically, "the rich" cannot afford it as easily as "the poor".


*Possible exception during the Clinton years but it's late and I'm not going to run inflation calcs.

You've said some really stupid shit in the past, but this may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site...

Really? Care to explain? Because if you really think my post is SO controversial that it's the dumbest thing you've ever read, then you are one of the most bizarre online personas I've ever encountered.

Really? Come on man.

Kind of makes me sad how little importance people put on sports and physical activity in kids. Kids getting too fat, ridden with diabetes? I know, lets take sports out of school, that'll be great for society!!

Funny that your reply is actually one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site. Oh the irony.

That's a pointy-headed quibble. Look at the taxation rates, by income, back as far as 1932. Look how much people were being taxed during the 1950s, which are generally acknowledged as the "golden era" of the United States. Rich people still managed to be rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

I agree.

My daughter is taking AP anatomy which will translate to college credit. Maybe I should complain to the district about teaching her advanced classes that aren't needed "yet."

Oh, and maybe talk to them about getting rid of marching band too. I mean, all that early morning hard work and classical music. Completely unnecessary.

I'm not a fan of higher taxes, for anybody. But I don't think there's a world where this sentence is true, technically or otherwise.

Physical activity is necessary for a kid to develop into something? Tell that to my HS valedictorian... You know, the kid who read books during recess, grew up to own multiple companies and become a multimillionaire before he turned 30.

I agree that kids need physical activity to be healthy, but the importance people put on organized sports in this country is INSANE... Like you can't learn teamwork, discipline, and humility elsewhere... You guys are talking about HS sports getting kids into college and providing a pathway to a better life in general, which is a fucking joke... I venture to guess there's a significantly higher percentage of kids who's pathway is determined by academic achievement. Further, with all the corruption in college sports, how many of those athletes get a high quality education? Because you know they don't all go on to be millionaire pro athletes...

Teamwork? Leadership? Dealing with adversity?

We dont need any of that.

:rockwoot:

the tax rate debate always comes across as misleading since our tax system is more than just "rates". Our tax system is designed to promote behaviors deemed beneficial for society.
Home ownership, going to college, having children, saving money (and spending money in ways thought to be beneficial for society)
While democrats and republicans talk bs about who should pay a higher rate or if we should lower rates, the effective rate that people actually pay is quite different.

A head of household who makes $100,000 putting a kid through college will potentially pay less in taxes than some single person renting, spending all their money on toys making $30K.
Even a single person making $100,000 could potentially pay less in taxes (as a %) then someone making 30K if they use their income in the right way. Its all in the tax code.

If you eliminate the tax code and go to a flat tax or national sales tax, the impact on will be huge and it will hit the middle class hardest becoming a massive increase in actual taxes paid.
Those who would benefit would be all those broke motherfuckers who contribute nothing to society.

This as been brought to you buy the "Split be bill evenly party"
No more of this percentage business...End of the year, the government passes the bill around the table and the entire population splits the bill evenly.

AP anatomy doesn't transfer to college. Maybe as a free elective. People who want to be nurses, health majors, "sports management" (future PE coach), etc take Anatomy AND Physiology (together) through 2 semesters (or quarters). If they are wanting to become a doctor or PA, Anatomy and Physiology won't even count (much less some HS class). AP anatomy may count if they go to a tech school to be a CNA but I doubt that. They take a dumbed down version of anatomy AND physiology (not just anatomy). If your daughter wants to learn about anatomy, then there are some awesome books I can recommend to you and they'll only cost you $20 (and the taxpayers $0). Some are even coloring books (which do wonders).

High School should prepare ALL kids to have the option to go to college. And if the school has kids concentrate on all of the core classes of college they can get credit for classes such as Lit and Comp, Calculus, etc. Then they can decide in college what they are really passionate about becuase they'll not be worried about basic classes like Calculus, English, and other core classes that suck up time. They'll be able to concentrate all their efforts into what they want to do. Wether it is Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, English, Math, Art, digging ditches, or playing football. On top of that many would be able to finish in 3 years instead of 4 (which would save money for the student and the taxpayers).

My school never prepared me for college becuase they straight up told me I can't do college and I shouldn't try. They did that becuase I wasn't the perfect little student and they only encouraged students they felt could do it to go the college track. The rest got put on what they called the "technical track" where you learned basket weaving 101 and counting your fingers AND toes. They did that so they could have high graduation numbers and then get more funds.

I also don't have a problem with teaching advanced classes. I have a problem with teaching classes that are unnecessary which take up funding regardless if they are advanced or not.

I want to directly respond to points made in this post but I think I'm better off just expressing my condolences to you over your experience in the education system.

Tell you what, I'll take the advice of an actual university administrator over a random forum poster over what classes she takes that will apply to her college career.

Are you sure you want to gamble with your daughter's future like that?

Seems risky.

JC

Well fuck it then, I'll do it.

Smittie, they said you couldn't go to college because you're a dumbass.

Get over it.

JC

That guy you're talking about, did he merely OWN companies, and hire people to lead them? If so, that's not really impressive. In order to actually lead a company, you need leadership skills, and someone who simply reads books after school isn't going to develop that. I'm not saying he needs to play football, but athletics of any kind (regardless if they are school-sponsored or not) are very effective at teaching kids confidence, self-control, assertiveness, time management, the ability to banter with someone without blowing a cork, the importance of putting yourself aside and working towards a team goal, and probably most importantly, how to motivate & encourage others.

Activities like marching band are great too, but personally I think they don't provide as many benefits.

People can get good grades and get into good colleges and then get good jobs because of that........But, will they become leaders of those companies? Will they have a good social life?

Personally, the most successful people I know are those who got good grades AND played sports.......They are great time managers / multi-taskers, and they know how to navigate the social / interpersonal world within an organization (i.e. grease the wheels)

Fuck me.

I had a long response typed out and lost it!!!

Cliff's notes:
Today, top eaners = $379k.
1950 top earner = $200k ($1.8 mil today)

Everyone's share was higher then but loopholes were more widespread back then.

Really?

Use PC's example, 1950's.

Lowest tax bracket was 20%, only about 22% of population got out of paying income taxes.

Today, the lowest bracket is 10% and nearly HALF all all filers pay no income taxes (over 47% last I saw).

I don't care how much you make or what the top tax bracket is, 0% is always easier to pay than any other non-negative percent.

Or how about take actual advice from someone who is doing it. University Administrators will fuck you over in a second, just to get you out the door (or in the door in your case). What is your daughter wanting to do? Doctor (though I bet Vet)? Then you are wasting time and other people's (including yours) money by having her in an anatomy class. If she is a biology major or some other hard science major then that class will not count (unless they are willing to make it a free elective). It'd be better for her to concentrate on another class that she can skip in college. That way she can concentrate on her real classes that really count (no matter what degree she goes for).

AMJ:
THe point I'm getting at is schools tell people they can't do it and that they are not cut out for it. Pretty shitty thing to tell a 14 year old. So I went through believing them. It wasn't until after high school I decided to go back to school and turns out I'm great at college. I picked one of the absolute hardest degrees anyone could get (biology majors can't stand what I do) and I've done nothing but As except for a B in Public Speaking and in World Literature. English has never been my strong suit.

I'm wanting schools to educate kids to the point that when they turn 18 and are out of high school, they can say "fuck it, I'm going to go to college afterall" and then do it and be prepared for it. Most AP kids aren't prepared for college anyways. I had kids in my Calc 1 class who had AP Calculus and couldn't derive and failed. Same for my general chemistry. Dumbasses couldn't even balance a reaction or understand a mole, yet they have already had chemistry in high school (where I had none).

Very true. President Obama is known and was elected based on his high school sports resume.

How come when I think of sports and teamwork all I can think about is drunken fans yelling and screaming and then cheering when the QB hurts himself and has to live with permament injuries. Or high school kids dropping dead on the field because a coach over exhausted them.

Jealousies?

Come on man, really?

OK, so here is a question for y'all... if you feel the rich should pay more taxes, is it because the rich utilize more of those services that our taxes provide?

Jealousnes? Haha, whatever. I played football my 9th grade year and only becuase coaches begged me to. I guess they didn't like it when a 200lb low body fat band nerd freshman could out squat, bench, and sprint their star senior players. I just found football a waste of time to me. I had a fake ID, and I much prefered spending my friday nights rolling to a college town nearbye and chasing college girls (becuase high school pussy is boring other than it is better than your fist) and drinking beer. My sports was lifting weights at a private gym, BMX, mountain biking, and playing football with my friends.

But I understand. You are in Texas and they don't really have much going for them other than a government that doesn't scare away businesses.

For the other. The shittiest roads I drive on are in front of the nicest houses in Atlanta. Also if they use say more water, eletricity, etc for their home, then they are going to pay more anyways. People want to tax the rich out a jealousy.

So what's the squat/bench now?redflip

One of the rules we have, don't peak in high school.

:wink:

Another rule...if all your life experiences suck perhaps the blame should...
No wait that's not right...
I cant remember the wording,

Never mind.

I hope the drinking age down there was 18 or 19, because I find it hard to believe that a 9th grader is going to pass off as a 21-y/o.

I think it goes like this;

If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

If you don't like lemonade, find life, and beat his head in with a pipe wrench.

JC

Started and built a company from the ground up, and sold it... Bought another... Don't know him well enough to know all of the details, but again... Not participating in athletics doesn't mean a kid is going to be worthless...

First question would be, how many of those who pay no income taxes are actually in the lowest tax bracket? How many of them are in the top tax bracket, and are paying no taxes through loopholes in the tax law?

I know a few in the middle brackets using nothing more than good ole fashioned deductions.

What exactly is a "loophole" in the tax law?

Buffett Blasts Low Taxes On Billionaires, Says Congress Must Stop Coddling Them
By Henry Blodget

The most respected investor and capitalist on the planet, Warren Buffett, took to the pages of the New York Times this morning to bust a myth that has dominated political discourse in recent months:

The idea that raising taxes on super-rich people would hurt the economy.

Buffett observes that his own personal taxes as a percent of his income have plummeted in the past decade, to all-time lows. He observes, as he has before, that he pays a much lower tax rate than his secretary. He calls out the absurdity of hedge-fund managers and other professional investors playing "long-term capital gains" rates on short-term trading profits.

And then he takes aim at the biggest rationale for preserving these astonishing tax breaks: The claim that, if taxes on deca-millionaire and billionaires were increased, these super-rich Americans would stop investing, thus clobbering the economy and hurting job growth: ( :lol )

"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

"I didn't refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

"When presented with these facts, those who argue against tax increases on the super-rich--or, even more absurdly, for more tax cuts--often point to President Ronald Reagan, observing that he cut taxes for the wealthy, helping usher in a long economic boom.

"This ignores the point that Reagan also raised taxes. And more importantly, it ignores how high tax rates on super-rich people were when Reagan cut them: In 1980, the top bracket was a startling 70%. It also ignores how Bill Clinton raised taxes and then took the US from the perpetual deficits of the Reagan years to a surplus. It ignores how George Bush cut taxes, plunged the budget back into a deficit, encouraged the wild borrowing spree that inflated the housing bubble, and then oversaw the worst recession since the Depression. It ignores how the US prospered all through the 1950s and 1960s, when marginal tax rates were super-high. And so on.

"In short, it ignores almost all the economic data we have. And it appears to be based on a rigid ideology, rather than common sense." :zowned:

Buffett, by the way, isn't proposing a blanket increase on today's entire top tax bracket, those making over $379,150, many of whom protest against the idea that they are "rich." Buffett is suggesting the implementation of two new brackets--one for taxpayers making over $1 million, of whom there are 237,000 in the country, and one for taxpayers making over $10 million, of whom there are only 8,000.

In other words, Buffett's tax-increase-on-the-super-rich would affect 1 in 1,253 Americans, less than 1/10th of 1% of the population.

Largely immaterial, given that the truly wealthy are vast multiples of these numbers. You should really ask yourself why your government doesn't create higher tax brackets, precisely to cover these massive earners.

And this, right here, is the issue. People don't open their eyes and look at the available evidence. They instead close them, and decide that they already know why things happen.

Which is what Obama is proposing, but I'm sure it will never go anywhere.

Buffett is setting up a straw man to knock down. He is focusing on the "super-rich" people like himself who make most of their money from investments rather than income. Buffett pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary because he primarily pays capital gains rates on investments while his secretary pays income tax rates on her salary and bonuses. The people in Buffett's circumstance are a small subset within the "millionaires and billionaires" whose taxes Obama has wanted to raise.

I have heard little concern for people like Buffett in the tax discussion. From what I have seen it has primarily focused on small business owners who file as individuals and would get caught in the over $200k individual/$250k couple area whose taxes Obama has so far wanted to raise.

Apparently we are going to find out what the response will be to these kinds of taxes. On Monday Obama is supposed to propose new tax rules for the "super-rich" they are calling, appropriately, the Buffett Rule. Buffett is getting his wish and we will see how much resistance there really is to this kind of thing, assuming Obama's rule is as limited as they claim it will be.

As I said above, the very specific group of people like Buffett don't get their money from income. We could create an income tax bracket for people who earn over $1 million with a rate of 100% and it will have little effect on Buffett. I don't know if capital gains taxes have ever been bracketed but I know for the last 20+ years they have been set at a flat rate for everyone.

What I suspect Obama is going to announce is a cut off for capital gains income. What I mean is someone can only have a certain amount of money taxed as cap gains and everything after that is taxed as normal income.

The value of this is debatable as well, especially for some of the higher profile people like Buffett and Gates. They have pledged to give the majority of their wealth to charity when they die. That being the case I believe they can put their income, regardless of where it comes from, in tax free charitable trusts. Either way I'm curious to see what Obama will propose tomorrow.

One of his points was, even back when capital gains were taxed at a higher rate, it didn't discourage people from investing, and wouldn't, because investing in stocks will always be one of the most effective and pain-free ways to get a good return on your savings.

And I doubt there are very many people earning a million-plus salary, or even just $200K+, who don't invest in stocks. Compare that to the middle-class and lower, many of whom don't have any stocks. The point is, someone who pulls down a high salary can afford to put a higher percentage of that salary into savings. Therefore, his savings will grow more quickly, to the point where a substantial portion of his income is coming from capital gains.

I don't need to ask myself anything.

I think that 35% of your earnings is plenty, regardless of how big those earnings are.

In your opinion, what rate should the "truly wealthy" be penalized for being rich?

Also, how many times and how often do you think it is fair to tax those people? (Once per generation, twice per generation, every time their net worth exceeds a certain threshold, etc..)

If you don't ask yourself anything, but instead assume that you already know the answers, then you learn nothing.

If they actually paid 35% of their income, then it might be fair. They don't.

Given our current system it would appear that once a year is the fair interval between taxations. As this goes back to feudal Europe, there's a reasonable amount of supporting documentation.

You aren't getting what I am talking about. Any tax that is going to go after Buffett and his ilk isn't aimed at people whose primary income is from a salary.

Your scenario doesn't make sense either. I'll use round numbers to keep things simple, but take that person making $1 mil a year, or around $500k after taxes. How much money are they investing in vehicles where the money can be reached? Keep in mind, a 401k has a big time tax penalty for early withdraws (20% on top of regular income taxes I believe). Even if it were half their take home that is $250k per year. You tell me, at that rate how long will it take before the profits on those investments will even equal their $1 mil salary, much less be significantly greater than the salary?

As I said, if this is going after Buffett it won't be going after people who live off a salary. It would target the few like Buffett, C-level people who got a one time big hit taking their company public, or those CEOs who make 8 figures for a few years.

To speak about capital gains taxes generally, first of all I was wrong. The cap gains rate has been progressive (or regressive depending on how you view it) and is currently that way, but it is much more simplistic than income tax rates.

Secondly, creating a new, higher cap gains rate won't prevent or discourage investment. What it does do is discourage realizing a gain on an investment (selling) and then reinvesting in something else (buying). Taxing those gains at a higher rate will mean the new investment will have to be that much better in order for it to make sense for a person to move their money. A higher cap gains rate doesn't discourage investing, it discourages liquidity of investments.

ETA: The middle class people you refer to who don't have investments are generally stupid.

I don't believe shmike is referring to how often taxes are calculated, but to how many times the same money is subject to taxation (usually referred to as double taxation). This is one of the complaints about estate taxes.

You're right about not learning anything, that was a poor response on my part.

I don't need to dig into the "Why don't they have higher brackets for rich folks", because what we have is high enough.

Once a year is a fair interval, but how many times should we tax the rich?

And dividends, capital gains, (sometimes) corporate taxes, etc...

How many times are the Middle Class taxed?

I'm not a fan of inheritance taxes but, if you're investing money in a way that makes more money, then to me that is income. Not the original funds, but what you make with them

How many wealthy people claim any significant personal income? How many self-incorporate, so that they can take advantage of business deductions? How many use corporate funds in order to buy homes, cars, boats, planes.... and, therefore, do not need to expend those funds personally?

Hey now...stop right there dammit.
Take your fancy talk and go buy a cookie with it.

Sorry, but I was born for fancy talk. For instance asking questions like, "If you don't want to be taxed based on your investment earnings, then why should you be able to claim your losses as a deduction?"

Who is saying investment earnings shouldn't be taxed?

Well...
I WAS going to surf me some porn.
You just put a stop to that now didn't you.
prick

It depends on your definition of middle class but for many it is once.*


*For purposes of this discussion: exclude all taxes "everyone" pays such as sales tax, property tax, etc.

I'm saying it should be taxed as income, because that's what it is.

It's like shoelaces but with words and money, from what I understand...

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tax-loophole.htm

Por ejemplo...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...loopholes.html

But if you want a semantic argument as to whether various technicalities in legalese qualify as "tax loopholes" or just "poor wording," I'm not really interested. If there's no such thing as a "tax loophole," then there's also no such thing as "price gouging," "slave wages," etc. etc.

No...arguing over stupid bullshit as a device to redirect a pissing match is something I tried to avoid and go fuck your self for trying to start an argument by accusing me of redirecting my pee.


I asked for a the meaning of Tax Loophole for clarity.
Common definitions\usage out in the real world do not always carry over to interwebz\forum\thread world and I don't like to enter pissing matches on topics riding on a cloud of misunderstanding (unless my patience or mood demands it).



Ok

I had to read this sentence 5 times.

Not because it was hard to understand, I just liked visualizing pauldun as a glam sticker on the back window of a lift-kitted F-150. Right next to the inevitable rebel flag. And/or "No Fear" decal.

That's my bad, I understood the term "tax loophole" to be fairly universal, so I assumed you were being rhetorical. Of course, that raises the topic of why I would feel the need to respond to a rhetorical question, and whether that need denotes some form of megalomania. Which are also rhetorical questions.

This thread is about porn, right?

I'm not even kidding when I say the following:
In my attempt to hide a slight chuckle (actually..more of a hmmmph + small grin) in the office, I ended up letting loose a giggle like that of a little girl. As I tried to suppress that little giggle...I let out a small fart.


I really need to relax more and not be so damn reserved.

:lol:

When it comes to long term investment income the US Government disagrees.:shrug: