Oddly enough, the best schools are in Mass, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia and Vermont.
Worst is easy, pick most any Republican state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Income Inequality Is Not a Myth It’s a historical fact . I find it funny the right is always wanting to go back in time to the “good old days” of the 1950s @ 1960. Which happens to be when income inequalities were at their lowest .. fast forward today and some how income inequality is because of lazy Americans against successful people


The notion that we owe whatever economic prosperity we have to the genius of these high-performing frontier firms. So let’s get out government out of the way and let these frontier firms work more wonders. Let’s deregulate the economy. Let’s free companies from labor-protection rules that reduce their flexibility. Let’s limit collective bargaining.

As trade union membership declines, inequality rises,” notes the OECD’s Trade Union Advisory Committee. “And yet OECD recommendations have largely remained the same: reduce labor market dualism by reducing employment protection legislation for regular workers, decentralize collective bargaining systems — including opt-outs for individual companies — and reduce what is termed as ‘excess coverage’ of collective bargaining.”

https://ips-dc.org/whos-to-blame-for-inequality/

Jim your school choice is red herring .. and plays right into what’s written , trying to expand choice of those with resources and removing funds from everyone else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why is school choice a red herring? it only removes funds from schools that parents ( customers) think are bad. why shouldn’t we de emphasize lousy schools and expand the benefit of good schools to kids who today are excluded from those benefits?

why are you afraid of letting people
decide which school is right for their kids?

i never said income inequality isn’t real. has anyone ever said that?

my boss chooses to work 70 hours a week. why shouldn’t he make
more than me? what’s unfair about that?

this union mindset that everyone makes the same regardless of the quality and quality of their work, is nonsense.

thanks to teachers unions, the gym
teacher gets paid the same as the guy who teaches AP physics. Stupid.

Who the hell said we all owe our entire economic prosperity to these guys? you’re making sh-t up. i said they create wealth, they don’t steal every dollar they have from someone else.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually this isn't at all how it works Jim.

Now do Epi-pens, insulin and pretty much the entire healthcare system.
Lots of wealth created there also, I guess when you increase the price of a drug by the stroke of a pen you deserve it.

the hell it’s not, i was a public schoolteacher. salary is based on seniority and credentials.

so if an AP physics teacher and a gym teacher each have a masters degree and ten years experience, in Connecticut at least, they make the same exact salary.

tell me where i’m wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

people who price gouge for medical treatment are unique, and bad. separate issue.

who is Oprah Winfrey hurting? If you don’t like Jeff Bezos, you can choose not to use Amazon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I could have so much fun with this....but I think I'll just leave it right there.....

You just defeated your own argument.

no i didn’t. i said that a gym teacher and a physics teacher with the same seniority, are guaranteed the same
pay. as are all teachers with the same seniority, regardless of whether they’re the best teacher or the worst teacher, they get the same pay, the same raise.

Tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Don’t know what planet you’re on .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except that he’s sucked the money out of the market for anyone else and your only other choice is to mine the raw material and fabricate it yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So apparently the argument only works when it does otherwise it is different, “Damn you Enoch, you know I have two pigs”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, he figured out how to do retail better than everyone else. he didn’t suck the money away from others. Customers freely chose to give their money to him.

Liberals pretend like he burned down every mom and pop. Customers made a free choice. It’s our fault, not his fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are rare exceptions. people
who get richer by stealing or by exploiting customers’ desperation, didn’t create their wealth fairly IMO.

Most wealthy people don’t that category. Duh. So the argument works in almost every single case. i support laws which prevent price gouging in healthcare.

My CEO is close to being a billionaire. I don’t spend a second thinking about it, his extreme wealth doesn’t effect me, nor does it interest me. you’re obsessed with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So they are rare, except in healthcare, you know your CEO is close to a billionaire without thinking about it for a second.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions, like yours that only liberals are concerned about changes in markets and logistics that affect how our society works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re the one making inane assumptions. you’re assuming that one persons acquisition of wealth is responsible for someone else’s lack of wealth. liberals want people to believe that so they feel victimized. But it’s not true.

Again, if you or anyone else wants what someone else has, do what they did to get it. do precisely what they did to get it. we are limited only by our abilities and our work ethic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim that’s not what I said Amazon and Bezos are totally dependent on the infrastructure that society creates to make the business work.
They need healthy educated people to work for them, transportation to deliver and receive goods and all the rest of the public services to be able to conduct business.
They should carry their share.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you cried about the wealthy getting wealthier, without even trying to explain why that’s bad. Boo hoo.

Yes Amazon needs roads and bridges. Which is why the feds and states have gas taxes and tolls, which Amazon pays same as you.

i looked it up, in 2018 ( latest year i could find), the top 1% of the wealthiest, earned 20.9% of all adjusted gross income, and paid 40.1% of all federal income taxes.

they’re paying a vastly disproportionate share of our nations tax burden. We have a very progressive tax scale.

You can argue it should be tweaked, and maybe you’re right. But You can’t argue they’re not paying plenty already. not as a group in total.

also, do the math to see how
much more revenue would be generated under whatever marxist tax rate youd impose, and see how meaningless that amount is, compared to the federal budget. it’s not even worth discussing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...e-us-taxes.amp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your numbers would be usable if they were based on wealth, not income. It's not how much money you make, it's how much you keep. No billionaire, or wealthy person for that matter in this country tries to increase his income, they would then be taxed.
So they legally (in most cases) take their income in un or less taxed methods. Lots more ways to take income untaxed if like your CEO you can take some as stock options. Since 1978 CEO compensation has risen 940% while worker compensation has risen 12%, guess who sets pay rates?

As far as the effect of taxes, I can find experts who claim that taxation increases growth.

Bruce Bartlett, who served under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, drafted the Kemp-Roth tax bill, the basis of the Reagan tax cuts.

Mr. Bartlett, in an August 2016 op-ed in the New York Times, recognized that "the Reagan tax cut played only a secondary role in the 1980s boom." Furthermore, he pointed out that Reagan, concerned about deficits, "supported 11 different increases from 1982 to 1988 that collectively took back half of the 1981 tax cut."

Mr. Bartlett also noted that the "economy tanked during the Bush years despite numerous large tax cuts" and that "there is far more evidence from the last 35 years showing that tax increases do more to stimulate growth than tax cuts."

it’s called federal income tax, not federal wealth tax.

“no wealthy person tries to increase his income. they would then be taxed.”

that is probably the most economically stupid thing posted on then internet this year.

“i can find experts that say that taxation increases growth.

those must be some serious, honest experts.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're saying stock options are un-taxed.

I presume you don't live in this country, then? You see, here in America, when you exercise stock options, not only are they taxed, it's taxed as ordinary income.

Then when you sell the shares, you pay capital gains tax on any appreciation between the day you exercised, and the day you sold.

Just keep making up Marxist bullsh*t.

Look it up. I'm right.

Anyone who disagrees with a fascist is called a marxist, that is the history of fascism.

When you exercise stock options is the difference, the majority of Americans don't have that choice.

But read this, so you can see how, here in America, it works.

The 25 richest Americans, including Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk, paid relatively little — and sometimes nothing — in federal income taxes between 2014 and 2018, according to an analysis from the news organization ProPublica that was based on a trove of Internal Revenue Service tax data.

The analysis showed that the nation’s richest executives paid just a fraction of their wealth in taxes — $13.6 billion in federal income taxes during a time period when their collective net worth increased by $401 billion, according to a tabulation by Forbes.

The documents reveal the stark inequity in the American tax system, as plutocrats like Mr. Bezos, Mr. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Mr. Musk and George Soros were able to benefit from a complex web of loopholes in the tax code and the fact that the United States puts its emphasis on taxing labor income versus wealth. Much of the wealth that the rich accrue — like shares in companies they run, vacation homes, yachts and other investments — isn’t considered “taxable income” unless those assets are sold and a gain is realized. Even then, there are loopholes in the tax code that can limit or erase all tax liability.

Of course if you are kinda rich and stupid, you would do things like TFG to avoid taxes.

Allen Weisselberg's indictment accuses him of erasing portions of entries in a ledger called 'Donald J. Trump's Detail General Ledger' during the 2016 campaign.

If there was a ledger for him, it blows up the notion that Trump didn’t know about it.

Court documents and interviews indicate that the Manhattan District Attorney is accumulating evidence of pervasive tax fraud.

you’re desperately firing al over the place now.


we don’t tax wealth. so if jeff bezos’ house appreciates but he doesn’t sell it, you’re saying he should pay taxes on that?

what happens if there’s a housing crash like in 2008, and everyone’s house is worth less, the feds are going issue refunds?

sounds very practical Pete. you’re talking about taxing “unrealized” gains. Bonkers.

and you said explicitly, stock options are untaxed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re saying I’m desperate?

There’s an entire market segment in this country that gets paid to help people avoid taxes and plenty of lobbyists that get paid and write the legislation to minimize them.
It’s not anywhere near the majority of Americans doing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, you’re desperately, and very unsuccessfully, trying to appear like something other than an ignoramus.

I’m not saying our tax structure is perfect, but i’m saying only a complete lunatic thinks it’s a good idea to tax unrealized gains. what if someone has a baseball card collection, the IRS is going to come in every single year and determine the value? same with jewelry, art collections, car collections?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You always try and reduce things to stupidity, like most people blindly following directions.

Other people who you would apparently consider ignoramuses like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen.

Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met.

"Uou always try and reduce things to stupidity"

Wrong, I'm one of the few here who often agrees with either side. But the idea of taxing unrealized gains is beyond stupid.

"Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, Mark Benioff, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, Jamie Dimmon all agree that something needs to happen."

Which is why I explicitly said our current tax structure isn't perfect, I have no doubt it can be improved. But taxing unrealized gains is absurd. Equally wrong to say that stock options are untaxed. You don't have a great foundation of knowledge on this issue.

And those billionaires you listed are free to give the IRS as much as they want. Yet none of them ever pay more than the law requires. So it sounds like empty talk to me.

"Gains are unrealized because our tax code is designed to not realize them until certain parameters are met"

Right, they are unrealized until the item is sold for more than you paid for it. Gains are unrealized until you have the money. The value of big assets fluctuates, sometimes wildly. It's not anywhere near feasible to levy a tax based on the value of a held asset. The only practical way to do it is to tax gains when they are realized. Anything else would be impossible.

Nothing is impossible, though that attitude may be why you are kept in a cubicle.

You do understand that we have no problem taxing people on a valuation basis for what is most families biggest capitol asset, their homes.

The current system does not tax a household’s economic income, which is the sum of the household’s consumption and the change in its wealth during the year. By this standard, all capital gains that occur in the year in question should be included—whether realized or unrealized.

There are a number of ways to change this, none impossible or beyond understanding (look at the current tax code for something that is beyond comprehension)

1. Eliminate step-up in basis at death

2. Tax capital gains at death

3. Tax capital gains on an accrual basis

4. Retrospective taxation