Bill,
Post of the day:btu:

I agree with some of what you wrote, not all...

"all the underachievers who attend town meetings wouldn't pay them beans if they didn't band together and negotiate en mass."

I disagree. I see a lot of common sense folks who feel, like me, that public servants deserve to be paid a bit less than the average citizen whom they claim to serve. In CT, we are nowhere near that equilibrium, and it's getting more unbalanced (in favor of unionized municipal workers) not better. I know this as an actuary.

"these union members pay half of the contribution to the retirement fund, right."

It varies by town here in CT. What I also know is this...with a 401(k), I put money into it. When I want to retire, I have to figure out how to live on whatever is in there. If there's not enough to live on, that's my problem.

Unionized municipal employees put some of their own money to fund the pension. If the employee contributions are not enough to fund the promised payout (which happens, oh, 100% of the time) the public has to fund the difference. Warren Buffet could not invest contributions and earn enough to pay for the insane guaranteed benefits. I know this as an actuary.

Why is that? Why is the financial security of unionized municipal workers more important to society, than the financial security of those in the private scetor?

"These employees (teachers not withstanding, because I dont know a thing about their contracts) were given these perks back in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, when the pay was so low, and as you know as an actuary it didn't cost much, or at least the cost was negligable"

Correct. Back then, the costs were controllable because of several things (more workers per retiree, retirees didn't live as long, healthcare was cheaper). The problem is, pension benefits have not changed with the costs. So the public gets stuck with a massive bill, that was promised by a politician who (1) would do anything to get the union vote, and (2) is long gone so he's no longer answerable to the public that he just screwed.

"If you want monkeys working for you, then pay them peanuts. "

Thsi is what liberals do. If I suggest that teachers compensation needs to be somehting that the public can afford to pay, you take that to mean I want them eating cat food. That's not even close to what I said, so do us all a favor and stick to what I say. Don't put extremist words in my mouth just because they are easier for you to respond to.

Also, private schools pay their teachers far less than public schools, and somehow those students do OK. I have never, not once, seen a study that shows a correlation between student performance and teacher compensation. If there was any trace of a correlation, teachers unions would be plastering it everywhere.

"Cut thier pay and everyone else will suffer right down the line. "

Wrong! 100% wrong! And here's why. Cutting their pay means that everyone else gets to keep more of their own money, which will be spent on the things you listed. If current teacher pay levels are so good for the economy, why are towns and states having to borrow outrageous sums to pay for those benefits? Why aren't tax revenues enough to pay the salaries of the unionized employees? Have you seen the debt levels of nearly every state, thanks to unfunded retirement and healthcare benefits for unionized public workers? Many towns, and a few states, are flirting with bankruptcy.

"It doesn't sound to me as if the private sector worked out as well as you would have liked."

I'm pretty comfy, let's leave it at that. You want to know more, ask and I'll tell you. I just don't like getting robbed so that public sector employees can cling to insane benefits, and I cannot imagine what the tax rates will be for my kids, if things don't change.

Nice story you told. If you want to hear my story, look at the debt levels by state, thanks to the ridiculous promises made to these people. I used to be a public servant (I was in the USMC), and I have great respect for cops, teachers, firemen (well, many of them). But the math is what it is, and it is absolutely not sustainable.

Here in CT, our tax rates are among the 3 highest in the nation, every single year. On top of that, we have about the highest avereage income. What I mean is, if the state with the highest incomes, has the highest tax rates, then that state has a TON of tax revenue. On top of that, we get hundreds of millions from the casinos. And yet our debt, measured as dollars per citizen, is the highest in the country.

There is only one possible conclusion. We had the money to live well, but we spent it very recklessly. By far, the biggest debt item is union benefits. You try telling me that there is any other conclusion. But you can't, cuz there ain't. The money is gone, the well is dry, the golden goose has been slain. Still these unions want more and more and more. It is never enough.

You can't spend what you don't have. Whatever you have, you need to spend less. I knew that even before I was an actuary. Everyone knows this, it seems, except unionized municipal employees.

I like this post. It's my opus...

Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching. However, just for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Both are science based. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.

I can't wait to see the answer to this one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles.... Average household income in the town I teach in according to most recent census data is $167,642. Median house price is 634,000. I have 11 years experience, a state mandated master's degree (for certification) and am working on a second masters. Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage? Also consider that I started in biotech for a private firm and would be earning in the 100,000-115,000 if I had stayed in that position as a research and development scientist to this day.



should he base it on a normal work year or a 180 day work year? just want to clarify?



for #^&#^&#^&#^&zandgiggles...actuarialize this one too JIM, if you would...

Jim, I'm a gardener/landscaper(because I like it)...I have a degree in botany/plant genetics and I'm working on one in astrophysics at my own expense during the slow months, the median income in my area is $300,000 and the average home is 1.2 million...I work about half of the year but when I started at a bioengineering firm out of college I was making over a hundred grand plus a full benefits package....what do you think my fair wage should be ?


I wonder what the reaction will be when the payment transfers aren't made one Friday or the paycheck bounces....I heard someone say recently that these cities and towns are finally having to face the reality of what it actually costs to run their governments, the state subsidies are reduced and drying up, the feds aren't/can't subsidize the states, it all about trying to keep a sinking ship of ponzi schemes afloat and it is just too far underwater.....and not enough hands to bail, they're still dancing to the music on the deck

Zimmy and Scott,

You both missed Jim's point. He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire and are are forced to leave for more affordable housing elsewhere. Of course, the void created by your departure would immediately be filled by some other teacher with S&M tendencies who wants to be treated just as bad.

After all, he was a public servant (NOT!!!) and they did the same to him. Unlike his statement, Military service does not make him a public servant...it makes him a veteran (like me). This discussion is about civil service so I suggest he keep to the point. At no time has anyone lumped military benefits in with the discussion about civil servants. Unless he is willing to make more concessions that afford mothly death benefits to spouses of lost fireman and police he should stop trying to claim something he is not.

I wonder what flavor catfood they'll choose when the Ponzi scheme collapses?

U.S. Bills States $1.3 Billion in Interest Amid Tight Budgets

MICHAEL COOPER and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

As if states did not have enough on their plates getting their shaky finances in order, a new bill is coming due — from the federal government, which will charge them $1.3 billion in interest this fall on the billions they have borrowed from Washington to pay unemployment benefits during the downturn.

The interest cost, which has been looming in plain sight without attracting much attention, represents only a sliver of the huge deficits most states will have to grapple with this year . But it comes as states are already cutting services, laying off employees and raising taxes. And it heralds a larger reckoning that many states will have to face before long: what to do about the $41 billion they have borrowed from the federal government to help them pay benefits to millions of unemployed people, a debt that federal officials say could rise to $80 billion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

What he thinks you should make is irrelevant. What he thinks I as a teacher should make is relevant since he funds teachers. I wasn't asking to be a dck. I was asking because I am curious what he thinks.

Just a clarification about fed pension system - the conversion to the new system happened for all employees in 1984. The new system is a combination of soc sec, thrift savings and a small pension. States and towns should follow suit.

Bill, yuo said this...

"He thinks you should get a decent wage but no benefits so you only have to eat cat food after you retire "

I guess you can't read very well, because that's not even CLOSE to anything I said. I think teachers should have benefits that resemble what's available to the public which they claim to serve. Namely, 401(k)'s instead of pensions. If I ask teachers to live with the same benefits that those who pay their salaries (taxpayers) have to live on, why is that unreasonable? Can you plkease answer that, instead of putting extremist words in my mouth?

why is the income of others, the value of other's homes, how much others make in the private sector working ALL year doing a completely different job.. at all relevant to what Jim might think you should be paid as a teacher?

why not just ask him how much a science teacher should make?


US debt passes $14 trillion, Congress weighs caps

WASHINGTON – The United States just passed a dubious milestone: Government debt surged to an all-time high, more than $14 trillion.

That means Congress soon will have to lift the legal debt limit to give the nearly maxed-out government an even higher credit limit or dramatically cut spending to stay within the current cap. Either way, a fight is ahead on Capitol Hill, inflamed by the passions of tea party activists and deficit hawks.

Today's debt level represents a $45,300 tab for each and everyone in the country.

maybe better to compare it to what other science teachers are making
Average Teacher Salary in Connecticut....Connecticut teacher salaries are some of the highest average salaries in the nation, with a 2009 figure of $64,773. This salary increased 3.9 percent over the 2008 teaching salary in Connecticut of $62,345. The 2008 teaching salary is 2.3 percent higher than the 2007 average salary of $60,943.

Teaching salaries in Connecticut are higher than the national average salary of $49,720 in 2009, and the 2008 salary of $48,353. The percentage increase in Connecticut teacher salaries from 2008 to 2009 was higher than the national average increase of 2.8 percent.

Teacher salaries in Connecticut ranked 4th in the nation in 2009, a slight drop from their standing the previous two years. The average teacher salary in Connecticut ranked 3rd in both 2007 and 2008. Connecticut teacher salaries averaged a 6.2 percent increase overall for the 2007 through 2009 period.

The average teacher salaries in Connecticut have been increasing steadily though the 2007-2009 period. The following Connecticut teacher salary schedule summarizes this information:

Average Salary Percent Change
Rank 2009 Rank 2008 Rank 2007 2008 to 2009 2007 to 2008 2007 to 2009
Connecticut 4 $64,773.33 3 $62,345.00 3 $60,943.33 3.89% 2.30% 6.28%

Hi Zimmy.

"I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits"

That's pretty honest, I respect that...

"are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching."

I live in Southington, and I have been a parft of the last 2 union contracts. Both times, the teachers tjhreatened to quit en masse if we cut their compensation. That tells me that in my town, teachers are pretty motivated by money, rather than by a calling to teach. I hear that a lot, teachers threatening to leave for the private sector. Just my observation. They all say they're in it for the kids, until we ask them to share the pain...

"Out of curiosity, what you think would be a fair wage?"

First, let's talk about total compensation, not salary, because benefits are where unions get crazy. I don't know where you teach, somewhere in Fairfield County I guess. The average household income in CT is about $68,000, the average home price is around $275,000. In my opinion, public servants total compensation (salary plus benefits) should be just below the average of the citizens they claim to serve. I say just below because public servants are spared the significant stress of those in the private sector, the stress of being under presure to create wealth.

Zimmy, if you earned $100k in the private sector, yuo would work hundreds more hours each year than you do now. You would not have a guaranteed pension. You would pay twice as much for your healthcare as you do now. You would pay into social security, which is a ripoff. No week off at Xmas, February, April, no 7 weeks off in the summer. And finally, no guarantee that as long as you are breathing, your job is still there.

I believe I answered your question directly. Can I askyou a question Zimmy? As you know, here in CT, we have about the highest tax rates in the nation. Yet here in CT, the unfunded obligations for retirement and healthcare benefits is exactly $10,000 per citizen (recently reported in the Courant). That's $50,000 for my family of 5.

So here is my question...if my taxes are already just about the highest in the nation, and my family STILL owes another $50,000 to pay for union compensation, doesn't that PROVE that the spending is insane?

You asked me what's a fair wage, and I answered. Let me ask you, what tax level do you think is fair, to burden my family with? I pay 5% income tax, 6% sales tax, $8,000 propetry tax, and my family still owes your unions another $50k that I simply don't have. Is it fair that I get a seciond job so you and your ilk can cling to insane, antiquated benefits?

You thought you asked me a "gotcha" question. Please answer mine. How many of my bi-weekly paychecks do you think you're entitled to, so that you can have a guaranteed pension, and healthcare that's better than mine? How much of my kids' college fund should they have to sign over to the teachers union, because somehow you guys haven't realized that pensions simply don't work?

If you are a man of science, like me, you should know that you simply cannot spend what you don't have. In the near future, some muncipalities are going to start bouncing checks. The math is what it is. We need to start facing reality, and stop kicking the can down the road.

The reason the potential income info is relevant because it affects whether someone goes into teaching. The housing info is relevant because it relates to the tax base and the cost of living in that town. What a science teacher makes in fairfield county is going to be different than what they make in rural carolinas where the median house price is $110,000, not 600,000. I work 186 days, so if you want to say the average professional works 245 (3 weeks vacation), that is reasonable. So yes, 76% of the standard work year is reasonable. I don't know anyone who works ALL year.

In my town, teachers max out at about $80k I think. So a married couple who both teach are earning $160,000, with benefits that dwarf anything that are available in the private sector. So those teachers have a private-secor equivalent of probably somewhere around $190k. And they work hundreds fewer hours per year, no matter what teachers say...they just do not work 2,000 hours a year, no way.

To me, that is insane. Not only does it "feel" crazy, the debt that states and towns are facing prove it.

You can't spend what you don't have. Business leaders get that. Heads of households get that. Only unionized public employees are immune to that law, and I don't understand why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Jim,
I am a science teacher in CT. I would never in a million years complain about my salary or benefits, but they are certainly not why I teach. I love teaching.


huh???

Jim, thanks for the answer. I think what you are missing is that if you look at teachers as "public servants" and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work. I see us more as professional educators who's job is to educate. That requires a particular skill set and education. My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month. I also pay taxes here, so I am affected by them as well. I could not afford to teach if my salary after 10 years was less than 34000, which is equal to 1/2 the household income you stated. The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. If doctors made $40,000 health care costs would be lower. If electricians charged less , it would be cheaper to build houses and schools. Teachers are skilled workers, not a bit below the public we serve and that is why teachers cost money. If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. By the way, alot of private school teachers do very well as they are often compensated in other ways.

do you ever look at the gym teacher or home ec. teacher with 11 years under his/her belt pulling down the same salary and benefits as you and just shake your head?

I think that one of the biggest obstacles teachers have when advocating for their profession, salaries, benefits is that most of us have around at least 12 years experience with teachers to reflect on....

Zimmy, you didn't even try to answer my question. I answered yours directly, you dodged mine. Not fair.

"and we should be just below the average of people, then public education won't work"

I'm 41 years old. When I was in grade school, public school teacher compensation was a disgrace. We all know that. But I still got a great education. So I categorically deny your claim that public education doesn't work if you cut compensation. As I said earlier, there isn't a shred of correlation between student performance and teacher compensation. I don't want teacher compensation to go back to what it was when I was a kid, but you can't ask taxpayers to kill themselves for your benefits, either. You need to be able to live on what we can reasonably provide to you. If our current tax rates still leave my family in debt to you to the tune of $50k, then we are at a crazy place.

"My education has cost me a tremendous amount of money, that I pay every month"

Me too. The difference is, I have to make people want to voluntarily give me money to repay my loans. You get to take it from me through force of law.

"The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are"

Fine. WHY ARE TEACHERS THE LAST PROFESSIONALS IN THE WORLD WHO STILL HAVE PENSIONS? Why can't you address that question?


"If teachers aren't paid as skilled professionals then no one will teach. "

Bullsh*t. Pure bullsh*t. First, private schools pay a fraction of what public schools pay, and those schools manage to find great teachers. And back when I was a kid, when teacher pay was appallingly low, schools found folks to teach. With the private sector as tattered as it is, don't you dare suggest that if teachers had to switch to 401(k)s, no one would teach. God that's dishonest.

Zimmy, I'm a reasonable guy. I've done my homework on this issue, and I have thought it through from every angle. You won't get me with a "gotcha" question. And we all know the reason why you dodged the direct questions I asked you...because there is no rational answer as to why teachers cstubbornly refuse to live with benefits comparable to taxpayers who pay your salaries.

Let me make it simple for you scott... If I can make 110000+ in biotech and teaching pays 30,000, I can't justify teaching. I think my salary is in line with what it should be. My district the union also agreed to a pay freeze. It will cost me 3,000 per year for the rest of my career. We pay a fair percent of our benefits. I don't know too many teachers asking for more more more.

Fine. All other professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, actuaries) switched from pensions to 401(k)s 20 years ago, because we could no longer pass the cost of pensions on to our customers.

Why do teachers feel justified in FORCING that expense on to their customers (and that's a fair term, because I cannot choose not to pay), when the entire private sector realized 20 years ago that was an unreasonable burden?

Have a lot of fun with that one, pal.

A pay freeze, without addressing thye benefits, is meaningless.

And if you give up a raise for one year, how does that cost you $3,000 every year for the rest of you career? How big was the raise that you gave up?

well pal, I am not sure I would have a problem with 401k and social security so count me out of that discussion. I am sorry you feel so burdened. If it is so upsetting, you might look at ways to reduce your stress, like fishing :) Luckily for me, I am rich enough to by myself a 30' center console and a pile of offshore gear to fish for tuna, so I don't get stressed (in my dreams). Well, someday may :) I do feel bad that this gets so many people worked up. I have a cousin in PA who got married, moved to a new house they built in a different town, had a couple kids and all the husband does is complain about property taxes. Funny considering his family is one of the driving forces behind the need for higher property taxes. He makes a very good salary selling pharmaceuticals, which directly affects health care plan costs too. It's gotta be the shoes.

The "pal" reference was because I went to great lengths to answer your questions directly. You still won't even try to answe mine. That really, really bothers me.

I tried Zimmy, I gave you a direct answer to the questions you asked. Your answer to mine was "I'm sorry you're so mad".

That's what teachers always, always do. They come up with phrases that are designed to alter the discussion. Each of the last 2 contract discussions, when I brought up 401(k)s, I was accused of not caring about kids' education. Right.

If ordinary dads out there making $50k a year have to get a second job to pay their property taxes, or if ordinary dads have to sell their houses because they can't afford the property taxes, are the kids of that dad better off because their teachers still have pensions? I don't see how.

And we're all still waiting to see how giving up a raise, costs you $3k a year for perpetuity.

186 days

I answered your question. i wouldn't mind getting social security and a 401k. What else do you want me to answer? As far as the raise, I don't know what the actual value was, but I am not at the max step, so I was in line to get a step increase along with a cost of living increase. At the point i am at it was a pretty big difference. The step freeze means I am at the 10th step, when I would have gone to 11th, and the cost of living increase was frozen. I will always be one step lower than I would have been, so over my career it adds up. Also had an increase in benefits contributions and increase in insurance co-pay.
i was sincere about being sorry you are so mad. maybe in your town things have been different, but I think our union was pretty reasonable.

yes, that is 75% of a typical schedule. 30000, isn't 75% of 110000

OK, you did answer my question, thanks. Sincerely. The vast majority of your bretheren are not nearly as reasonable, and your unions use negotiating tactics that would make the Gambino family proud.

I assure you that forgoing a raise for a couple of years isn't costing you $3000 every year. It might cost you that mush in the year you gave up tha raise, but not in perpetuity.

Zimmy, if my town's union was the only one being demanding, the state of CT wouldn't be in the gaping whole it's in. The profession is compensated at a level that's nowhere near sustainable.

I work for a corporation, I have both a pension, and a 401k, so it is still attainable to people not employed by the government... BTW Management also had same until their pensions were frozen a few years ago.

Jim I don't know where the Ct. unions get their strength to strong arm elected officials into giving them these huge contracts, but I do know for the last five to ten years the power has swung around the other wy in Massachusetts, where unions that represent every facet of public employee have lost tremendous amounts of bargaining power.

In thirty seven years of public service, never bargaining for a contract, but being the recipient of what was bargained, both good and bad, I never ever saw any officers in my union strong arm anyone, and thats in any form. Now if what your saying that officers new certain things about certain elected officials and they used that, well you should take that info to the nearest F.B.I. office.

And why is it that you base everything on your being an actuary. Everyone here is familiar with unfunded liabilty, in all its forms. My wife has her graduate degree in math and she wouldn't go for any interviews to do actuarial work, because the money wasn't there.

I retired from public service last July. I don't make enough to survive on either. SO I WENT OUT AND GOT A SECOND JOB TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

You don't need to adjust the retirement system in regard to the 44 yr. old retiring and taking another job as a detective. The residents there just need to enact legislation making that illegal, they probaly wont though. Who wouldn't hire a retired, qualified person, who probably serve with distinction in one town, in another town, if he was healthy and had good references.

It is true, at least from my perspective, the "pay peanuts, get monkeys" analogy. I'll say this to back that up. When the men who served in WW2 and Korea came home there were no jobs. The towns gave them the first opening on various town departments as a way of thanking them for their service. Those men, were for the most part uneducated (high aschool), some were illiterate, I know this personally, but they had one thing going for them, and that is they believe in the order of things. Thats because of where they were four the last four or five years. These men, from my perspective were thugs at best. And the town didn't really care. They only cared that they didn't see anything, and the town didn't get sued. Well after a while towns did get sued. Because these guys did what they did best any way they could physically. The only people who saw the end result of this physical activity were the parents and loved ones when the beaten person came home. Thats why rules changed, and had to change, and that is why the Quinn bill in Massachusetts was first introduced in Massachusetts in regard to police officers. Even you will admit that a more highly educated individual is one whose skills and critical thinking proceeses better prepares the officer for the street. Now to the point. Educated officers received more compentsation than uneducated officers. Most officers now have some college. Some officers have several college degrees. In private business you dont have to ask for more money for degree work. You automatically recive it. In public service we have to beg for it. But I am digressing.................Educated officer dont place themselves or the municpalities in the postion to have to defend themselves from civil rights actions that cost the towns they work for and the insurance company that cover the towns huge sums of money. In Massachusetts, brutality compalints were so common they stopped reporting them 15 or 20 years ago. Now they report them because they make news because they rarely happen. So, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, which translates to hired thugs, who can't be controlled, and act out worse in some ways than the perps on the streets do. But if you pay a decent wage to officers or other emplyees the benefits received back from the employees most often cant be seen. I can tell you personally I ended up in federal court three times, and its not pleasant. I was a witness all three times, never a defendent. But I can't tell you the defendents are just as I described above. Uneducated, uncaring, willing to fight at the drop of a hat, because the people they were dealing with they looked upon them as someone trying to take something from them. That doesn't happen anymore.

Oh, I have my own 401K also.

Less than 1 in 5 non-unionized employees still get a pension.

And in the private sector, that's fine, because your customers can freely choose whether or not they are willing to have that cost passed onto them. You don't get to seize my house if I don't want to absorb that cost.

Public unionized employees get to do just that.

I know how all you guys feel out there feeling that you have been cheated and paying more taxes and all.

Here I am on social security and my cost of living has been cut for the next two years because of your president. We were suppose to get a 5.8% pay raise, that is a little more then 500 bucks per year, "GONE."

And your ranting over and over about something meaningless that you are never going to solve. I'm surprised that some of you do not have sore finger tips from your long responses.

RANT! RANT! RANT! :smash: :wall:

JANUARY 15, 2011

Detroit and Decay

The city may abandon half its schools to pay union benefits
Detroit was once America's fourth largest city, though today large sections of its inner core are abandoned to the elements, and monuments like Michigan Central Station are returning to dust. Another emblem of civic decline is a plan to desert nearly half of Detroit's public schools so that it can afford to fulfill its teachers union contract.

The school district is facing a $327 million deficit and has already closed 59 schools over the last two years to avoid paying maintenance, utility and operating costs

Under the emergency plan, consolidated high-school class sizes would increase to 62 by 2014, “consistent with what students would expect in large university settings.” Yet under the terms of the Detroit Federation of Teachers contract, the district must pay bonuses for class enrollment over 35, thus imposing some $11.1 million in new costs through 2014.

“Additional savings of approximately $12.4 million can be achieved from school closures if the District simply abandons the closed buildings,” the proposal explains, purging costs like boarding up buildings, storage and security patrols.

Steven Wasko, a spokesman for Mr. Bobb, said that urban property sales have been difficult, in part because until recently the state board of education banned transactions with “competing educational institutions” like charter schools. Once buildings are deserted, even if the doors and windows are welded shut with protective metal covers, scavengers break in and dismantle them for copper wire, pipes and so on.

they deserve a bailout :uhuh:

There's a phrase for 'ordinary dads' like that.

Its called living beyond their means.

I think I get it...a teacher....I'm sorry...a "highly paid professional educator(gym teacher:))" working 186 days a year(how many days do you actually work when you use up all of your sick and personal days?) should not have to get a part-time job to be able to do what they love in the form of employment in a particular town....but a town resident who probably works more than 186 days a year is living "beyond their means" if they find themselves needing a part-time job to pay the taxes to pay the highly paid professional educator working 186 days a year while enjoying health benefits not found in the private sector and a guaranteed income after retirement that is in no way based on their contibutions through their employment regardless of whether or not the money exists to pay them.......sounds to me like the teachers and others are living beyond the public's means....:uhuh:
did anyone see Gov Christie's stats about NJ education and compensation?
before you assume I hate teachers...I have a lifetime of experience with teachers as both of my parents were teachers, dad was a science teacher(with his masters) and my wife is currently a teacher...

she was substituting a couple of years ago and it was quite funny that the sub notification system that she was a part of would call the house to request subs...it would be somewhat quiet through the week but every Friday the phone would ring off of the hook and very often the Monday after a vacation was quite busy...

If you cannot afford your living expenses.
You're living beyond your means.

Stop blaming everyone else.

that would be a great argument the next time they want to extend unemployment and borrow even more money to do so :uhuh:

Likwid, if property taxes double in 6 years because teachers refuse to accept the economic realities that face the rest of us, then that guy making $50k isn't necessarily living beyond his means. he just had no way of knowing that his teachers are completely unwilling to live on the tax revenue that he can provide.

It's the unions that won't live within the means that the public can reasonably provide.

I don't know of a business that isn't cutting exoenses. That being said, it's extremely rare for a town budget to decrease from year to year, it almost never happens.

Great post, you nailed it!

When public servants (which includes everyone whose salary is funded through taxes) rank way above the median in terms of average income, with insane benefits on top of that, you have a bubble.

Here in CT, our tax rates are about the highest in the nation, and so our our incomes. That means that there is a TON of tax revenue. On top of that, teh state gets hundreds of millions from the casinos every year.

Yet with all that revebue, we are still on the verge of bankruptcy, and by far the biggest expense item is unionized benefits.

So who lived beyond their means? Those public unions are like a 25 yera old NBA star who makes $20 mill a year but goes bankrupt. The problem AIN'T a lack of revenue, it's a lack of common sense in spending habits.

You cannot look at the facts rationally, and come to a different conclusion. Only those with a political axe to grind could possibly disagree.

And I respect teachers as well. But I do not accept the premise that the financial security of teachers is more important to society, than the financial security of those who work in the private sector.

Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?