|
Quote:
you do with an art collection? there’s a reason why it’s never been tried. nice guess why i’m in a cubicle, you’ve kept alive your impressive streak of being wrong in everything. i’m in a cubicle because my goal was to find a job where i could live the way i live now, but not have to work a ton of hours. i’ve had opportunities to move into an office, but i don’t want the extra work hours. i dont need more money, i need more time with my kids. “tax capital gains at death”. which would force a huge number of people who inherited homes, to sell them because they can’t afford the tax. i would truly love all democrats to campaign on the promise of taxing unrealized capital gains. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
In 2018, the top 1% of households obtained 69% of realized long-term capital gains; the top 20% received 90% of the gains.
Although taxation on realization provides advantages with respect to liquidity and valuation, it also creates several problems. The underlying problem is that 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. Also the tax rate on realized capital gains is lower than the tax rate on wages, if the asset was held for at least a year before selling. Realized capital gains face a top statutory marginal income tax rate of 20 percent plus a supplemental net investment income tax rate of 3.8 percent, for a combined total of 23.8 percent. Wages face a top marginal tax rate of 37 percent, plus a Medicare tax rate of 2.9 percent and a supplemental tax of 0.9 percent, for a combined rate of 40.8 percent. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I have a question on school choice . Let’s say you have 2 households they pay the same property taxes both house hold incomes are the same . And both stay in the and town till the kid finish high. School Yet 1 house hold sends 1 child to public school and the other has 5 but wants them all to go to private school. Via school choices
So how much is in a school choice voucher worth I saw this On average, 8% of revenues are federal, 47% from the state, and 45% locally sourced. Since 2008, states have reduced their school funding from taxes by 12%, the most pronounced drop on record. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the parents who opt for private school are happy that they made a better choice for their kid. the public school keeps the other $10k they were going to spend in my kid, ow they have more to spend on the remaining kids. And class sizes decrease. That’s a major over simplification I know. but it could work and be win-win for everyone except teachers unions, which is the only reason why democrats oppose it. despite referring to themselves as pro choice. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
by what logic would it not work? most poor people want school choice, so are you saying you don’t trust poor black parents to be able to decide what’s best for their kids? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
You think $5000 is going to enable a poor family to send their kid to private school in any rural area or suburban area?
Would transportation be free? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
In CT, transportation is free for kids who live in the same town as the private school. even if transportation were included, it’s still a win for the town. they can now spend more money per pupil, and there are now smaller class sizes, which is unanimously agreed to help improve the quality of education. Plus common sense suggests that if public schools are faced with competition, they’d step up their game. The only downside is to the teachers unions. Which is all that matters to the Democrats. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Maybe the kids from East Hartford could just go to their choice of schools in West Hartford.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Here is the problem: at least 85% of the problem we have in inner-city, high-poverty urban schools has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the quality of education, the qualifications of the teachers, or classroom management skills. Nearly ALL of the problems stem from two things: a total lack of effective consequences that the kids find worth avoiding, and laws that keep incorrigible kids in the classroom. PERIOD—that’s it. If we took care of both of these problems, then the VAST majority of our “failing schools” problem would cease to exist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
you tell me, which political side would tend to go along with your proposal, and which would fight it. the liberals run the cities, and they run the state of CT, they could fix that today if they wanted. but my kids are now in private school because of one reason - the public schools are poorly run. unions often implement education policies that are completely at odds with what’s best for kids, and you don’t have union interference in private schools. one reason why they’re better. Pete, when i taught in an economically challenged suburb of new haven, we had problems with fights between classes. so the principal asked all the teachers to use the 5 minute break between periods to look in the hallways to keep an eye out for trouble. A reasonable request, right? That same day, the union told us to absolutely refuse to do that, because that 5 minutes was a contractually negotiated “break”, and that if the school wanted us to “work” during those 5 minutes, they’d have to pay us first. That is one thing eroding the quality of education that you left out. The unions are awful. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Because West Hartford is 80% white?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Union shop, you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work. That’s the difference between manager and master. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
No, because many people work their butts off to be able to move from Hartford to West Hartford specifically for the schools, and they deserve that. Not many people like forced busing. |
Quote:
Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day. Unlike you, I also know how to discuss things without getting ignored from people as rational as Bryan and not get banned from starting threads. I've never believed that the total measure of a man is how high he is on the company org chart. You obviously feel differently. That mindset shows in the angry, pathetic, warped nature of your posts. And you inability to ever admit that anyone to the right of Pol Pot has ever been right about anything on this forum. I'm going to retire with a nest egg that will allow my wife and I to live on the interest, and leave every cent of principal for our kids. That's my goal. Having done what we need to do to achieve that, why would I want to work any longer hours than I have to? It's a flaw to take my kids off the school bus? id rather play catch with my kids until dark than work. Id rather coach little league than miss half the games. Read into that whatever you want. Shock you're a union guy. We're all shocked. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Aren’t we talking about voluntary school choice? Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself. Excludes marginally employed people Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
And I've been in a teachers union. Since we're talking about education, which is more relevant? "you need to talk to the reps about what you’d like them to do. Common goals work." Not in any teachers union. Not how it works. |
Quote:
And there are white people living in Hartford, and minorities in West Hartford. This is news to you? "Vermont has had that for years for high school and you have to deal with transportation yourself." Most blue states are adamantly opposed. Because teachers unions don't want the competition. How did your union construction guys like it when jobs were awarded to non-union shops? Did you shake the other guys hand and offer a sincere congratulations? I don't think so. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
But have worked with some great union guys. Unions aren't that scary. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hearing voices again, I see. I also worked with union workers who were tireless heroes. But when you pay the worst teacher the same as the best teacher, every honest person knows what happens in the end. Then, with public unions, you have the insurmountable conflict interest that arises when the unions give big $$ to elect democrats, who then decide how much money to give to the unions they are beholden to. Again, it's easy to predict what happens there. Pete, the principal asked us to look in the hallway for a couple of minutes to help keep kids safe, and the union forbid us to do it. If that's OK with you, good for you. Pete, I have worked in an office and managed a team of as many as 8 actuaries. I was good at it, but now with kids I want to be done for the day at 5:00 every day. "8 guys, so you were kinda like a foreman?" I don't know what I was kinda like in your bizarre world, only what I actually was in my world. "Unions aren't that scary." Again, hearing whose voices. Not scary. But in the public sphere, they are deeply corrupt, and horribly expensive and inefficient. |
Quote:
A principal is an administrator and can't arbitrarily change work rules. That's not how it works. |
Quote:
Public sector unions are the scariest. Strictly in-shop private sector unions make the most sense and are not very scary. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com