placemats, it amazes me how you successfully incorporate your obsession with all things _Jorge into virtually every single one of your posts. May I also remind you that many if not most teachers work 9 months a year. Below the college level, only a bachelor's degree is required for most positions. The compensation doesn't seem too far out of whack. Believe in the free markets, placemats.
As a former teacher, I can tell you that it is an incredibly demanding job. Teaching well is a science and an art, as you have to simultaneously manage the behavior of 10-30 kids, at varying cognitive levels, while presenting, often complex and abstract concepts, in an engaging and comprehensible manner. I don't know one teacher who only works nine months a year. I do know great teachers that also work 2nd jobs to make ends meet. And most teachers work much more than 8 hour days w/lesson planning and grading. Free markets are in effect, and as teacher pay does not begin to adequately compensate for the demands of this job, the most intelligent and qualified teachers tend to leave the classroom quickly and many other potentially excellent teachers never even consider it as a career option.
I clearly remember about one months ago there was a poll on CNN website about "Will abortion policy be a deciding factor in your vote of presidential election?" The question itself may not be word-by-word accurate since I only recall it from my memory, but the word "deciding" is 100% sure. About 45% of the answers were "yes" at the time I saw the poll. I don't know how to interpret the word "deciding" of whether it's the sole determining factor or just one of the factors, but this result was still very astonishing to me, a non-citizen. I can list at least 10 things more important things than how presidental candidates deal talk about abortion.... but anyway, one of my friends told me that his father really votes according to this issure. I will appreciate you guys' thoughts of this.
TJ I only respond to "virtually every single one" of your posts so I can remind you how full of s*** your opinion can be at certain times. Other important issues : Campaign finance reform, of course the Republicans will never ever let it see the light of day. The Enviroment,once we kill the planet we will be right behind. The Economy
You obviously haven't set foot in a public school classroom in the last 20 years. Your post reeks of pure ignorance.
My main voting concern is a cohesive and well-considered platform. I don't believe any single approach to an issue is always correct - flexibility is necessary in order to adapt to the times. For example, taxes should be raised and lowered based on current needs (i.e. higher during wartime). Thus, I guess a good candidate is one who shows a true willingness to consider and debate his position on an issue. As you might guess, I am pretty much always disappointed when I vote.
personally. . . . how my taxes are spent are more importance than what they are if they squandered. . then i would rather have kept them if they used for the public good. . . i don't mind so much rocket river
That's not the same thing as "not caring" what they are. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with you. I think in a modern representative democracy, there's little hope that taxes will ever be spent wisely, since expenditures are the incumbent's favorite way of staying incumbent. All we can hope to do is keep as much of it to ourselves as possible. Look, I pay 28 percent of my income in taxes, 8.25 cents on almost every dollar I spend, and at least 18 percent in capital gains depending on how long I've held the particular asset I'm selling. I don't care if every penny of that goes to building roads and maintaining the national defense, it's still too much. Jesus, even the church only asks for ten percent.
So, you don't feel that it is your duty to pay for all of the things that you take advantage of every day? Personally, I wouldn't mind a "pay-as-you-go" type arrangement where every single spending measure had its taxation built right in to it. This way, if we wanted to reduce taxes we could easily do it by removing programs seen as too expensive or ineffective. Unfortunately, if any of that is to happen, we will have to scrap the corporate election funding we have now and replace it with totally publicly funded elections. In addition, we would have to go to a consumption tax in order to be able to have an effective "pay-as-you-go" system (i.e. national defense draws a 6% tax, roads get 1%, education gets 2%, etc.). At any rate, you are unlikely under any system that pays the bills to have a much lower tax rate than you have now. I mean, we are already one of the lowest taxed nations on the planet (with corresponding low marks for public education, healthcare coverage, etc.) so I guess I just don't know how low you want to go. Other things that could lower our tax bill include scrapping the failed "War on Drugs," paying back the debt and reclaiming the interest we pay every year, and reducing our defense budget. Of course, none of these issues is being addressed by the government, nor is it likely that they will, given the current political climate.
I'm not going to tell you what I make because it's none of your business, but people that make what I make contribute plenty, a much higher share of the total tax receipts than our share of the total income. That leaves aside sales taxes, property taxes, municipal fees, and so on and so forth. I contribute plenty.
Is this just an opinion driven by the "taxes bad" mantra of the right? Besides, at your taxation level, you will not see a tax cut as evidenced by the fact that the top 5% of taxpayers have seen a reduction of over 2/3 in their taxes since the income tax was created where the rest of us have seen NO net reduction in our taxes. As we have seen lately, when the federal or state governments reduce income taxes or other taxes, these costs are passed on in other ways. When Bush's tax cut went through, one of the effects was a reduction in the amount of money flowing to the states, which caused a fiscal crisis in state budgets. As a result, the states cut many programs (like CHIP) and reduced outlays in other ways, like by decreasing health insurance coverage and passing on more of the cost to the insured. In other words, the wealthiest taxpayers got a HUGE tax cut whereas I took a pretty sizeable pay cut as a result of the tax cut even though I got a VERY modest tax reduction (around $150 last year). All in all, I have taken a net cut in pay 2 years running as a result of the increased costs of insurance, lack of raises for state employees (except the politicians themselves), and other increased costs like higher tuition and fees for school. Personally, I would advocate for rolling back tax rates to where we were in the 1950s, when our school systems were top notch, defense was fully funded, and our infrastructure was primo.
Education, by far. I'd gladly pay more in taxes if we could ensure that schools in Oregon don't have to close 20 days early or my niece out in California wouldn't have to pay $200 just to play soccer at school. Healthcare comes in second. No one in this country should ever have to worry about getting treatment for cancer, a gun shot wound, or anything else. Of course, national security in this day and age is very important, but I figured that was a given.
I'm not asking to see your tax return. I don't really care what it says; as a single filer with no dependents renting an apartment in manhattan, I can tell you what high taxes are probably better than you. I just want to know how you account for the share of government services that are provided to you . By the way, that page you linked to does what the rabid anti-tax forces always do which always irks me, it presents federal income taxes in a vaccuum and doesn't show generallly regressive state, local, & social security and Medicare taxes which tend to make everybody's contribution look more equal.
Do you know what the top 5% of taxpayers have historically paid in taxes...? It bears some relation to why they receive tax cuts.
