Overpaid teachers are not the reason for the US deficit

[metalman]

Unionized Teacher collective bargaining just increases the input provided to schools (spending, construction and the like), but actual decreases school output (test scores and the like). its not the money or NY $15k per student spending would also have the highest test scores

Of All States, New York’s Schools Spend Most Money Per Pupil

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade. Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohort in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8.

 

[metalman]

it's not that I think taxing the rich will solve every financial problem in the world. it won't. but it will help, even a little. plus, if the rich know they are getting taxed, they will take an interest in how efficient the money is used.

 

[faethor]

Unionized Teacher collective bargaining just increases the input provided to schools (spending, construction and the like), but actual decreases school output (test scores and the like). its not the money or NY $15k per student spending would also have the highest test scores.

That's not true unless you cherry pick your evidence. Connecticut is often ranked best in the US for K-12 education. Yet Unions are very popular and do exist there. And in your Texas example it would appear that Unions also exist there. So your evidence isn't what you think it means.

Funding is, of course important. As is how those monies get spent. The money must make it to provide quality educational materials, teacher training, and even simple things like food in kids bellies. So I'd agree the most spending doesn't mean the most education. And it's certainly simplistic to conclude that NY is high and therefore every school around the US must be over funded.

Having worked in the inner city St. Paul Schools and the rich Edina suburban neighborhood clearly the quality of the home effects how easy it is for teacher's to do their job. The obstacles faced between these two are clearly different.

 

[redrumloa]

Great coment The Leander. We give teachers the right to be educators and thereby leadership rights to children. A demonstration is a good thing from the angle of displaying to kids how this Country works. It's supposed to be a nation of,by, and for the people. The people need to take the power and inform the elected what is important to fix in our society. We do this by various means one of which is exercising our first ammendment right to free speech through demonstrations.

This attitude of sit down and shutup and don't use your rights is totalitarianism rearing it's ugly head. Aka anti-american at it's best.

I just threw up a little bit. You are happy when young children are used as political pawns in demonstrations because the views match your own political views. If school children were used to protest abortion, support gun ownership or to support drilling in ANWR, you would be up in arms and wouldn't be happy that they were learning first amendment rights.

Children by definition are CHILDREN. They are minors, not adults. Indoctrinating them in one particular political cause is not education.

 

[redrumloa]

here is reality: my brother has pointed out that he made WAY more money during the 90's when Clinton was president. because money was freely finding it's way into middle class wallets. And my brother is talking about his freelance work which he does AFTER his main day job.
all the multimillion dollar jobs I worked on in my career were during the 90's. (I didn't get the millions. what that means is that LOTS of people get hired to work on a big project).

During Clinton we had:

1) Dotcom bubble
2) Very beginning of the real estate bubble with the introduction of Sub-prime lending.

That said I don't think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will do a damn thing. They should pay their share, but pay it by eliminating loopholes and simplifying the tax code.

 

[faethor]

I just threw up a little bit. You are happy when young children are used as political pawns in demonstrations because the views match your own political views. If school children were used to protest abortion, support gun ownership or to support drilling in ANWR, you would be up in arms and wouldn't be happy that they were learning first amendment rights.
Children by definition are CHILDREN. They are minors, not adults. Indoctrinating them in one particular political cause is not education.

How the heck did you get such a twisted read of my statement? It sounds as if you believe I think kids should be forced to do this. That's not what I said. What I did say is as leaders in the community if they feel something is wrong should freely exercise their first ammendment rights. And certainly part of the learning process is understanding how people do this. At least I'm not forcing kids to do this. So yeah if our kids are to be indoctrinated by understanding how to exercise their first ammendment rights of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom to rally I see little wrong here.

Let's bring this discussion to the next ammendment to see the foolishness of your idea. How about #2? In Minnesota we indoctrinate kids in the 2nd ammendment by providing gun training from the DNR, gun classes in the junior and high schools, and enable those under 18 to hunt. Did you ever consider exercising your first ammendment right of free speech to protest the Youth small-game hunt held by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission because of your fear of US Constitutional rights indoctrination of minors?

IMO rights are for all citizens of all ages. I'd think you'd agree. Afterall you're anti-abortion so are extending rights when they're just a single cell.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Amusing, because even while he's trying to make his point he admits that 400 people in the US have just about as much net worth as all the people who make over 250k a year. Who makes over 250k a year? Fewer than 2% of households.

The assets of about 2% of the population would be sufficient to cover the spending if, which isn't mentioned of course, if the spending was not to be amortized. That doesn't include the assets of the corporations either which is substantially more than that.

Of course there is hardly any point in stripping the assets from the other 95% of the population as they own less than 40% of the wealth of the nation. Heck, the bottom 80% own less than 20%. The bottom 50% mostly owe money ... to the top 0.1%

But after all that money has been moved around ... then what? He implies that it has disappeared but it hasn't. It's just in different hands - hands that will spend it on things that they need so that people who make things that people need can earn it. This would be an improvement on spending the money on things people certainly don't need like 30% credit cards because your hours have been cut but apparently your body still needs to eat food.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Money can't tell who is rich or not.

Ah. You are talking about the man whose pleasures are free is rich indeed, yes? Of course, eating helps - and it costs most people money because they don't own enough land to grow their own nor could they pay the taxes on the land they do own if they put all their time into growing food instead of putting in the hours working for a dollar.

Money only knows who have the brain on how to invest the money.

If you were a ten year old kid and I was 30 and 300 lbs and I came to you and sat on you and pried the lunch money out of your fist that would make me smarter than you, right? Because money is power and having lots more than everyone else means being able to sit on them and pry the money out of their hands.

If I put a billion dollars in the bank and you put ten bucks in the bank and I make 50 million bucks without even trying hard while you make squat and end up paying charges of $20 then that makes me smart and you stupid, right? Because if you were smart you'd have had a billion dollars to invest, right?

In fact, instead of putting the money in a bank I could own that bank and then you would pay me my 50 million, you and all your stupid friends, from the fees you pay while you are trying to save. That's how smart I am and how stupid you are.

And then I could sell you "investments" in mortgages and I could sell you houses for which you take a mortgage so that by paying your mortgage you pay into your own investment and I take a cut on both ends of the transaction without even having to put any of my own money into the deal - and when it all goes bad and you lose everything and I skip out with a giant bonus I give myself it's because you are an idiot and I am not.

You have no idea how asymmetric things are.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

It is the most common excuses for those who never been on the rich class.

Please do give us your perspective from from those lofty heights of wealth, Lord Cybereye.

 

[redrumloa]

How the heck did you get such a twisted read of my statement? It sounds as if you believe I think kids should be forced to do this. That's not what I said. What I did say is as leaders in the community if they feel something is wrong should freely exercise their first ammendment rights. And certainly part of the learning process is understanding how people do this. At least I'm not forcing kids to do this. So yeah if our kids are to be indoctrinated by understanding how to exercise their first ammendment rights of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom to rally I see little wrong here.

Let's bring this discussion to the next ammendment to see the foolishness of your idea. How about #2? In Minnesota we indoctrinate kids in the 2nd ammendment by providing gun training from the DNR, gun classes in the junior and high schools, and enable those under 18 to hunt. Did you ever consider exercising your first ammendment right of free speech to protest the Youth small-game hunt held by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission because of your fear of US Constitutional rights indoctrination of minors?

IMO rights are for all citizens of all ages. I'd think you'd agree. Afterall you're anti-abortion so are extending rights when they're just a single cell.

Public schools in Minn provide gun training?

There is a difference between a group of kids, probably high school students, acting on their own for a cause they believe in and parading kindergarten students out in front of cameras with banners and having them recite things they have no idea what they are talking about. If older kids really do something on their on, good for them. The simple fact is kindergarten children are used as political tools by their teachers and this goes up into high school. It is not just something on the news, I see it myself locally. Any time the school board or individual teachers want to promote a political action or person, they use peer pressure on the students to conform.

 

[redrumloa]

Please do give us your perspective from from those lofty heights of wealth, Lord Cybereye.

 

[faethor]

Public schools in Minn provide gun training?

Not all do. 20 years ago my Jr and Sr High had gun courses as part Physical Education. Do they still? I think less do than 20 years ago but yes some still provide it. It's more common in the rural areas than in the suburban or metro areas. Also archery was taught, which would be another arm one could bear.

There is a difference between a group of kids, probably high school students, acting on their own for a cause they believe in and parading kindergarten students out in front of cameras with banners and having them recite things they have no idea what they are talking about.

I agree. And to be clear I never stated we should force kids to demonstrate. Kids should have a variety of opportunities to learn. Certainly they can learn about freedoms of speech and freedoms to assembly by having the teacher explain the situation and why other teachers feel this is the best method to exercise their freedoms.

If older kids really do something on their on, good for them. The simple fact is kindergarten children are used as political tools by their teachers and this goes up into high school. It is not just something on the news, I see it myself locally. Any time the school board or individual teachers want to promote a political action or person, they use peer pressure on the students to conform.

I think you need to give kids more credit. Certainly as they age they can understand more depth and form their own opinions. The parent of the kids, afterall, has to give permission to their child to go to a non-school event such as a Board Meeting or protest.

And some of these kids are smart and able enough to do these things on their own. I'll have to track it down but recently there was a kid that worked to get creationism outsted from science classes. The parents just let him run with his passion. So don't assume just because a kid is there they don't truly believe it and instead are getting indoctrinated. We allow them to exercise their Civil Liberties as much as any other citizen.

Not exactly what I was looking for but here's a real case example for you. School drops graduation prayer This student told the school what they were doing was in violation of the US Laws and he would take action if they continued to violate the law. Indoctrination in the right of free speech, the laws, and the school's expectations allowed the child to protect themself against such illegalities. I'd argue failing to indoctrinate people, including kids, with the laws of our land, especially first ammendment rights, would only serve to help those organizations that wish to continue their illegal behaviors.

 

[redrumloa]

@faethor
Ok, we aren't too far apart in our views.

 

[cybereye]

Ah. You are talking about the man whose pleasures are free is rich indeed, yes? Of course, eating helps - and it costs most people money because they don't own enough land to grow their own nor could they pay the taxes on the land they do own if they put all their time into growing food instead of putting in the hours working for a dollar.

You are talking about the ‘The feudal system’. That age is done when the barons force the king to sign the Magna Carta. You are in the wrong time frame in today with in the US.

If you were a ten year old kid and I was 30 and 300 lbs and I came to you and sat on you and pried the lunch money out of your fist that would make me smarter than you, right? Because money is power and having lots more than everyone else means being able to sit on them and pry the money out of their hands.

If I put a billion dollars in the bank and you put ten bucks in the bank and I make 50 million bucks without even trying hard while you make squat and end up paying charges of $20 then that makes me smart and you stupid, right? Because if you were smart you'd have had a billion dollars to invest, right?

In fact, instead of putting the money in a bank I could own that bank and then you would pay me my 50 million, you and all your stupid friends, from the fees you pay while you are trying to save. That's how smart I am and how stupid you are.

And then I could sell you "investments" in mortgages and I could sell you houses for which you take a mortgage so that by paying your mortgage you pay into your own investment and I take a cut on both ends of the transaction without even having to put any of my own money into the deal - and when it all goes bad and you lose everything and I skip out with a giant bonus I give myself it's because you are an idiot and I am not.

You have no idea how asymmetric things are.

Brain does not mean smart and dumb. Brain mean start using your head to learn the error of mistake that cause the lost of money. I know money is not power. I would says greed is power that can be use for good and for abuse. All the things that you point out are people use the brain to get the one that did not use the brain. I know is never that simple, if it was the world will be bored.

 

[cybereye]

Please do give us your perspective from from those lofty heights of wealth, Lord Cybereye.

OK, here ya go. I try to keep my attitude mind set to trying to be richer than yesterday. If I did then I made great accomplish. If not, where did I error on that attitude.

 

[cecilia]

....... I don't think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will do a damn thing. They should pay their share, but pay it by eliminating loopholes and simplifying the tax code.

it would help if the rich paid taxes.
and I have wanted loopholes removed for YEARS. Yes, simplifying the tax code would be wonderful. get rid of the IRS and that bullshit bureaucracy. Just tax the rich on % , period, the end. no running away.

 

[cybereye]

That said I don't think raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will do a damn thing. They should pay their share, but pay it by eliminating loopholes and simplifying the tax code.

it would help if the rich paid taxes.
and I have wanted loopholes removed for YEARS. Yes, simplifying the tax code would be wonderful. get rid of the IRS and that bullshit bureaucracy. Just tax the rich on % , period, the end. no running away.

I agree both of you.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

This guy isn't investing his money right.

These guys didn't invest their money right.

This guy invested right - because he invested other people's money and paid himself big bonuses whether the bets paid or went bad.

Not only does he use other people's money, but he realizes that the people he hurts can't get him back so he doesn't have to care about how they feel. That makes him smarter than all of us.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Look at the amount of wealth the workers are taking home.

Yup. The income of people who work for a living is going down as a share of the wealth there is. That must be because workers are getting stupider. All workers should be investing instead of working. Gosh, just imagine how wealthy we would be if everybody invested instead of working. Then we could all buy all the stuff we want and no-one would have to ever work. That would be smart, yes?

 

[faethor]

it would help if the rich paid taxes.
and I have wanted loopholes removed for YEARS. Yes, simplifying the tax code would be wonderful. get rid of the IRS and that bullshit bureaucracy. Just tax the rich on % , period, the end. no running away.

You and Red are both right on. We should be removing Tax Loopholes. Our Founding Fathers understood the wealthy have the means to pay for society because they have the wealth so should bear more of the burden. They also understood that passing large inheritence is bad as it creates a weathly elite class, such as the King we kicked out.

Fluffy passed a wealth chart. As much as it pains the trickle down people it turns out wealth was more evenly distributed when tax rates for the wealthy were much higher. Republicans go look at Eisenhower's time. We are in a situation similar to before the Great Depression where an elite few control the wealth and thereby the direction of the Country. We dropped the Robber Barrons and need to do so again.

I think a simpler tax code would work. I'd like to see a 'living wage area' which is tax free. Don't know exactly what this figure would be so just throwing out a number to create an example. Everyone making $30K or less pays no taxes on that income. People above this number would face a graduated tax. Like our Founders knew those with the ability to pay more will need to pay more.

The other thing we should have is a maximum wage limit. It should be based on the minimum wage. For example, The leadership in the business shouldn't be limited to 20x more than the lowest paid worker. If the CEO wants a raise they simply give the low end worker $1 and the CEO could then give themselves $20.

Also - income is income. We see people earing $1 but getting paid in stocks. Stocks are taxed at a lower rate than labor. That's hardly fair. It's the labor of that CEO that earned Stocks which were then transferred to $$. This extra step should not remove the tax burden. The US is one of the few countries with this.