Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-11-2011, 12:26 PM   #31
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Do you know what kind of return they get on those contributions? I read that baby-boomers will ee about a 1.9% average annual return on what they paid into social security, which is a lousy rate of return. My generation will pay more and receive less, so there's no way I'll break even. That teacher fund you referred to probbaly returns teachers 35% a year, guaranteed.
I'll have to check. They screwed up my payment one year and paid me as an employee as opposed to a contractor so I have something like $50 sitting in the account. I'll see if I can dig up the info.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 01-11-2011, 01:34 PM   #32
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly Rod View Post
We all had the opprotunity to work for the town, city state or federal, instead we chose the private sector. I was offered a job on three occasions and refused, would have started with four weeks paid vacation and credited with four years towards retirement but, I chose the private sector, had worked out great for me.

Jim
I do not know what your property is assessed for but, I'm assessed for 450,000 and pay about 4,200 in property taxes. If your property is assessed around the same maybe you should think about moving to Cape Ann, great fishing, nice beaches and only 2.5 hours to ski country.
FlyRod, you're right, I chose not to work in the public sector. However, I don't think that means that public employees can enslave me for eternity to fund their unreasonable demands. The bottom line is, in my opinion, what public employees are receiving is way out of whack what what we should be expected to pay for. I don't want my teachers eating cat food. But I don't want to have to get a 2nd job so that they can keep insane, antiquated benefits.

My house is assessed at $450,000 as well, and my propetry taxes are just about double yours, and mine will go WAY up this year. Plus, towns in CT charge an annual "car tax" for the privilidge of owning a car. We have a 2004 Honda Accord and a 2009 Sienna minivan, and for that, I have to pay the town about $1,000 a year. CT has been very creative in finding ways to stick their fingers in our pockets, very few states have this car tax. Plus our sales tax is 6%, income tax is 5.5%.

Everyone I love lives in central CT, so I'm stuck for now. If I could convince my parents, brothers, and 5 best friends to move to New Hampshire, we'd be g-o-n-e.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-11-2011, 02:55 PM   #33
fishpoopoo
Wipe My Bottom
iTrader: (0)
 
fishpoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Do you know what kind of return they get on those contributions? I read that baby-boomers will ee about a 1.9% average annual return on what they paid into social security, which is a lousy rate of return. .
That's in nominal terms.

If you consider real inflation ... you're getting a negative return.

fishpoopoo is offline  
Old 01-12-2011, 09:14 AM   #34
179
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
179's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Outer Banks NC, Charlestown RI
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"It surely isn't a path to wealth"

Yes, it surely is...at least here in CT it is...

My 2 best friends are a married couple who are public teachers in CT. They are each 41 years old, they have each been working for 17 years with masters degrees. Their combined income is about $160,000, and of course on top of that, they get insane healthcare and retirement benefits. You'd have to make a lot more that $160,000 in the private sector to equal their purchasing power, because of their benefits. In most towns in CT, public teachers can earn more than $85,000, and again, with ridiculous benefits. Also, here in CT, teachers don't participate in Social Security, which is a huge benefit. I wish I could have my social security taxes given back to me, because as it is, I pay into social security, and I don't expect to get much back (I'm 41 years old). That alone is a huge, huge benefit.

My only first cousin is a police officer. He started at age 21 in the city of New Haven, worked for 23 years, retired with a full pension ($paying $62,000 a year, for the rest of his life) at AGE 44. Then, he took a job as a detective in another town. So between his paycheck and his pension, he makes about $130,000.

In my opinion, those 2 situations represent wealthy folks. In my opinion, both of those scenarios are indescribably crazy, totally irrational, completely fiscally irresponsible, and not sustainable.

I'm not saying I want to pull the rug out from underneath those who are too close to retirement to make changes. But we need to cut back on benefits for those workers who are young enouogh to absorb the change. Again, everyone in the private sector went through the same exact switch 20 years ago, and we all managed to survive somehow.

As for the contracts...you will see some governmengts (towns or states) file bankruptcy in the next couple of years, which gives them legal recourse to re-negotiate the contracts.
Bingo we have somebody who actually gets it. I will tell you I am a local government worker here in NC and our benefit package and pention package are nothing like what is the norm up in RI/CT. The unions through corruption have managed bury the average taxpayer with these gold platter pension plans.
179 is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:10 AM   #35
fishpoopoo
Wipe My Bottom
iTrader: (0)
 
fishpoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,911
Wink

Interesting that folks mention pensions.

While this thread has been addressing mostly state and local situations, a lot of people also benefit from double dipping the federal pension plan.

Put in your 20 with the fed.gov, get pension, then work in a lucrative related (e.g., IT or defense contractor for the fed.gov) private sector job.

fishpoopoo is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:21 AM   #36
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,176
If I'm not mistaken, you the federal governemnt goes 25/55 or 20/60.....in other words to retire you need 25 years of service AND have to be 55 years old to retire.

a lot of the guys that are contracting w/ the government are ex-military...where the age rule does not exist. do 20 and collect, then contract out.

the federal government has also changed, where now the retirement plan is more of a 401k format. not a pension. people are grandfathered in depending on start of service date whether they qualify for pension or savings plans

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:36 AM   #37
fishpoopoo
Wipe My Bottom
iTrader: (0)
 
fishpoopoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,911
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
If I'm not mistaken, you the federal governemnt goes 25/55 or 20/60.....in other words to retire you need 25 years of service AND have to be 55 years old to retire.

a lot of the guys that are contracting w/ the government are ex-military...where the age rule does not exist. do 20 and collect, then contract out.

the federal government has also changed, where now the retirement plan is more of a 401k format. not a pension. people are grandfathered in depending on start of service date whether they qualify for pension or savings plans
not just law enforcement ... IT and systems folks (=nerds) with security clearances likely outnumber LEO double dippers.

fishpoopoo is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:01 AM   #38
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo View Post
not just law enforcement ... IT and systems folks (=nerds) with security clearances likely outnumber LEO double dippers.

That would be me...

I actually work as a contractor in the IT department in DOD and what I described is how it is in our department. I'm looking to cross over to Government, and we've had a few already do so. What I described is how it is now-a-days. 401k for new hires going forward....been that way for probably 5 years

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 03:31 PM   #39
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
We agree 100%. I don't see why you need a union for a bunch of public service employees who have a monopoly.
They need a union, because all the underachievers who attend town meetings wouldn't pay them beans if they didn't band together and negotiate en mass. And you well know as an actuary that these union members pay half of the contribution to the retirement fund, right. So its not as if the municipality pays the whole GD thing is it.

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, to give out more perks during negotiations, like vacation, sick time, blah blah blah.

If you want monkeys working for you, then pay them peanuts. You'll get what you deserve soon enough in the form of civil rights law suits, caused by brutal thugs who take the low paying jobs, because educated people will go elsewhere. These cops, fitefighters, teachers, all hire contractors to work on their houses, local garges to repair thier vehicles, plumbers, electricians, and so on. Cut thier pay and everyone else will suffer right down the line. Its all relative.

Oh, I forgot one thing, we all pay taxes as well and I dont like what they are and complain when I see waste in all its forms. It doesn't sound to me as if the private sector worked out as well as you would have liked.

One more thing, just a short story, several years ago two of the guys I was working iwth on the 12-8 shiftb, (when by all rights they should have been sleeping or eating a donut) were driving along and spotted a house on fire. Without hesitating they rushed into the house, got the four people out. Called the Fire Dept. and the fire department was able to save the house. Guy never said thanks, not once. Two weeks after that fire almost claimed the father's life(homeowner), his wife and two childrens lives, one of those heroic officers wrote the guy wo had the fire a parking ticket. Guy wrote a two page letter of complaint aout why he didn't deserve a ticket. He didn't get the ticket taken care of and he did know in the end it was the same officer who saved his life. I'm done ranting.

Last edited by Swimmer; 01-13-2011 at 04:34 PM..

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:24 PM   #40
Chesapeake Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 204
Swimmer,

It doesn't do any good to try and change mindsets. Just use the forum as a tool for culling those that you would rather not offer an invite to fish with because they would have to tell you exactly where you can stand, what bait to use, and who you should thank for the fish (them of course).

They're the first ones to complain when someone tells them what to do yet they want to do the same. They are stuck where they are so we have to hear why we should suffer. I personally don't fall for that misery loves company routine. I tried to be cordial...
Chesapeake Bill is offline  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:58 PM   #41
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill View Post
Swimmer,

It doesn't do any good to try and change mindsets. Just use the forum as a tool for culling those that you would rather not offer an invite to fish with because they would have to tell you exactly where you can stand, what bait to use, and who you should thank for the fish (them of course).

They're the first ones to complain when someone tells them what to do yet they want to do the same. They are stuck where they are so we have to hear why we should suffer. I personally don't fall for that misery loves company routine. I tried to be cordial...
Bill,
Post of the day

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline  
Old 01-14-2011, 04:29 PM   #42
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swimmer View Post
They need a union, because all the underachievers who attend town meetings wouldn't pay them beans if they didn't band together and negotiate en mass. And you well know as an actuary that these union members pay half of the contribution to the retirement fund, right. So its not as if the municipality pays the whole GD thing is it.

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, to give out more perks during negotiations, like vacation, sick time, blah blah blah.

If you want monkeys working for you, then pay them peanuts. You'll get what you deserve soon enough in the form of civil rights law suits, caused by brutal thugs who take the low paying jobs, because educated people will go elsewhere. These cops, fitefighters, teachers, all hire contractors to work on their houses, local garges to repair thier vehicles, plumbers, electricians, and so on. Cut thier pay and everyone else will suffer right down the line. Its all relative.

Oh, I forgot one thing, we all pay taxes as well and I dont like what they are and complain when I see waste in all its forms. It doesn't sound to me as if the private sector worked out as well as you would have liked.

One more thing, just a short story, several years ago two of the guys I was working iwth on the 12-8 shiftb, (when by all rights they should have been sleeping or eating a donut) were driving along and spotted a house on fire. Without hesitating they rushed into the house, got the four people out. Called the Fire Dept. and the fire department was able to save the house. Guy never said thanks, not once. Two weeks after that fire almost claimed the father's life(homeowner), his wife and two childrens lives, one of those heroic officers wrote the guy wo had the fire a parking ticket. Guy wrote a two page letter of complaint aout why he didn't deserve a ticket. He didn't get the ticket taken care of and he did know in the end it was the same officer who saved his life. I'm done ranting.
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...

Last edited by Jim in CT; 01-14-2011 at 04:35 PM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:16 PM   #43
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
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.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:33 PM   #44
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
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...

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 06:00 AM   #45
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
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

Last edited by scottw; 01-15-2011 at 09:42 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 07:09 AM   #46
Chesapeake Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 204
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.
Chesapeake Bill is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 10:52 AM   #47
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
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
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 10:59 AM   #48
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
Quote:


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

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.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 11:02 AM   #49
Forester
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 5
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.
Forester is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 11:49 AM   #50
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill View Post
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.
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?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 11:55 AM   #51
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
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.
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%

Last edited by scottw; 01-15-2011 at 12:09 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:07 PM   #52
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
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.
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:14 PM   #53
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
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?
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.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:18 PM   #54
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:27 PM   #55
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
The reason the potential income info is relevant because it affects whether someone goes into teaching. I don't know anyone who works ALL year.
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???
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:36 PM   #56
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
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.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:42 PM   #57
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
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.
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....

Last edited by scottw; 01-15-2011 at 12:49 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:59 PM   #58
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
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.
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:05 PM   #59
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
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???
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.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:07 PM   #60
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
The only fair comparison is teachers to other professionals, because that is what we are. .
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.
Jim in CT is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com