login
Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 29)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-03-05 4:12 PM in reply to: #3384207 |
 Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:JoshR - 2011-03-05 1:58 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 2:19 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 3:10 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 3:04 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-05 2:45 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? Erm, who has the net worth to buy property, stocks, bonds and high-value commodities at low prices and then resell them when the markets rebound? o_0 or someone like my training buddy...an elementary school teacher...who I would not consider wealthy..... who is renting me his house that was empty after he got re-married (to another teacher - and their combined income does not equate to what I would call wealthy). He needs to sell the house this spring but is worried about how much capital gains tax he will have to pay. Maybe your definition of wealthy goes down to a much lower income level than I would define it. With all due respect to your friend, if he can sell a house at a price higher than his purchase price in this market, he should take that money and run. Capital gains should be the least of his worries. And if he is married in WI and in the lower tax brackets (and by lower I mean combined $500,000) with a long-term asset such as a house and he lived there for more than 2 of the last 5 years, he won't pay any CG tax at all. So what exactly is he worried about? o_0 It doesn't affect him at all. ETA: I just looked at the law and I misreported that. He will not have to pay CG tax regardless of his tax bracket up to a gain of $500,000. he lives in MN, he hasn't lived there for 2 of past 5 years, its not his primary residence....and this still doesn't address my point that its not only the wealthy that have to pay capital gains... The capital gains tax on the sale of long-term assets are negligible in this market. This benefits the wealthy who have large sales of short-term assets And I will reiterate my point...if he can sell for a profit in this housing market, he should not be worried about a 15% tax on his profits. I'd venture that most people would take that to the bank running. 1. Using plausible measures of economic status, capital gains receipts are highly concentrated among those with high incomes. The richest 2 percent of Americans receive more than 50 percent of all capital gains. Claims that capital gains recipients only appear to be rich because their capital gains income is transitory are not supported by longitudinal data. Likewise, claims that a large fraction of the benefits from capital gains tax reductions flow to middle income taxpayers result from failing to consider tax shelters. Capital gains on corporate stocks are considerably more concentrated among high income indi-viduals than capital gains on other assets.
Let's say he outright owns his house as some people do. The average price on a house in MN is somewhere around $210,000 so he is losing over $30,000. That is silly. What did he do to deserve to pay that tax? I'm sure there is already a property tax on it. Assuming he paid it off, he has astutely paid his mortgage on time and now he is being punished that he happened to marry someone else with their own house. Let's not forget the 3% tax for the health care bill that's in there to fund our "free" healthcare coverage. |
 2011-03-05 5:09 PM in reply to: #3383948 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-05 7:49 PM in reply to: #3384268 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-05 3:09 PM This is the ultimate economic challenge as most of us see the growing debt as a problem and that cuts are necessary. But where do we cut and by how much? How do we get past the problem of cutting programs that many people are very fond of?
Thanks again for a by and large great discussion, even if it did pad UWMAD's post count and it did drift away from Wisconsin a bit I think there is only one way and that is a little at a time so people can adjust to the changes. Extreme changes are usually bad. Is a 20% change extreme, I sure that's getting in the neighborhood of extreme, but it's probably close to the area of acceptability as well. On the federal level that would only be about 600 billion on a 3 trillion dollar budget. I firmly believe the only chance our nation has is if the federal govt. goes back to doing what it was originally intended to do and let the states carry out the responsibilites that was left up to them. Again this has to be done but on a gradual basis. Was anyone else shocked by the pie chart and how much HHS is? As far as WI, I think the Gov. is on the right track, a business has to be in control of their expenses you can't have the tail wagging the dog and expect any good to come from it. |
| 2011-03-05 10:09 PM in reply to: #3384392 |
Iron Donkey 38643       , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 7:49 PM Fred Doucette - 2011-03-05 3:09 PM This is the ultimate economic challenge as most of us see the growing debt as a problem and that cuts are necessary. But where do we cut and by how much? How do we get past the problem of cutting programs that many people are very fond of?
Thanks again for a by and large great discussion, even if it did pad UWMAD's post count and it did drift away from Wisconsin a bit I think there is only one way and that is a little at a time so people can adjust to the changes. Extreme changes are usually bad. Is a 20% change extreme, I sure that's getting in the neighborhood of extreme, but it's probably close to the area of acceptability as well. On the federal level that would only be about 600 billion on a 3 trillion dollar budget. I firmly believe the only chance our nation has is if the federal govt. goes back to doing what it was originally intended to do and let the states carry out the responsibilites that was left up to them. Again this has to be done but on a gradual basis. Was anyone else shocked by the pie chart and how much HHS is? As far as WI, I think the Gov. is on the right track, a business has to be in control of their expenses you can't have the tail wagging the dog and expect any good to come from it. The Gov. would be on the right track if he would compromise. |
| 2011-03-05 11:54 PM in reply to: #3384207 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: JoshR - 2011-03-05 3:58 PM Let's say he outright owns his house as some people do. The average price on a house in MN is somewhere around $210,000 so he is losing over $30,000. That is silly. What did he do to deserve to pay that tax? I'm sure there is already a property tax on it. Assuming he paid it off, he has astutely paid his mortgage on time and now he is being punished that he happened to marry someone else with their own house. That's not how capital gains works. You pay 15% on the PROFIT that you make from the house. So if you bought for $200,000 and you sell for $250,000, you pay 15% of $50,000, not $250,000. And if you're making a $50,000 profit in this market, I need some advice from you! |
| 2011-03-05 11:55 PM in reply to: #3384222 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-05 4:10 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 12:57 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:36 PM How is what I've said here any different than what you've said about the Tea Party and the people associated with it? There is an actual connection between everything I've said. TP was grassroots. Bachman/Palin made it social. Koch Bros. made it corporate. What have I said that is not correlated? You have nothing but a connection of ideals as some method of tying things together. No one except Glenn Beck is making such outrageous connections as yours. So Sarah and the Senator make the Tea Party social (whatever that means) by their envolvment, The Koch brothers supporting it make it corporate,,,,,, ok. The people still involved in the many different tea party groups are all lead by the nose of those 4 indivudials,,,,, ok. The Communist Party being knee deep in organizing protests in WI, sending out propaganda weekly supporting the unions and their ability to dictate to the taxpayer have no association with what you are doing,..... Yeah, I see the difference. We're not run by the Communist Party. o_0 We have no affiliation. If a bunch of lunatics show up at a Tea Party rally, are you all lunatics by association? No. |
| 2011-03-06 5:07 AM in reply to: #3384564 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-06 5:18 AM in reply to: #3384612 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-06 7:18 AM in reply to: #3383985 |
| Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 12:15 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:08 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 10:03 AM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:00 PM They support your cause and your agenda 100% just sayin. Of course they do...they see an opportunity to latch onto a political group to drive momentum, much like corporate interests did when they latched on to the Tea Party. Thankfully, cpusa has made no headway at all into these protests. The Socialists are doing a MUCH better job than the Communists. I'd focus on them if you want to make some sort of tenuous connections. Communist/Socialists Tomato/Tomoto, the difference in their agenda is minimal, they are knee deep in the unions and the unions are up to their armpits as well. Progressive Democrats, Unions especially Public Government Unions the CPUSA and the Socialists movement all have a very similar agenda. I'm not conneting you to them your actions and their actions are making the connection, I'm mearlely point it out. Oh, come now. I can make specious links to all sorts of boogeyman and tie them to any movement in the world. You're not merely pointing it out...you're putting a correlation/causation plot together with absolutely no basis in reality. So you never came to a meeting have not met the people who have organized sponsored and paid for the meetings and up to this point did not know who any of us are but you know we are controlled by corporate interests. You believe in central planning, redistribution of wealth, and government control of major industry!! But you are not a socialist? I hate to tell you this but you are a socialist I do not say this to hurt your feeling or make you mad but there is a reason why your view and those who proudly proclaim themselves as communist and socialist are so closely in line. With that said you seem to be intelligent and engaged in the real world problems we face you may be just what their movement needs (a bit of moderation) |
| 2011-03-06 7:31 AM in reply to: #3384612 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 9:55 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 4:10 PM UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 12:57 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 12:36 PM How is what I've said here any different than what you've said about the Tea Party and the people associated with it? There is an actual connection between everything I've said. TP was grassroots. Bachman/Palin made it social. Koch Bros. made it corporate. What have I said that is not correlated? You have nothing but a connection of ideals as some method of tying things together. No one except Glenn Beck is making such outrageous connections as yours. So Sarah and the Senator make the Tea Party social (whatever that means) by their envolvment, The Koch brothers supporting it make it corporate,,,,,, ok. The people still involved in the many different tea party groups are all lead by the nose of those 4 indivudials,,,,, ok. The Communist Party being knee deep in organizing protests in WI, sending out propaganda weekly supporting the unions and their ability to dictate to the taxpayer have no association with what you are doing,..... Yeah, I see the difference. We're not run by the Communist Party. o_0 We have no affiliation. If a bunch of lunatics show up at a Tea Party rally, are you all lunatics by association? No. I never said you or your group was run by the Communist Party. I said there is an association, there is a connection between the cpusa and the unions and based on what I've read in this thread from you and what I've read from the CPUSA you have a lot in common in your goals and objectives. FWIW, so do a lot of our leaders at the federal level, Senator Reid is mentioned numerous times on their website and their support for him. |
| 2011-03-06 7:31 AM in reply to: #3384228 |
| Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-04 5:50 PM Birkierunner - 2011-03-04 5:36 PM and why do you have it in your head that capital gains can only be realized/experienced by "wealthy" people?? Erm, who has the net worth to buy property, stocks, bonds and high-value commodities at low prices and then resell them when the markets rebound? o_0
Edited by trinnas 2011-03-06 7:34 AM |
| 2011-03-06 7:48 AM in reply to: #3384611 |
| Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 11:54 PM JoshR - 2011-03-05 3:58 PM Let's say he outright owns his house as some people do. The average price on a house in MN is somewhere around $210,000 so he is losing over $30,000. That is silly. What did he do to deserve to pay that tax? I'm sure there is already a property tax on it. Assuming he paid it off, he has astutely paid his mortgage on time and now he is being punished that he happened to marry someone else with their own house. That's not how capital gains works. You pay 15% on the PROFIT that you make from the house. So if you bought for $200,000 and you sell for $250,000, you pay 15% of $50,000, not $250,000. And if you're making a $50,000 profit in this market, I need some advice from you! Someone cannot see the forest for the trees here....my intent on using the sale of my friend's rental house as an example was not meant to start a silly debate on how capital gains taxes are calculated. My intent was to show that capital gains tax does not merely target the wealthy as put forth earlier. Heck, what are they gonna do with all that dynastic wealth (a term I've seen you use in other threads) anyway? .....let's increase their capital gains tax as well. Capital gains tax affects many income levels...many of which can't be put into the "wealthy" category....well, I'm not sure what you classify as wealthy. Stating that my friend should be happy he's making a profit (which will likely be small, if it even makes a profit) in this market has absolutely nothing to do with the intent of my post on capital gains. Edited by Birkierunner 2011-03-06 7:51 AM |
| 2011-03-06 7:48 AM in reply to: #3384611 |
| Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-06 12:54 AM JoshR - 2011-03-05 3:58 PM Let's say he outright owns his house as some people do. The average price on a house in MN is somewhere around $210,000 so he is losing over $30,000. That is silly. What did he do to deserve to pay that tax? I'm sure there is already a property tax on it. Assuming he paid it off, he has astutely paid his mortgage on time and now he is being punished that he happened to marry someone else with their own house. That's not how capital gains works. You pay 15% on the PROFIT that you make from the house. So if you bought for $200,000 and you sell for $250,000, you pay 15% of $50,000, not $250,000. And if you're making a $50,000 profit in this market, I need some advice from you! That's only part of how capital gains work. Depreciation is also accrued throughout the length of time you own a real estate investment. This decreases the basis that is used to determine the amount of gains for tax purposes. Let's say you have a rental property that you bought for $150,000 and it sells for $200,000. If you deducted $20,000 in depreciation over the time that you owned the property, however, you owe the difference between the sale price and your purchase price minus depreciation: $200,000 - ($150,000 - $20,000). Instead of owing capital gains on $50,000, you now owe capital gains on $70,000. Edited by TriMyBest 2011-03-06 7:52 AM |
| 2011-03-06 9:08 AM in reply to: #3384228 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Terrific. Now we have Michael Moore in the Capitol basically saying that private wealth is a national asset that needs to be redistributed. Funny, he seems to have left his own checkbook back in his luxury apartment overlooking Central Park in NYC. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117463643.html |
| 2011-03-06 9:30 AM in reply to: #3384800 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-03-06 9:30 AM |
| 2011-03-06 9:59 AM in reply to: #3384800 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-06 9:08 AM Terrific. Now we have Michael Moore in the Capitol basically saying that private wealth is a national asset that needs to be redistributed. Funny, he seems to have left his own checkbook back in his luxury apartment overlooking Central Park in NYC. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117463643.html Michael Moore <-- Not a fan. |
| 2011-03-06 10:44 AM in reply to: #3384564 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-05 8:09 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 7:49 PM Fred Doucette - 2011-03-05 3:09 PM This is the ultimate economic challenge as most of us see the growing debt as a problem and that cuts are necessary. But where do we cut and by how much? How do we get past the problem of cutting programs that many people are very fond of?
Thanks again for a by and large great discussion, even if it did pad UWMAD's post count and it did drift away from Wisconsin a bit I think there is only one way and that is a little at a time so people can adjust to the changes. Extreme changes are usually bad. Is a 20% change extreme, I sure that's getting in the neighborhood of extreme, but it's probably close to the area of acceptability as well. On the federal level that would only be about 600 billion on a 3 trillion dollar budget. I firmly believe the only chance our nation has is if the federal govt. goes back to doing what it was originally intended to do and let the states carry out the responsibilites that was left up to them. Again this has to be done but on a gradual basis. Was anyone else shocked by the pie chart and how much HHS is? As far as WI, I think the Gov. is on the right track, a business has to be in control of their expenses you can't have the tail wagging the dog and expect any good to come from it. The Gov. would be on the right track if he would compromise. I would counter that, with the fact that the past administrations have compromised way to much in the unions favor in the past and that is one of the reasons that WI is in the situation they are in today. Neither side is willing to budge, why is it just one side is looked at as not compromising? Here is a link, biased without a doubt but makes some good points imo. http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/top-10-reasons-to-support-wisconsin-governor-walke |
| 2011-03-06 12:06 PM in reply to: #3384717 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriMyBest - 2011-03-06 7:48 AM UWMadTri - 2011-03-06 12:54 AM JoshR - 2011-03-05 3:58 PM Let's say he outright owns his house as some people do. The average price on a house in MN is somewhere around $210,000 so he is losing over $30,000. That is silly. What did he do to deserve to pay that tax? I'm sure there is already a property tax on it. Assuming he paid it off, he has astutely paid his mortgage on time and now he is being punished that he happened to marry someone else with their own house. That's not how capital gains works. You pay 15% on the PROFIT that you make from the house. So if you bought for $200,000 and you sell for $250,000, you pay 15% of $50,000, not $250,000. And if you're making a $50,000 profit in this market, I need some advice from you! That's only part of how capital gains work. Depreciation is also accrued throughout the length of time you own a real estate investment. This decreases the basis that is used to determine the amount of gains for tax purposes. Let's say you have a rental property that you bought for $150,000 and it sells for $200,000. If you deducted $20,000 in depreciation over the time that you owned the property, however, you owe the difference between the sale price and your purchase price minus depreciation: $200,000 - ($150,000 - $20,000). Instead of owing capital gains on $50,000, you now owe capital gains on $70,000. Thank you for clarifying. My knowledge of CG was limited to about what I had said there. |
| 2011-03-06 12:33 PM in reply to: #3384653 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-06 5:18 AM UWMadTri We're not run by the Communist Party. o_0 We have no affiliation. If a bunch of lunatics show up at a Tea Party rally, are you all lunatics by association? No. And yet you wrote 2 pages ago:
I will give you that the Tea Party was initially founded as a grassroots movement...there's absolutely no question about that. However, the Michele Bachman/Sarah Palin duo turned it into a sizeable PAC for social conservatism and then the Koch Bros. popped in and decided to add their sizable muscle to the group. The Koch Bros., along with AFP, have convinced everyone that this is still a grassroots campaign, built on the beliefs of freedom of government and low taxes. The fact of the matter is, these guys did not sign on to make the little people's lives better. They signed on because they saw an opportunity to rally a political mass in an effort to install their people into positions of power across the country for their own financial gain. They are not altruistic individuals. It's a shame that they've taken over the grassroots nature of the Tea Party. While it was in its infancy, the racism was an easy highlight for the media, but I would imagine that would have toned down with time. There was some promise for the Tea Party to introduce a what-if scenario into American politics, assuming it became a true party: can we sustain 3 major parties? Sadly, the religious and socially conservative right swallowed it whole in a matter of no time and out came this disfigured hull of a PAC with intentions of crumbling liberal power sources and strengthening conservative power sources.
MAD, this is where you lose me and a few others. You labelled the Tea Party as a corporate PAC and implied racism was part of it's early roots. So in essence you are doing EXACTLY the opposite of what you just claimed above! ie; you are implying the Tea Party is a corporate PAC by association with Koch et al. You also stated the the religious right and socially conservative swallowed it whole. To me it seems hypocritical to imply the said things about the Tea Party and then later to say that you don't understand how Cruse could have made associations about the Wisconsin protests. Please explain. Erm, I said that the media highlighted the racism that was involved in the Tea Party. When the Tea Party Express (PAC) got booted from the National Tea Party movement for racist remarks that they refused to repudiate, it was one thing. Good, the larger movement denounced it. Then we see that Michele Bachmann is still part of the Tea Party Express. I would say that racism is still very much an issue that the Tea Party has to contend with, especially with people like Bachmann who essentially blather on about whatever they'd like and make up history to make a political point. I DO NOT contend that the Tea Party is a racism group, that most, or even a good portion of its members are racist. I'm sure the Democratic and Republican parties have an equal proportion of those people. However, when one of your probable nominees for 2012 teams up with a PAC that refused to denounce its racist remarks, it does not shine a positive light on them. The Tea Party must call for Bachmann to repudiate and remove herself from Tea Party Express, or the Tea Party must repudiate Bachmann and withdraw all support for her. This is not poor correlative skills on my part, based on some sort of hypocritical stance. This is one of the national leaders of the movement. CPUSA supports us...great! I'm sure Mao, Stalin, Marx and all those other guys would support us too. Does that mean that we would support them? Absolutely not. Michele Bachmann, on the other hand, IS one of the leaders of this group. The Koch Bros. ARE the deep pockets of this group. So, no...the two are absolutely, positively, not at all the same thing. Oh and about my post count in this thread...really? C'mon dude, you've got almost 9,000 replies. Let's not get passive-aggressively petty about completely nonsensical issues. |
| 2011-03-06 12:36 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Oh and I'd just like to add that Michael Moore is our version of Glenn Beck. They're both idiots that should be completely ignored. |
| 2011-03-06 1:20 PM in reply to: #3384899 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-06 10:44 AM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-05 8:09 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-05 7:49 PM Fred Doucette - 2011-03-05 3:09 PM This is the ultimate economic challenge as most of us see the growing debt as a problem and that cuts are necessary. But where do we cut and by how much? How do we get past the problem of cutting programs that many people are very fond of?
Thanks again for a by and large great discussion, even if it did pad UWMAD's post count and it did drift away from Wisconsin a bit I think there is only one way and that is a little at a time so people can adjust to the changes. Extreme changes are usually bad. Is a 20% change extreme, I sure that's getting in the neighborhood of extreme, but it's probably close to the area of acceptability as well. On the federal level that would only be about 600 billion on a 3 trillion dollar budget. I firmly believe the only chance our nation has is if the federal govt. goes back to doing what it was originally intended to do and let the states carry out the responsibilites that was left up to them. Again this has to be done but on a gradual basis. Was anyone else shocked by the pie chart and how much HHS is? As far as WI, I think the Gov. is on the right track, a business has to be in control of their expenses you can't have the tail wagging the dog and expect any good to come from it. The Gov. would be on the right track if he would compromise. I would counter that, with the fact that the past administrations have compromised way to much in the unions favor in the past and that is one of the reasons that WI is in the situation they are in today. Neither side is willing to budge, why is it just one side is looked at as not compromising? Here is a link, biased without a doubt but makes some good points imo. http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/top-10-reasons-to-support-wisconsin-governor-walke Because there is usually (I didn't say always) room to compromise. |
| 2011-03-06 3:16 PM in reply to: #3384988 |
| Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-06 12:36 PM Oh and I'd just like to add that Michael Moore is our version of Glenn Beck. They're both idiots that should be completely ignored. If there was a Like function on the boards, I would use it here. It sucks when a wacko happens to agree with you pm a particular subject. |
| 2011-03-06 5:47 PM in reply to: #3383949 |
| Member 169 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 11:38 AM I think we can all agree the heart of the debate in Wisconsin centers on the CBA’s unions have been able to negotiate with elected officials. So I thought it might be helpful to take a look at State public worker CBA’s and examine how they’re working out in Wisconsin? Turns out they’re working out really well for union members. Not so well for taxpayers. MPS teachers (that is the MEDIAN MPS teacher) make over $100K/year in salary and benefits. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/04/maciver-... In Green Bay, teachers can retire and get a full year’s pay for coming back to work 30 days IN ADDITION to their pension benefits. Oh, and retirees get their healthcare covered for up to 8 years after retirement. Care to show me where in the private sector teachers can get that deal? http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/140-green-bay-teachers-looking-... Madison bus drivers making up to $159K in salary and overtime pay because of union contract rules—rules that guarantee the need drivers get plenty of overtime hours. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_24... Are you a Milwaukee cop who got caught drunk driving? Don't worry-- you'll get paid while placed on 6 months of "administrative leave" and no, the public doesn't have to know. Union rules! http://www.frontpagemilwaukee.com/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=17218&mname=... Are you a cop found GUILTY of beating a citizen? No problem, you'll still get paid while suspended and even after you're convicted! http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29464434.html Full-time painter for MPS? Congrats, here's nearly a $100K in compensation. http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WI_Fiscal_Cr... Oh, and, no, contrary to myths being tossed about, Wisconsin state workers currently pay NOTHING toward their pensions. http://maciverinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WI_Fiscal_Cr... Nothing out of whack here, right? Hey, it's all just taxpayer... er, "government" money! But try to rein in this cash-grab and people scream it's all about "killing the middle-class" (like unions have a monopoly on that term and class) and "destroying education". I agree that there can modifications to some programs or debates. But where it the problem with a teacher in Milwaukee making $100k in total benefits? What total salary to you feel they should earn? When people throw out these numbers that seem like teachers make so much money I just wonder what they feel they should earn. |
| 2011-03-06 6:08 PM in reply to: #3385340 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-06 7:43 PM in reply to: #3385363 |
| Member 169 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-06 6:08 PM burhed - I agree that there can modifications to some programs or debates. But where it the problem with a teacher in Milwaukee making $100k in total benefits? What total salary to you feel they should earn? When people throw out these numbers that seem like teachers make so much money I just wonder what they feel they should earn.
Considering the median individual income in the USA is approximately $50K, what do you feel teachers should earn when a state is dealing with a multi-billion dollar deficit? $100K is twice the median individual income, so is that reasonable? The $100k is total benefits. Is the $50k mean you reference total benefits or just salary? (sorry too lazy to look myself) I believe roughly 30% of the population has an advanced degree versus 100% of teachers having at least a B.S. I would certainly think they should be well above the mean. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK