I'm not so sure about teachers. Every teacher I know has a hard time supporting themselves. They don't have tenure yet though so maybe that is where things change.

I do know that in 97 my favorite teacher who had been on the job for 32 years was only making $45k a year salary.

Cops did get a huge bump somewhere it seems. I was shocked to see local ads with $45k starting salary and never mind all the perks like take home cars, overtime up the ass, etc.

I think of it like this...
If you like strippers, you go to the strip club.

If you are a entertaining con man you might go to work at a place where you pay no taxes and there is very little legal or govt. oversight: You would become a preacher.

If you are greedy and crave power...there is no place better than Washington, DC
They have their hands on more money than any big company anywhere in the world. They answer to pretty much nobody. They keep their "job" for life. They get free health care, They call all the shots.
So yeah, con men and thieves just naturally migrate there. It's the "Super Bowl" of stealing.

Google it up some more and see if you can find any stats that dispute that. I'm starting to think that all this talk of teacher hardship might be a lot of hype. Numbers don't lie.

And in 1997 I would say that 45K a year was DAMN good. Hell I knew doctors who were making 50K in 2000.

Great analogies.

When did politicians become celebrities? There used to be a time that the President was the only one you ever really saw. Now they are all on TV.

We have nine supreme court justices... They are their own entire wing of government and need no security in their private lives because nobody knows who they are.

In every other branch it seems like everybody thinks they need a security detail.

Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck (or not much better). By definition, they put all of their money back into the economy.

Some - not necessarily all - of the 2 percent put a portion of their money into overseas tax shelters and all of them bank the remaining surplus here or abroad.

Now tell me, which group's (domestic) spending habits will be more greatly impacted by higher taxes?

The answer seems self evident to me, but maybe I'm missing something here.

You're not missing anything.

GregE, sounds like you're saying the govt. is spending too damn much money. :)

Was it really that good? I was making $9/hr as a senior in high school (she got me that job) and she was making what... Double me after 32 years?

I was 17 so my world was limited to buying gas, paying car insurance and Marlboros (for less than $3/pack) so I don't really know what it got you back then.

A man willing to put his life in front of yours and 50 k is too much. That's too funny.To pay the teachers of the next generation 50 k is too much. That's nuts. You want people making $10 an hour teaching your kids and protecting the community?

No its not that good if it wasnt for cheap ez credit people would of realized.Wages have been flat for a long long time.

I don't think it's funny at all Tony. They are public servants. Paid for by tax dollars.

That 50K a year is for elementary school teachers. That's a lot of money for entry level.

Same for cops. That's patrol cops. That ass clown on a motorcycle sitting on his ass handing out speeding tickets to soccer moms.

The teachers with tenure and the police detectives make even more.

You sure seem to be loving you some govt. and authority. I thought you were more liberal than that?

I went to see Alice Cooper last night. "Schools Out" baby! And he quoted Pink Floyd during the song..."We don't need no thought control, HEY! Teachers, leave them kids alone"

50 grand a year wasn't "good" in 1997? Okay.

I was living in South Carolina. If you made 50 grand in 1997 you were living like a fucking king.

The average household income in America has gone up $6,000 per year since 1980. $4,500 of that came during Clinton's presidency. Which means 8 years of Reagan, 12 years of various Bushes and 4 years of Obama combined have only manged to raise household incomes $1,500 per year. That works out to about $62 per year.

So yep, you are dead on when you say wages have been flat for a long time.

Are you saying that if we pay all the teachers $100k, free health insurance and pay their entire retirement fund we will have smarter children?


And if we pay police $100k ,pay their health insurance and all their retirement funds we will have less crime?

I could make the argument that if paid teachers more the quality of education would go up. The main problem is that there are many other outside factors that contribute to this including standardized testing, curriculum and others and the ability of some teachers just to coast along and never having to worry about getting fired.

When I was in high school I remember several teachers that clearly just didn't give a shit. Once of them each week would just stand in front of the class and read the chapter in the book and we would follow along and take notes then on Friday we took a test and could use our notes. It only took a few weeks before you figured out what stuff to write in your notes and you would get an A every time. Teachers like that are doing the students no good.

That said, in theory, if teaching jobs paid more you would have more people wanting to go into that field and you would be able to select higher quality candidates. It is similar to sports. If you are going to build a good team you need good players (teachers), but you also need to have good coaches (administration) and good ownership (school board/government).

I know you could make the argument. But the real question is would you believe it?

I am still interested in what Tony thinks is a reasonable salary and benefit package for public employees. He was fairly clear about what he thinks is lowballing.

No I said to think 50 k is too much is nuts.

That number obviously doesn't count the last 4 years. Household income has went DOWN.

The objective is to create jobs, improve the economy, etc... not change tax laws in such a way that will effect least number of people... and it's far from clear that raising taxes on producers is less harmful to the economy than raising taxes on everyone...

what does this have to do with anything? how many is "some"? what portion of their money?

One could argue that "some" lower income earners spend "portion" of their earnings on drugs or overseas gambling websites, and that $$ gets filtered to the same overseas banks? no?

... and "some", or perhaps even "many", certainly buy foreign products, go on vacations to foreign countries, etc... so clearly, not all of their income gets put back in the US economy? or am I missing something?

The tech and internet explosion can only happen once. It happened during the 1990's while Clinton was president.

My post was a question...it has these - ? - after each one.
How much should we pay and what kind of benefit package should public employees receive?

Yeah, you're missing that a lot of people are engaging in class warfare and want to raise taxes on those mean old rich people. :1orglaugh

No, I think you are seeing it very clearly. People are cool with taxing OTHER people. As long as it doesn't come out of their pockets. And everybody seems to be happy with getting "free" stuff from the govt. (paid for by other people of course)

Also a big part of the teaching problem that no one wants to talk about is a serious lack of parent involvement. Both parents work to pay the bills, they are latch key kids. It makes a big different. I read a study if a parent is very active in a child's education, they could go to the shittiest school on the planet and will still do well.

Depends on what they do. sorry its not a simple cookie cutter answer. But you seem to be fine paying them slave wages when they protect you,

Actually the rich are the takers, the big welfare queens but they got a great sound machine. Really think about and shut the pundits off. Jamie Diamond got how much bail out money? Welfare is a couple of hundred dollars a month.

Even a perfectly run government will never have enough money during economic downturns. That's a given.

The question is how do we make up the shortfall?

Traditional austerity measures have been shown to compound the problem by taking more money out of circulation and thus further slowing the economy. Not a good idea.

And most of us aren't especially keen on the idea of throwing our parents and grandparents to the wolves either. So that means Paul Ryan's entitlement "reforms" aren't the answer.

Which leaves us with the question: Where do we get the money?

Do we take it from those who are already spending what they have, or do we take it from those who are effectively sitting on their money?

Both ideas suck . . . but, which one sucks more?

Where did I say that I want them to work for slave wages?
Answer - I didn't say anything even close to that.

Now I asked you a civilized question in a respectful manner. And rather than answer the question you get snippy and again put words in my mouth. You seem to do that on a regular basis Tony.

Let me be very clear. I graduated from a quality university and have mastered the ability to formulate my own answers and opinions.

Studies have shown that there is absolutely no evidence of this.

It also ignores actual history. During America's most prosperous time, the 50's & 60's, the top marginal tax rate was between 71%-91%. Look it up.

The 'Trickle Down Theory' has been proven to be a lemon that continues to be sold by the ultra-rich, thanks their inordinate ability to manipulate the media to keep selling said lemon.

How much is the 2012 equivalent of 1997's $50K?

75k today is much more than average around here

Average here is 35k
50k is the job you aspire to getting someday.

No you said 100k with full benefits and I had said earlier to think 50k is too much is nuts. So if you equate 50k with 100k with full benefits. Then 50 k must too be too much for those who put their life front of yours.Snippy ? I find it is insulting that when people think the rich should pay a whole 4 percent more are takers. Ive taken shit from no one.

I am sorry, but fuck you if that is what you think cops spend their time doing

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2296766557537

I think you can understand what I'm actually saying. Don't be a fucking asshole to me Lloyd. I'm not a person who appreciates being talked to that way for no reason.

YES, there are cops who do that and only that. They are on traffic patrol and ride motorcycles and sit in neighborhoods and do NOTHING but give out traffic tickets. That's their division.

To pay that guy 50 grand is outrageous.

It's silly to think all cops are super heroes. It's silly to think all cops are worthless hacks.

I have no problem with great teachers, cops, or what have you making $100k or more. I have a problem with bad teachers, cops, or what have you making salaries they shouldn't have due to tenure, unions, or cronyism. Fire bad teachers and cops so can we can pay the deserving ones better, like any private institution does. Volume of workers does not equal "better."

I was raised in NY , our block was 70 percent cops. Some of the greatest guys and they all had really big balls. To go into those shit situations. The cop next door almost died from being shot. I have huge respect for those guys and even if most of their time was spent eating donuts. When shit goes down and they have put themselves in between that ,they got my respect and they deserve every dollar.

"welfare queens"

lol

I don't think ANYBODY should have gotten bailout money. But you are the same person who was screaming to the heavens about how it saved the auto industry. So make up your mind.
Sounds like the auto industry is a "welfare queen" too.

As far as the rich being "takers". I don't really even understand that line of thinking.

We are all just people. We work and we strive to make the most of our lives. I want to make as much money as I can. So do you. I guess that makes us "takers"?

Tony, you're espousing pure class warfare in this discussion. Pure and simple. You want to be a "taker" and take money from "rich" people and just give it to other people.

I don't think that's right.

But I do agree with you that NOBODY should be getting anything from the govt.
Not big companies, not you, not me, not my next door neighbor.

And we should cut the military down to the damn bone and stop fighting the Soviet Union in 1955. It's 2012 now.

THEN we could help people who actually need and deserve it without taxing people so hard.

Let's shrink the govt. down to a size and scope where it is exactly big enough to do the things it needs to do (and yes, "things it needs to do" includes social programs...I don't want to just stop them).

But all this endless talk of pro-govt./let's raise taxes to send to crooks in Washington is just not right.

Washington has enough of our money already. They are a den of thieves in Washington.

Four pages later and still 100% true... ;)

No, they don't "deserve" any such thing.

They CHOSE that job. And they know what the job calls for and the pay involved.

Nobody is forced to do anything. If they are an ENTRY LEVEL cop...the low man on the totem pole just starting out...there is no fucking way they should be making 50 grand a year at the taxpayers expense.

Maybe after a few years of GOOD service. But not at entry level.

Are you fucking high right now? The only difference between republicans and democrats is what they want to spend all this "free" money on.

And in DC a receptionist starts out at $27k on average. And you need a bachelor's degree to answer those phones. It's all on where you are.