The posting quoted MPS’ budget manager as saying that in 2011-2012 (the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2011), the average MPS teacher would receive total compensation of $101,091 -- $59,500 in salary and $41,591 in benefits.
We double-checked with MPS spokeswoman Roseann St. Aubin and she confirmed the figures.
Yes repost. After posting it, I found it too disturbing not to start a new thread with it.
I truely believe it means nothing to many who have marched around the capital.
quote
i dont see how that is relevant. Mil doesnt represent all of Wisconsin. So one district has a bunch of teachers who bring in a lot of money. And?
And I am tired of paying the bill.
It's cool that you are not. Perhaps you could cut them a monthly check for their retirement that they will have to be paying themselves. I am totally cool with that.
IP: Logged
10:14 PM
Gall757 Member
Posts: 10938 From: Holland, MI Registered: Jun 2010
Actually it always was a serious issue for those of us that lived in Milwaukee and had to help pay for those salaries. It's just finally getting the coverage it needs now and some attention.
IP: Logged
10:35 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Our local teachers union had an emergency vote today to extend their contract for two years. Our school board is meeting now to discuss approving the teachers union's proposed contract.
The can p off when then come later and p and m about not having enough money. What a crock of crap.
IP: Logged
10:54 PM
Mar 8th, 2011
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
I just took a quick look at my paycheck; with my 401k, long-term disability, medical, dental, etc., plus what my employer chips in, it comes close to 40% of my base pay. So it seems not unlike what the private sector pays.
Take a look at your own salary. You may be surprised what you find.
IP: Logged
01:35 AM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
For a comparison, I checked the University of Arizona employee related expenses (ERE) and they are about 45% of salary for classified regular employees. But, other employees classes receive much less ERE, the main difference is in retirement and medical costs.
For a comparison, I checked the University of Arizona employee related expenses (ERE) and they are about 45% of salary for classified regular employees. But, other employees classes receive much less ERE, the main difference is in retirement and medical costs.
But the part people don't want extended is for earners over $250,000. Plus a surtax on earners over $1 mil. I don't necessarily agree with a surtax, but, yes, rescind the tax cut for the top 5%.
IP: Logged
03:47 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
So you would like the marginal tax rate to step up from 35% to 38.6% at joint income levels of over $250,000? But you don't agree with a surtax at $1M. Why is that? You also realize the $250K number is just something Obama threw out there. He proposed extending the tax cut extension for those who made under $250. That is just an number he came up with.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 03-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:53 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
$70 Bil over ten years is $700 Bil. It adds up fast. And if the Fed govt had the money, that might free up resources to help Wisconsin. We (America) need the money right now; rich people will just stick it in the piggy bank - not helping the rest of us.
The US far outspends itself already. There is no chance that money would ever come to Wisconsin.
Rich people tend to stick that money into investments, not their matress. Those investments many times are stocks that allow companies to expand. Not always of course. But you can't make an assumption that 'rich people' will take that money out of circulation.
$70 Billion a year or $700 billion in ten years will be swallowed by the US spending without a burp. I'd be for the increase in taxes IF I knew there wouldn't be an equal increase in spending. We are paying $197 Billion a year on interest, and we are still borrowing more and more every year. We need to control spending.
IP: Logged
04:28 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
60% favor an increase in taxes for the wealth. If we take the $250k number and Bush tax cut extension number of $80b that takes care of 6.2% of the deficit.
Nothing else is favored over 20% to get us there.
20% favor Defense spending cuts. If you were to cut defense spending by 50%, a HUGE and unrealistic number, that would be 27% of the deficit.
That's now 33% of the deficit.
4% favor cutting Medicare
3% favor cutting Social Security
IP: Logged
04:39 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
60% favor an increase in taxes for the wealth. If we take the $250k number and Bush tax cut extension number of $80b that takes care of 6.2% of the deficit.
Nothing else is favored over 20% to get us there.
20% favor Defense spending cuts. If you were to cut defense spending by 50%, a HUGE and unrealistic number, that would be 27% of the deficit.
That's now 33% of the deficit.
4% favor cutting Medicare
3% favor cutting Social Security
However cuts are only half of the equation. The other half is revenue. Getting the unemployment rate down for over 9% (at its peak) to under 7% would raise a HUGE amount of revenue.
However cuts are only half of the equation. The other half is revenue. Getting the unemployment rate down for over 9% (at its peak) to under 7% would raise a HUGE amount of revenue.
I'm curious as to how taking money away form the people that create those jobs would help, in your opinion.
It's like you want to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Brad
IP: Logged
04:59 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
However cuts are only half of the equation. The other half is revenue. Getting the unemployment rate down for over 9% (at its peak) to under 7% would raise a HUGE amount of revenue.
It would increase employment by about 2.2%. Most likely lower paying jobs but anyways 2.2% more of the $899B of income from income tax would be $20B. It would help.
1.5% of the deficit gap. It's not what I would call HUGE however
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 03-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:01 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Brad - The left is told time and time again that huge corporations pay no taxes, that the rich pay no taxes. That 1/10 of the military spending would eliminate the deficit. Listening to the stuff that has come out of Madison just really ticks me off. But when the left blasts it out of their bull horns long enough, people start to believe it. The dirty rotten shame is that they are doing it to preserve their left wing voting block of teachers. They are doing it to preserve the requirment that teachers HAVE to be in the union and have dues deducted from thier checks. WEAC (The Wisconsin teachers union) was the largest lobbist group in Wisconsin with over 2 million paid.
IP: Logged
05:10 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
I'm curious as to how taking money away form the people that create those jobs would help, in your opinion.
It's like you want to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Brad
It would not be taking money away from people who create jobs. They are salaried workers, same as me. Just with bigger paychecks. They are not small business owners, or entrepeneurs, just working stiffs. Unless you consider hiring one babysitter or nanny to be a big job creator.
IP: Logged
05:59 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
It would increase employment by about 2.2%. Most likely lower paying jobs but anyways 2.2% more of the $899B of income from income tax would be $20B. It would help.
1.5% of the deficit gap. It's not what I would call HUGE however
Well, if we get back good paying skilled jobs. That seems to be the tricky part. If you want to see the road we are on, look at the Philippines. They have virtually no heavy manufacturing, all service labor. And they are the poorest country in the Pacific Rim. Not the direction I would wish to go.
IP: Logged
06:02 AM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
I think what Brad was implying is that the 250k plus guy tends to be the business owner who will many times invest his money in his own or other businesses. That investment in businesses is what makes jobs. People who make little money don't tend to start businesses. The 250k guy can directly invest in his own business, or he can invest indirectly by purchasing stocks from a business selling them. Purchasing stocks from other stock owners however doesn't directly increase capital for businesses.
IP: Logged
07:34 AM
ktthecarguy Member
Posts: 2076 From: Livonia, MI USA Registered: Jun 2007
I think what Brad was implying is that the 250k plus guy tends to be the business owner who will many times invest his money in his own or other businesses. That investment in businesses is what makes jobs. People who make little money don't tend to start businesses. The 250k guy can directly invest in his own business, or he can invest indirectly by purchasing stocks from a business selling them. Purchasing stocks from other stock owners however doesn't directly increase capital for businesses.
But that's simply not true. As I said, this would be a tax on wage-earners, not small-business owners. People who work for corporations, working-stiffs, like the rest of us, but with more zeros to the right than the rest of us get. Small-business owners have a different tax set-up than wage-earners.
I would not increase taxes on small-business owners, but I WOULD close loopeholes for corporations that currently pay no taxes.
I don't understand why it is a big deal. They went to school and got a degree. They are shaping our youth. People that can are smart and can make good money elsewhere OFTEN do as teaching doesn't pay well. Also, when you start tossing in perks, especially group perks it skews the numbers. I don't count my truck, vehicle insurance, cellular phone, fuel 401k matching, or the healthcare (that we should have in place by the end of next month) as part of my salary. I guess if you want to, $500 a month for th truck, at least that for just my personal fuel. $100 for the cell phone. $300 for the matching of 401k. $100 for my insurance. $300 for my health care. Total is $1800. Now you divide that by .78 which is what it would cost for me to have all those things at my tax bracket. $2300 a month. If you want to get REALLY technical, my employer would be paying taxes on the additional $2300 a month too. So in short my perks and benefits are $27,000 a year. Throw that in with my salary and bonuses and I easily make over the $100,000 a year mark. I don't have a degree. I don't effect our youth or any of the other things that many teachers do to help their community.
Tell me again why it is wrong for them to earn a nice wage.
------------------ Ron Paul 2012! WAMP WAMP
IP: Logged
08:04 AM
Gokart Mozart Member
Posts: 12143 From: Metro Detroit Registered: Mar 2003
How many of teachers max out the benefits? What is the co pay? How much of the benefits pay morgage or food? How much does the teacher pay for classroom supplies?
IP: Logged
09:37 AM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
Rich people tend to stick that money into investments, not their matress. Those investments many times are stocks that allow companies to expand. Not always of course. But you can't make an assumption that 'rich people' will take that money out of circulation.
[SARCASM]And that is working so well for our country. Just take a look at where the products you buy come from the next time you are at the store. Where are those investments going?[/SARCASM]
[This message has been edited by KidO (edited 03-08-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:05 AM
KidO Member
Posts: 1019 From: The Pacific Northwest Registered: Dec 2003
I don't understand why it is a big deal. They went to school and got a degree. They are shaping our youth. People that can are smart and can make good money elsewhere OFTEN do as teaching doesn't pay well. Also, when you start tossing in perks, especially group perks it skews the numbers. I don't count my truck, vehicle insurance, cellular phone, fuel 401k matching, or the healthcare (that we should have in place by the end of next month) as part of my salary. I guess if you want to, $500 a month for th truck, at least that for just my personal fuel. $100 for the cell phone. $300 for the matching of 401k. $100 for my insurance. $300 for my health care. Total is $1800. Now you divide that by .78 which is what it would cost for me to have all those things at my tax bracket. $2300 a month. If you want to get REALLY technical, my employer would be paying taxes on the additional $2300 a month too. So in short my perks and benefits are $27,000 a year. Throw that in with my salary and bonuses and I easily make over the $100,000 a year mark. I don't have a degree. I don't effect our youth or any of the other things that many teachers do to help their community.
Tell me again why it is wrong for them to earn a nice wage.
The job of our teachers do is extremely important. When I look at the value I place on education for my own children, I ask, "is $100,000" really enough?"
With the absence of parents at home for most kids today (since most households want two incomes), the role of the teacher in their life is more important than ever before. Teachers are responsible for one of the greatest assets we have, our children, the future! Having said that, I would think that we would want to attract the best and the brightest individuals when it comes to teaching our children. To do that, the wages these people make need to be competetive with other jobs in the market place.
I work with children for short periods multiple times a week, as a coach and a Scout leader. I am appalled by the way the majority of kids act today. The level of disrepsect and disobedience that these kids have today is abhorrent! I deal with them in small doses for a short amount of time, and am completely exhausted when my short stint is over. I can't imagine taking the number of kids I deal with, multiplying it by three or four, and then be expected to spend an entire day with them. My hat goes off to teachers for all they "try" to do (I say try, because I am also aghast at what teachers have to deal with when it comes to the parents of these children). The expectation we put on them is above and beyond the price we are willing to pay!
IP: Logged
10:32 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by ls3mach: I don't understand why it is a big deal. They went to school and got a degree. They are shaping our youth. People that can are smart and can make good money elsewhere OFTEN do as teaching doesn't pay well. Also, when you start tossing in perks, especially group perks it skews the numbers. I don't count my truck, vehicle insurance, cellular phone, fuel 401k matching, or the healthcare (that we should have in place by the end of next month) as part of my salary. I guess if you want to, $500 a month for th truck, at least that for just my personal fuel. $100 for the cell phone. $300 for the matching of 401k. $100 for my insurance. $300 for my health care. Total is $1800. Now you divide that by .78 which is what it would cost for me to have all those things at my tax bracket. $2300 a month. If you want to get REALLY technical, my employer would be paying taxes on the additional $2300 a month too. So in short my perks and benefits are $27,000 a year. Throw that in with my salary and bonuses and I easily make over the $100,000 a year mark. I don't have a degree. I don't effect our youth or any of the other things that many teachers do to help their community.
Tell me again why it is wrong for them to earn a nice wage.
exactly. I could bicker a little about the amount - but - not much and, as shown - this is NOT take home. not even close.
I may have a little to say about the work year - but again - not much
now - how about we dig into the school administartors salaries & benifits. I betcha you'll find the REAL stink there. those who actually DONT have anything productive to do, except to attempt to shed responsibilities & to create stifling policies. put in a few weeks worth of work in a year, and likely get well over 2x the compensation.
IP: Logged
10:43 AM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9473 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The problem is not the teachers pay. If they are worth $100k, then they should be paid it. A good teacher will cover 150% of the curriculum in a single year. A bad teacher will only cover 50% of the curriculum. Therefore one good teacher is worth three bad ones.
The issue is that it is being paid directly by tax payers. My solution is to get the government out of the education provider business. All schools should be private with the government providing vouchers. Then each individual school can determine how much its teachers should be paid. The good schools will get more students and may charge a premium to attend. They can then pay to have the best teachers. The bad school will lose students and with go out of business. The system then fixes itself. In such a system parents would want to send their kids to schoold that pay $100k/year to their teachers because those will be the best teachers.
IP: Logged
10:49 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Originally posted by Ktthecarguy rich people will just stick it in the piggy bank
Here is what the really rich are actually doing with their money. So much for your theory. Gates and Buffett urge billionaires to give away half their money http://personalmoneystore.c...uffett-billionaires/
quote
Billionaires giving money away isn’t so unusual. When the billionaires giving money away are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, it’s good, but old, news. But when billionaires Gates and Buffett call out their fellow billionaires to pledge 50 percent of their fortunes to charity, people notice. The billionaire philanthropists announced a campaign Wednesday to persuade America’s billionaires to sign a “Giving Pledge” to donate most of their wealth to the causes of their choice.
The Gates Buffett charity pledge The latest Gates Buffett charity drive is called “The Giving Pledge.” The Associated Press reports that the two men, who have become friends and philanthropic colleagues, are asking the super-rich to sign a pledge making a public statement that they will donate either during their lifetime or at the time of their death to the charities of their choice. Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in a letter introducing The Giving Pledge that he couldn’t be happier with the decision he made in 2006, when he gave 99 percent of his roughly $47 billion fortune to charity.
Billionaire philanthropists Buffett’s billionaire philanthropy will eventually split most of his shares of his company between five charitable foundations, with the largest sum going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Reuters reports that Bill and Melinda Gates have so far given more than $28 billion of their money to their foundation. Since the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation began in 1994, it has given away more than $22 billion for health improvements in poor countries and to improve access to education and career opportunities for Americans.
The billionaire list On the billionaire list, Bill Gates had held the title of world’s richest 14 of the past 15 years. He was beat out for number one on the billionaire list in 2010 by Mexican tycoon Slim Helu, whose fortune swelled by $18.5 billion in 12 months to an estimated $53.5 billion. Gates is now ranked second richest man in the world with $53 billion, while Buffett came in at No. 3 with $47 billion.
Will billionaires give money away? The U.S. has at least 400 billionaires — the most in the world — with a net worth Forbes estimates at $1.2 trillion. If Buffett and Gates could convince America’s billionaires to give half their fortunes to charity it would transform the nature of philanthropy. Fortune, which broke the story, reports that IRS facts for 2007 show the 400 biggest taxpayers had a total adjusted income of $138 billion, and just more than $11 billion was taken as a charitable deduction — about 8 percent. If all the billionaires give money away, however unlikely, about $69 billion would flood the coffers for the common good.
Gates Buffett charity goals The campaign began just over a year ago, when Gates and Buffett — who represent a combined net worth of $90 billion, according to Forbes — invited several billionaires to a secret dinner meeting in New York. MSNBC reports that the group settled on a goal of 50 percent of net worth. They set up a website, givingpledge.org, to promote the campaign. If the individuals on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans pledged half their net worth to charity, that would amount to $600 billion.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-08-2011).]
