Jim

Well, let's say then "accepted economic theory except on Fox News. Or if you prefer - let's look at the real world examples. US where we had a modest stimulus at a time when the market was not competing for capital and thus rates were at historic lows - borrowing some money to fend off an economic crisis worked. In contrast, the UK decided to embark upon a series of austerity measures, drastically cutting their national budget. The result? Anemic economic performance with no end in sight, a spiral of unemployment, drop in consumer spending, and tax revenue -- which leads to what? Oh, I know, more austerity!! So far it has worked to a brilliant failure.

Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what were the public's primary voting motivations vs. what is true. I'll be the first to admit I don't have a finger on the pulse of UK politics, but if economics were the main point of the election then, yes, the voters did get it wrong. The UK has a dismal economy now due in large part to the continued cries of austerity by the Conservatives. The view that budget cutting and cutbacks of government spending - quite contrary to accepted economic theory, as the way to pull the country out of the post-housing recession, has been taken up by the media as a case-in-point fact. While the US stimulus was small by measure of what was really needed it proved itself a saving grace and by contract our economy is running on nitro. So why did the voters choose the Conservatives again? I'm open to suggestions other than an economic platform. It's also interesting, in contrast to the US, that even the Conservatives were talking about spending more on the UK health system - just not as much as Labor. The Conservative Party in the UK is analogous to something like Hillary over here.

Meanwhile, our pro-team is looking as good as this batter! Again - despite the preseason hype.

.................or something REALLY unique - make vehicle drivers actually pay for the full cost of infrastructure construction, maintenance, and use. Please - don't tell me that tolls and the gas tax cover this -- far from it.

Because it's a dodge in itself and an asinine premise - rather than engage on the large topic of how we spend our money - or maybe your conceding that point, we'll try and sidestep that more substantial conversation (which conservatives perennially avoid) and move to more pressing tax issues --- drum roll -- yes, bikes. Good grief.

Yea - damn pedal pushers - besides keeping extra cars off the road they are just reeking havoc on our budgets. 1. State and local subsidies to corporations: An excellent New York Times study by Louise Story calculated that state and local government provide at least $80 billion in subsidies to corporations. Over 48 big corporations received over $100 million each. GM was the biggest, at a total of $1.7 billion extracted from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each. 2. Direct federal subsidies to corporations: The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year. 3. Federal tax breaks for corporations: The tax code gives corporations special tax breaks that have reduced what is supposed to be a 35-percent tax rate to an actual tax rate of 13 percent, saving these corporations an additional $200 billion annually, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 4. Federal tax breaks for wealthy hedge fund managers: Special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate. This is the break where the multimillionaire manager pays less of a percentage in taxes than her secretary. The National Priorities Project estimates this costs taxpayers $83 billion annually, and 68 percent of those who receive this special tax break earn more than $462,500 per year (the top 1 percent of earners). 5. Subsidies to the fast food industry: Research by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley documents that taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers. 6. Mortgage deduction: The home mortgage deduction, which costs taxpayers $70 billion per year, is a huge subsidy to the real estate, banking and construction industries. The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 77 percent of the benefit goes to homeowners with incomes over $100,000 per year. 7. The billions above do not even count the government bailout of Wall Street, while all parties have done their utmost to tell the public that they did not need it, that they paid it back, or that it was a great investment. The Atlantic Monthly estimates that $7.6 trillion was made available by the Federal Reserve to banks, financial firms and investors. The Cato Institute estimates (using government figures) the final costs at $32 to $68 billion, not including the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which alone cost more than $180 billion. 8. Each major piece of legislation contains new welfare for the rich and corporations. The Boston Globe analyzed the emergency tax legislation passed by Congress in early 2013 and found it contained 43 business and energy tax breaks, together worth $67 billion. 9. Huge corporations that engage in criminal or other wrongful activities protect their leaders from being prosecuted by paying huge fees or fines to the government. You and I would be prosecuted. These corporations protect their bosses by paying off the government. For example, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase, which made a preliminary $13-billion mortgage settlement with the U.S. government, is allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion. 10. There are thousands of smaller special breaks for corporations and businesses out there. There is a special subsidy for corporate jets, which cost taxpayers $3 billion a year. The tax deduction for second homes costs $8 billion a year. Fifty billionaires received taxpayer-funded farm subsidies in the past 20 years. If you want to look at the welfare for the rich and corporations, start with the federal Internal Revenue Code. That is the King James Bible of welfare for the rich and corporations. Special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the country.

The vast majority of folks not paying net federal taxes are poor, disabled, or retired on limited income. My earlier reference to paying for items such as infrastructure has more to do with the money we are collecting now, though the current tax structure which is the lowest in 100 years for corporations seems tilted. Why, for instance do we need to spend 55% of the Federal budget on the military (and this is with out the black box intelligence budget) - which is more than the next 18 countries combined and several times more than Russia and China. A budget is a moral choice - yea, you could argue that all those defense jobs are keeping the economy churning - but I'd say it would be more useful -- and have rippling economic effects -- it we spent it across the county on rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure. Jim, where did you get that "55% of federal spending" figure? Are you sure you're not conveniently leaving out entitlement/fixed spending? Oppps - good catch - your are correct -- I meant to say "Discretionary Spending" But the amount we spend on the military is still pretty crazy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

The vast majority of folks not paying net federal taxes are poor, disabled, or retired on limited income. My earlier reference to paying for items such as infrastructure has more to do with the money we are collecting now, though the current tax structure which is the lowest in 100 years for corporations seems tilted. Why, for instance do we need to spend 55% of the Federal budget on the military (and this is with out the black box intelligence budget) - which is more than the next 18 countries combined and several times more than Russia and China. A budget is a moral choice - yea, you could argue that all those defense jobs are keeping the economy churning - but I'd say it would be more useful -- and have rippling economic effects -- it we spent it across the county on rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure.

I look at it a bit differently. Say for infrastructure - there have been numerous studies showing that our poor and ailing infrastructure is costing us in time, money, jobs, and competitiveness in world markets. That we don't allocate funds here but rather say, to a bloating military and intelligence complex, is an active decision. So it's not that folks are looking for a "free lunch" but rather that the lunch be shared a bit.

Exactly. Then my mistake. I don't believe there is a "frequent" call for debt relief from loans. And as college is getting more and more limited to a elite of America, I would advocate for more support for poor students that otherwise would not be able to afford it. It is much different than from when I went to undergraduate 40 yrs ago - when you could work during the year and hold down two jobs in the summer and come out of 4 yrs of school with little debt. That just isn't possible these days. But if you borrow it - you should just pay it back.

But, FW, education is sooo expensive! It should be "free" - just like it is in "all the other developed nations". Had very little student debt as I always worked. Same for my kid. But nice try

Nope. Probably the simplest strategy of all. Don't spend much and a acquire no debt -- or if you do then pay it off ASAP

Again, we are talking about total taxation not just federal income tax. Are you fucking retarded? Or just such a brain-addled libtard you can't actually stop and register a point? And again, you are making assumptions about my income... and also on your own intellect and abilities to navigate tax forms. I'd eat you for lunch and shit you out on any intellectual topic. You are just not worth my time. I know exactly what you are talking about. The full tax burden of federal taxes, state and local real estate taxes, sales taxes, levees, etc. Really! If you are paying 30% in taxes of your income then yes--- you are doing something wrong.

Jim just likes his little left-wing narratives way too much. I like how he extrapolates to the point of ridiculous and projects too. so cute. I'd say I've provided a good summary for a family of four and their tax burden for feds, local, and state - and providing you with the source of information - which shows a tax burden in the teens -- no where near the 30% you claim. If that really is the case I'd suggest you trot over to H&R Block next season as you are fumbling your tax returns. Or let me do it -- I manage our funds quite successfully. H&R block: trained monkeys typing data into TurboTax. Yeah, sounds like a plan. I doubt you're much higher on the evolutionary scale. Dude. If you're paying 30% in taxes you are definitely doing something wrong. Odd that a left winger can more successfully navigate the tax system, eh?

Jim just likes his little left-wing narratives way too much. I like how he extrapolates to the point of ridiculous and projects too. so cute. I'd say I've provided a good summary for a family of four and their tax burden for feds, local, and state - and providing you with the source of information - which shows a tax burden in the teens -- no where near the 30% you claim. If that really is the case I'd suggest you trot over to H&R Block next season as you are fumbling your tax returns. Or let me do it -- I manage our funds quite successfully.

...........plus those great retirement benefits and working only 6 hours a day. No wonder there is a crush of applicants to get in the schoolhouse door!

Wrong again For a family of four with earned income of $60,000 you can expect a federal tax bill of $2,573. The deduction and exemptions are $10,700 and $13,600 so your taxable income is $35,700. The federal tax rate for married filing jointly on that is $4,573. Plus such a family would get the child tax credit for each child for 2 x $1000 totaling $2,000. So the total tax is $2,573. The combined social security and Medicare tax rate is 7.65%. So for income of $60,000 you'd be giving $4,590 to SS and Medicare. And if you look at the summary of tax burden per major cities, Seattle is about 6.5%. http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxburden/ So no, with some facts I’m not seeing anything close to 30% as you claim.

Hmmm. I gave you some financials as you inquired about my spouse's salary. WTF is the big deal? You are the one crying bloody murder via taxes - it's bullshit. There is no way you are paying 30% in taxes. Most folks with a house and kids are getting plenty of deductions - even the federal standard deduction is dang generous. I'm guessing your realized tax obligations are floating around 15% or so as most middle class folks.

You've already admitted that your spouse's teaching job pays well. The argument that taxes ought to be raised on the rest of us so she can be paid even more is yours to make. You haven't even come close. I think I said "adequate" not well. With a Masters degree in Science and close to 20 years experience in teaching and 16 yrs in a science field - yea $65k isn't so bad given the structure of the teaching field. Given she'll put in an average of 60 hours each week for the school term (including breaks) and then goes in over the summer to peck away at lesson planning and collaboration, her average hourly pay is getting close to minimum wage. AND, as I said before, pay isn't the issue for teachers I know. It's the support of the system for teacher aids, special needs kids (which private schools won't touch), English as a second language help, and size of classes. They are a sturdy bunch - OK - so now you can give me the breakdown - what your gross family income, level of deductions, and tax paid. We can use the standard assumptions on state sales tax from the tax tables, and can easily calculate the levee costs of your jurisdiction. So I'm willing to listen to some stepwise presentation - otherwise it's the usual "I don't want to pay taxes" Stamp feet. Repeat.

I guarantee you are paying nowhere near 30% of your income in taxes. Show us some numbers dude - otherwise it's more emergency arm waving

I'm a data driven kinda guy. So rather than just reving up the again and again, why don't you just walk us through a few facts and figures to support the argument that you are unduly burdened?

Stunning libtard arrogance on display here. You have no clue re my taxes. And now teachers have the audacity to agitate for a 7.5% tax on capital gains? When it's possible to fund education without any tax increases? I think that's called "greedy math." And no, it's not about the kids. Thank God Republicans control the state Senate. Yawn Really. You can come up with another unsubstantiated tirade. Quite uncreative to keep recycling this one. Given you have time to while away here - I'll assume you're middle to upper-middle class in Wa. Given that - yea, your taxes are low. Show me otherwise.

Since it's your argument - how about you come up with some evidence that what we are spending on education is just wasteful. These are cute little anecdotes about over-paid elementary school principals. And the specific one you posted, her base salary is $95k. So yea, given the hours they put in all year long and the responsibilities they have - yea, it seems to correspond to their job. Somehow - that teachers are just cruising along and have a great pension is, well, a lie. If my spouse makes it to 20 years of teaching she'll be eligible for a whopping $17k year pension. AND her SS benefits will be scaled back accordingly because she gets a pension. I think most teachers would agree that central administration is a bit daunting and would benefit from efficiencies. But then again - so would Microsoft. Large organizations, no matter what, are inherently run by humans, who are flawed. You are not taxed very much on the state, local, or federal level. Get over it already.

Well, that's how it works in private industry. When I hire a new staff person if they have a Masters they have a higher base salary. So now were dodging off into the land of "administration". Interesting. I'm not hearing you whine about the Pentagon "administrators" and their programs, which make the school system finances pencil dust in comparison. What a bunch of crock.

Well kinda true. You are counting their base salary, stipends, and INSURANCE. Stipends are given for extra work - say if a teacher coaches a team or leads some other extra curricular program or club -- are you saying they shouldn't be paid more for doing more? I thought this was what the merit system was about. Just for kicks I looked up one of the teachers who makes more than $70k. A Masters and 16 years experiences with a base salary of $62k. Insurance/benefits is valued at almost $10k. Yea - posh.