A TEACHER'S FINANCIAL REALITY

[liberalitch]

I teach in Hampton Va.
I make $36,000 a year before taxes
Hampton city schools pays once a month
I also teach GED and tend bar to make ends meet
years of NOT making ends meet has led to huge debts which means that I will probably NEVER own a home much less a summer home.
I drive a Galant and live in a $670 a month rented apartment.

[jmcgowanjm]

1. You are an unsung hero, liberalitch

If you believe in Heaven, you're ticket has been punched.

[liberalitch]

9. That's not what I'm looking for, but I'm glad someone gets it

[leftyandproud]

2. got a budget?

I don't want to lecture but $36k is a very decent salary

$36,000 - $8040(1 year rent) = $27,960

Your take home is 10k more than I make. I have a $500 apartment, drive a 94 escort, and still manage to put away $150 a month for a future down payment. It is tough, but do-able. You just need to get everything written down. Spend every penny ON PAPER before the month begins and you wil be surprised how much money appears out of nowhere.

[asjr]

4. Do you eat?

[leftyandproud]

6. yup

salary = 17k = 15k after taxes (take home)

15k = $1250 a month

rent = $495
utilities = $60
food = $200
gas = $80
insurance (health & auto) = $120
TV/Internet = $40
monthly savings = $150

total = $1145


left = $105, or a little over $25 to blow every weekend. ;)

This is on 15k a year. like I said, tough but do-able

[Mairead]

27. Where do you live, that rent is only $495?

I pay $625 for my apartment plus about $45 electricity and that's with the lo-income (SS OAP) subsidy.

[leftyandproud]

48. Lexington, KY

all utilities paid except electric. I had the option of a small 1br for $450 but got the "deluxe" apartment with an extra 50 square ft of space and a balcony for $50 more. There are also small studios in the area for $350...but that is really cutting back. I'm not willing to go that far to save $$.

[Logansquare]

56. OK, I just went to Salary Calculator

Salary Calculator
http://www.homefair.com/homefair/calc/salcalc.html?type=to

$36000 in Hampton VA is equivalent to $32800 in Lexington KY. Salary Calculator is for potential home buyers and doesn't take into account cost of living issues like:
1. State and local income tax
2. School tax
3. Property tax
4. Home Insurance (need for flood, hurricane, etc.)
5. Car insurance rates
6. Car registration fees

If it sounds like I take your scolding personally, well I do. I live in Chicago and some of my relatives in rural Ohio seem to be under the misapprehension that I'm "rich." Never mind that non-rehabbed two flats in my neighborhood are going for $350K and up, and a two bedroom apartment *without* utilities will hit you for $800-$1000 month.

[datasuspect]

77. 36 G?

jesus, as a teacher?

in chicago?

holy shit. i made 35 grand a year as a SECRETARY almost 5 years ago.

no wonder shit is so fucked up.

and yes, i feel ya on the expensive chicago thing, but there ARE other places to live in the chicagoland area that aren't as expensive as logan square (or as fucked up).

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

31. You must be single to only spend $200 a month on groceries.

There's only 3 in my family and when spend about $150 a week (that's being very frugal with the groceries we buy too).

[Toots]

71. $200 a month on food....get real

I guess if you live in a very depressed area and either grow a lot of your food or are friends with someone who does. $200. is what most folks spend in a week for food. especially if you have children. a gallon of milk where I live is $3.95 and tomatoes are 4@,10 a pound. Stew meat is $4.50 a pound. I suppose if I lived in a Hostel I could get by on $500. a month on food but on a starvation diet.

[datasuspect]

78. try 20 - 25 per week

i get 150/month in food stamps, eat a lot of healthy home-cooked meals and live in chicago.

i'm not starving.

but then again it is just me.

[mordarlar]

82. I have the same monthly income as you....

I have three kids in a two bedroom apt. 98 escort is paid. We make it but it is very tight. I won't keep credit cards so i have minimal debt but it is still daunting. Can't seem to make a dent in it. ($9000 divorce att. and some medical) After survival is paid for there is little to pay off bills. Food is the killer. Damn kids eat so much. LOL

[Blue_Roses]

83. so I guess you don't have kids

nt

[bleedingheart]

5. your forgetting that is her Gross..not Net pay...

and it is Virginia ...some areas are far more expensive to live in than others...

[FromTheLeft]

7. I live in the capitol of NY

and my W2s last year added up to less than 25k and I still manage to put a little away every month and still have a bit of fun money. I have to agree with the poster above, it's all in how you budget.

[bleedingheart]

28. I don't know the poster's age but if she/he has loans

from school...it might be rather difficult.

When I got out of college I struggled to survive.

Budgets work, and I use one myself...BUT...budgets can be blown to hell if even one bad thing happens. For instance I got a lymphatic infection and even with health insurance I ended up owing hundreds of dollars...that really threw a wrench in my budget.

[FromTheLeft]

34. This is true...

Unexpected stops in income and unexpected new debt can absolutely mess things up, point well taken.

And I am right out of school, but I worked all through college and went to a state school to keep my debt low.

[liberalitch]

8. Okay now take 28% of the 36,000 and that's my take home

So I actually take home $25,920

so in reality
$25,920 - $8040 = $17,880

then about $400 in month in utilities and $200 car payment and $80 insurance so...

[Bouncy Ball]

43. Beware of people who say

"I don't want to lecture you BUT...."

It means they are about to do just that.

[SoCalDem]

61. Apples-Oranges

A LOT depends on family size, state of residence, distance of commute, other family obligations..

I have known highly paid people who were virtually broke.. and did not live "high on the hog"..

and I have also known people who made a modest living, and had lots of savings..

Judging others' lifestyles is a tricky thing.. Others can ALWAYS point out where we can "stretch" a budget and save..

And, budgets "on paper" always "work out ":)

[AllegroRondo]

3. Robert Reich on NPR this morning

addressed the disparity in teacher pay and school system funding.

he suggested we do away entirely with property taxes for school funding, which tends to skew funding toward wealthy neighborhoods. Instead, we could have a national 'wealth tax', of 1/10 of 1% of all assets, which would be distributed among all schools based on number of pupils.

[tcoursen]

10. Property taxes

Property tax funding of schools is a big issue right now in NJ. Many people are upset about the high property taxes in NJ.

But I don't see why property tax funding of local schools is bad. If a town has more money why should they not be allowed to pay more to teachers and have better schools? I have one kid in school and one more about to start in two years. So I don't mind the property taxes. More than 1/2 of my property tax goes into the school district. So i feel that I do get a lot of value out of that part of the taxes that I pay. Of all the taxes that I pay, the property taxes that I pay have the biggest most direct impact on my daily life. Schools, garbage pick up, snow plowing, police.

In the example that I gave in the other thread I had average salaries for my kids grammar school and my brothers. Both schools are K-5. My town had an avg. of 66K, his town 44K. However, when you look at the cost per student, his town was MORE. And the students per class ratio I think was the same. So where is this money going?

In NJ the school district of the town is very important to the prices of the houses. You can have two towns right next to each other, same style houses, etc. etc. But if one town has better schools, the prices in that town jump. So reforming the schools and making them all "the same" won't get very far in NJ. People are not going to be happy if you kill the resale value of their home by making their rich suburb school district crappy like the inner cities.

because it won't be that the inner-cities get better, you will end up taking money from the rich towns making them worse. In NJ the 30 worst school districts in terms of students passing and test scores, graduation rates, etc. are called "abbot" districts. They get this name because of a court case. Anyway, these districts get extra special money and some of them are controlled by the state because the towns f'd them up so much. On a per student basis, these towns which are poor, spend MORE per student than many of the rich towns, and more than most of the middle class working towns. Yet they still have major problems.

Taxing wealth and dumping more money into these districts is not going to fix the problem that those cities have.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Property taxes are a HORRIBLE way to fund schools

All they lead to is gross inequalities between rich and poor districts. Or, as Jonathan Kozol describes by the title of his book, Savage Inequalities.

If you've never heard of it, I suggest you read it. It will go a long way toward opening your eyes to the fallacy of much of what you're proposing here.

As it stands right now, many wealthy districts actually tax residents at a LOWER rate than many poorer districts. They are able to do this because they have so much more money coming in even at these lower tax rates.

Your entire argument is based on the idea of "defending what you have" rather than seeking ways to "lift up those who don't have". You express a preoccupation with the wealthier districts becoming like "crappy inner city districts", which only demonstrates this attitude of being concerned with defending your turf.

The problem is, there's no basis to your argument. Higher per student spending in poorer districts is likely NOT an overall cost, but rather the amount of STATE aid that the district receives. I guarantee you, once everything is factored in, students in these poorer districts are still receiving far less in per-pupil spending than those in wealthier districts.

A "wealth tax" to fund schools across the board would be a good idea, IMHO. It would remove the burden of property taxes from older people who can hardly keep up with their payments, and instead actually shift the burden on to those who can pay. Furthermore, it would result in a system in which children in both inner cities and wealthy suburbs might actually have a shot at a decent education.

John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in his book The Affluent Society that if we wanted to truly address problems of systemic poverty, then we needed to dedicate MORE resources toward those communities than the more affluent ones. Education policy is no different in this regard. Children in affluent districts already have massive advantages over poor inner-city and poor rural youth, just by nature of the birth canal lottery. Therefore, if we want to give those poorer kids anything approaching an "equal chance", we need to invest MORE toward them in order to make up for those inequalities.

[ProfessorGAC]

42. See I/C, Back On The Same Page

Your tome on this subject accurately (geez, almost exactly) reflects my feelings and opinions.

I knew we only had to wait 10 minutes or so and we'd be back on the same page!
The Professor

[IrateCitizen]

68. We never drift too far apart, do we Prof?

I think that the areas in which we actively disagree are far less frequent than the areas in which we agree.... :D

[ret5hd]

12. this could be restated as:

if a town has less money why shouldn't they be forced to have inferior schools and condemn the majority of their chldren to a life of servitude to the more fortunate children of the town next door whose only redeeming quality is that they were smart enough to be born to richer parents.

greed...and strawman arguments:
(People are not going to be happy if you kill the resale value of their home by making their rich suburb school district crappy like the inner cities)

thats all i see here.

[tcoursen]

14. poor schools

But the poor schools are already paying more per student than the rich towns.

So how that less money?

Property values are already overpriced in NJ. If you kill the values of those then you are just killing the economy of NJ for no reason. That makes sense to you? Lets kill the value of the homes in the rich suburbs so they don't have any more money to send to the inner cities.

It may sound greedy to you, but I see no problem with wanting my tax dollars to pay for my kids education. Money I pay in state income taxes goes into the general fund, and money from there goes to the poor towns to help bump up the money they spend on education. To me that is not greedy, it is taking care of my children. Something I plan for and work hard to do.

[LynneSin]

17. You are so out of it

Your tax dollars pay for every child not just the ones lucky to live in a wealthy neighborhood. I live in a city filled with crime, many from kids who just aren't given any chance because of their poor school systems. Well my tax dollars will pay for those children too.

My tax dollars will pay for the foodstamps and welfare needed to feed these children who one day will be on their own without much hope or prospect of a decent job. My tax dollars will pay for their medicare too.

My tax dollars will pay for the police/prison systems used to rehabilitate many of these kids because their only choice to make any money is the drug trade since school pretty much offers no hope except minimum wage

Believe me, you're spending tax dollars on these kids - property taxes need to be sent to one central pool that can be distributed to all schools fairly.

Must be nice to have your fucking head in the ground unaware of what's going on with the rest of the world. And I know all about NJ - property taxes aren't the only problem, that whole state is a financial nightmare. Stop making the children suffer because of your selfishness!!!

[tcoursen]

35. let me restate

I have no problem with paying for that stuff for the needy. My point was, that I already pay enough for that stuff through my income taxes to the state, so don't mess with the way my schools get paid for. I would rather see my property taxes pay for my kids and have good schools in my town. Don't take away money from my town to give to the other towns. That is all I am saying.

It is not selfish to want my kids to go to good schools. It is not selfish to want the value of my house, the one I live in, to decrease in value. I already pay all the other taxes that go to the needy, fine. I have no problem with that. But don't take away from and hurt the towns that are already doing a fine job with their schools.

[AllegroRondo]

36. Translation

segregation by economic class is good, as long as I get to benefit from it.

[tcoursen]

45. we already have that

Isn't that what we already have? I mean, the people that live in my neighborhood are going to be in the same economic class that I am. The people that live in your neighboorhood are in the same economic class that you are.

And spending more money than we already do in those towns is going to make that any differant? I don't see how. Best you can do is get more of the children educated. Then guess what they will do, move to a better town to be in a new economic class.

You will always have economic classes in this country as long as we are a capitalist society.

[LynneSin]

49. But what would happen if we gave kids in poor economica background.....

...the same level of education as those in the wealthier neighborhoods? I came from one of those poor school districts (mine was rural) and believe me, a better education and I think I could have had better opportunities out there. Instead I had to work twice as hard knowing that my school system lacked so much compared to nearby wealthier school districts. I had a a pretty good school transcripts for what I could do with my school, but I had no advance science courses, languages or college level math simply because my school did not offer these things. That only put me miles behind students coming from better funded schools.

[tcoursen]

51. who knows

I have already posted links to the budgets of all the NJ schools. The poor inner cities already budget MORE per student than the middle class towns and rich towns.

So they are spending more money per kid. Where is it going? It isn't going to the teachers in the poor towns, and this is what that thread was about. Somewhere along the way the money isn't being translated into classroom results.

Why is it that for the same amount of money per pupil, the better school districts can do a better job?

[AllegroRondo]

53. OK, Ive done some digging on those links

and there are some important facts buried in those numbers

- the 'total $ per student' includes money spent on food service, to include subsidies for free or reduced lunches and breakfasts, which account for a much bigger cost in poor districts.

- it also includes maintenance to facilities, which is disproportionately high in older (inner city) districts with older buildings


So whats happening?
Sure, they are getting the same amount of money per pupil, but the less wealthy districts have to spend that on things like lunch subsidies and maintenance first. It wouldnt surprize me to see more 'hidden' costs in there as well.

[AllegroRondo]

62. And the funding per student still varies wildly

from $8K in some districts to almost $15K in others. I wont pretend to understand the vagaries of the New Jersey school funding system, as I dont live there or have the time to dig through the numbers.
But I do have numbers for MY local schools (St Louis) that show the problems. In this area, funding ranges from over $13K per student in Maplewood district, where each high school freshman gets a laptop computer provided by the school; to St Louis City, where funding is around $8K per student and the district just underwent bankruptcy; to rural Steelville, where funding is around $5K per student. Who do you think will get the best education?
http://www.msbanet.org/pdf/adequacy.pdf#search='missouri%20school%20district%20finance'

[IrateCitizen]

64. Security is a big cost as well....

One that is certainly required in Newark and Camden's schools, and certainly isn't as prevalent in Princeton or Bergen County.

[LynneSin]

57. Seems you choose to ignore IrateCitizen so I'm going to repost what he sai

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3204556&mesg_id=3204887&page=

But the poor schools are already paying more per student than the rich towns.

No, they are not. They are receiving more state funding per pupil than the rich towns. That additional funding, however, goes very little toward making up the funding disparity that already exists between poor and rich areas due to vast differences in property tax income.

Property values are already overpriced in NJ. If you kill the values of those then you are just killing the economy of NJ for no reason. That makes sense to you? Lets kill the value of the homes in the rich suburbs so they don't have any more money to send to the inner cities.

This is also an incorrect statement. Rich suburbs usually RECEIVE more tax funding from the state than they contribute toward inner cities. After all, where do you think the money comes from when a new road is built or an existing one is upgraded in the suburbs? It comes from the state coffers, by and large. OTOH, if rich suburbs in NJ were truly giving money back to the inner cities, then I would think that Camden, Trenton and Newark wouldn't be the shitholes that they currently are.

And don't worry about sounding greedy to us. You're sounding perfectly greedy to us. In fact, by John Kenneth Galbraith's definition, you're sounding downright conservative. JKG defined conservatism as the relentless search of justifying selfishness as a virtue.

Which would you rather pay -- tax dollars now to help these inner-city kids get a chance at a better life, or tax dollars later (and more of them) to house them in penitentaries? It's you're choice, one or the other.

His comments are in italics, the dumbass facts you're trying to push on us is in bold italics. BTW, what qualifications does Irate have to make these comments - from another post he states he comes from a family of teachers, his wife is a teacher and he's looking to get into teaching.

Stop being so fucking selfish with this "Me first" and screw the poor folks mentality

[tcoursen]

58. I responded

I posted a link to several school budgets in another response in this thread that showed that poor school districts spend more than non poor districts. For example, Newark spent almost 3K more per student than the school district that my kids go to.

Second, unless you live in NJ I will respectfully submit that you do not fully understand the property tax issue in this state. Many of the towns that have very high property taxes have them because of all the development. People have bought up all these "McMansions" and are now suprised that the taxes are high. So they now want property tax relief. It isn't the people in the older middle class towns like the one that I live in that are having a problem. So the people in their little McMansions want relief. If you reform the property tax issue and lower everybodies property tax, the money will still have to come from somewhere, whether it be a higher sales tax, higher income tax, whatever. And that will be distributed amongst all the people, effecting the people that don't even live in these suburbs. Is that right? That is why I am against property tax reform in NJ. It will be letting all of these people in the mcmansions off the hook. They bought the big damn houses, they should pay for it.

Please explain to me how it is selfish for me to not want the house I live in to go down in value? Are you actually saying that ALL the people that live in the better towns in NJ should have the values of their houses killed? Would you want the value of your house to go down and the quality of the school that your kids go to to go down? Seriously, I am all for helping the poor and all that, but when it comes to the value of my own house and my own kids, I have to be very concerned about that.

[AllegroRondo]

59. I cant follow your logic

why would the value of your house go down if public schools as a whole are made better?

[IrateCitizen]

67. It's a red herring, pay it no mind.

He's also saying that his kids' schools would get WORSE as opposed to lifting up at-risk schools to a higher level.

His argument isn't based on logic, it's based on fear. He's afraid of losing his slight position of privilege in life for him and his kids, and has given into scapegoating the less fortunate instead of looking in the direction of who is actually attacking his quality of life -- the ruling class and the ultra-rich.

[tcoursen]

75. I will explain again

First of all I am not ultra rich and I do not live in a rich town. I live in a very middle class town that is very "blue". Has had and will probably always have a democrat mayor.

In NJ most of the school funding comes from property taxes. The richer, better off towns, do have a better base for collecting taxes and do spend a lot of money on their schools. These towns also get very little in terms of state aid. They are doing it themselves. To balance this out the state tries to give money to the towns that can't keep up. So there are towns that have better schools than others, this probably happens everywhere. But some of the best school districts in the state are not in towns that everybody would consider "rich" towns. For example, Middletown Twp. has some of the best schools in the state. It is not a rich town. So what happens is that this effects the property values. You could take two houses that are the same size and style and put them in two towns next to each other. The house that is in the town with the better schools will have a higher property value. This probably goes on in other states. I live at the end of town. A few blocks from me there is a street where one side of the street is the town I live in, and the other side is the next town. My town has slightly better schools. Houses on my towns side of the street go for more money.

That is the current state of affairs. Property taxes, for a variety of reasons, have been going up and up over the last decade. There is now a movement within NJ to reform property taxes and how schools are paid for. They want to take the school tax portion out of the local property taxes. For the record the teachers union opposes this just like I do. I have been labeled as selfish in this thread for opposing it, is the teachers union selfish as well? They feel that this will cut down on their salaries, so that is why they oppose it. Is it OK for them to oppose it for the selfish reasons of salaray, and not OK for me to be selfish for my own kids?

Anyway, the local towns will not have the control over the funding. They will be at the mercy of the state. There are two sets of towns that will most likely get a bulk of the money. The at need districts, who I have already shown spend more than most towns already, and the towns that have been growing. These towns are the rich suburbs with the 400K+ houses. These are the people that are complaining about the high taxes. They bought their McMansion in the new fancy development only to find that the town now needs to build new schools for all the new people. Those towns will get the money. The towns that had spent a lot of money on their schools and that were spending above the average will most likely NOT get the same level of funding. So the better schools will suffer. The average in NJ for spending per pupil I belive was 11K, almost 12K. So the town that was above that, say at the 14K level will probably lose some funding to bring up the school say at the 10K or 9K level. The teachers union opposes it because they like that the richer towns have the flexibility to pay their teachers more. This bumps up their salaries across the board. The rich towns pay 60K+ to the teachers, so the towns in the middle have to come close to that so they pay say 45-50K. The poor towns have to bump up and come close to the middle towns, so they have to raise their salaries as well. The state would probably come in and level out salaries across the board to make it more fair. And I don't think they are going to say, OK, we are going to pay everybody what the top schools are getting. They will probably pick something more in the middle.

So now that town that had great schools will not have such great schools. They will have to cut back on something. So now their schools are no better than the next town. So now when looking at the houses in those two towns there won't be that same difference, so the town that used to have higher property values, will take a hit. And that will trickle down. if the houses in the rich suburb are no longer 400K and are now only 350K, well, my 300K house will now be worth less as well.

Meanwhile, the property taxes have gotten lower for all the rich suburbs. They no longer have the burden to build the schools in the towns that they have flocked to. The property taxes will be replaced with a combination of higher income taxes and sales taxes. So the people in the towns that didn't have a problem to begin with, will be paying for the schools in the rich suburbs with their sales taxes.

I still don't understand why it is selfish to want good for my kids. Isn't that what a good parent should be doing? We all want what is best for our kids don't we? If I was posting saying how I had just worked two jobs and scrapped up and saved tons of money so i could buy a house in a better town and get out of a poor town so my kids could go to a better school people would be posting what a great parent I was and how lucky my kids are to have a parent that cares.

It is the people that have flocked to these mcMansion type developments with their large SUV's who are now complaining about have to pay large taxes on their large houses that are the problem. it isn't the people like me that work hard and live in a smaller house that I can afford on my salary so my wife can be a stay at home mom that are the problem.

I have no problem with money going to the at need districts. In NJ that is already happening. The state has programs for these towns and money from the state income tax and sales taxes go to these towns. I provided links in other parts of this thread to the budgets of every school district in the state. Many of these at need districts have budgets that are more per pupil than most places in the state.

In my opinion the school funding is not the problem. Giving more money to one of these districts is NOT going to fix the underlying problems of why the kids struggle in school. Spending more at the school is not going to give the poor kids a stable home life, or get them out of poverty, give them safe streets, make them not hungry, etc. Until you fix the other problems, these kids are not going to be able to do well in school. If the kid does not have a stable home life, or goes to bed hungry every night, or any other problem you can think of, is that kid going to do well in school? Is spending more money and getting that kid a new computer in the class, or a new set of text books going to make that kid do better in school? I would argue no, that the problem is beyond the school.

[IrateCitizen]

81. First off, I didn't say you were "ultra-rich"....

I recognized that you said you are middle class.

Do kids in at-risk schools face more problems that inadequate school funding? Absolutely! But using this as an excuse for NOT investing more money in their schools -- especially the physical infrastructure -- is hardly the answer.

You identified the main problem yourself in this post -- the richer districts that don't want to pay taxes. In most instances, these richer districts actually have much LOWER property tax rates than middle class or inner city districts, but those lower rates still produce MORE money. Then, they often turn around and say that at-risk schools are underfunded because the people in those areas don't have the desire to invest money into education. :wtf:

You are looking at this problem from a perspective of feeling as if you are under siege. You and your wife have put your children first, and should certainly be commended for that. It's too rare of a thing nowadays. But you also see your hard work coming under attack from outside forces, and in response are reacting to those in a way that you think will help maintain your current position. The problem is, in the long run, you and yours will come under attack as well. In this sense, you actually have much more in common with the denizens of inner-city areas than you do with all of the rich suburban enclaves in NJ. But you've been tricked into fighting AGAINST measures that would help to lift up those inner-city folks because you have come to see it as threatening to your own position.

The main threat here isn't from the inner city folks. It's from the rich folks and the ruling class who just want to take care of their own and leave everyone else to fend for themselves. Don't expect the citizens of those rich enclaves to stick up for you when you come under attack, because they couldn't care less. They will simply see the gutting of your social programs as a net gain for them. However, by forging common cause with those already under attack, and by sticking up for each other, residents of an area like yours and the concerned residents of inner-city neighborhoods can actually make things better all around.

Much of the money in inner-city schools IS misappropriated. I'm well aware of it being documented. However, if you do not promote programs to attract and keep quality teachers in these schools, while providing them effective and able administrators (horrible admin in these schools is the source of MANY of their problems), then you may be taking the first step toward turning them around. But this costs money, money the inner cities currently do not have. It shouldn't necessarily come from you, as a middle class neighborhood either. It should come from the rich, because their offspring already enjoy the myriad of innate advantages inherent with winning the birth canal lottery. That's where the "wealth tax" comes in.

[tcoursen]

85. I think we agree on a lot

I think you are misreading a lot of what I say.

When you say that I have more in common with the inner city people, I agree with you.

The people in the inner city dont' want to change the way schools are funded either. I think you think that I am against funding the inner cities, I am not. I have no problem with them getting funded.

This started when somebody posted that schools should not be funded with property taxes. I am against changing the formula, not against the funding. I think you think I am against the funding. I am against shifting WHO is paying for it.

I don't want to pay for the rich suburbs. Right now, the way schools are funded, they are paying for themselves. They want to switch that.

I went back and looked at the budgets again. They have a number that is a breakdown of the % of money that comes from their local taxes and what comes from the state.

In Newark, 9% of their funding comes from local taxes. Camden, 3%. So as a tax payer I am paying for a lot of the schools in those towns.

Now lets move to my town. 85% comes from local taxes.

Now lets move on to the richer towns. Summit 92%, Westfield 89%, Millburn 90%.

What I am opposing is having the formula changed so that those richer towns have lower property taxes and pay less of the % themselves. That is exactly what the teachers union opposes as well.

The teachers union WANTS the rich districts. The rich districts, at least in NJ, help to raise the salaries in the other districts. Camden and Newark have to offer salaries closer to what the subs are paying just to get a teacher. The union knows this.

The way I see the property tax reform issue in NJ is that it is a scam to help the rich transfer some of the high property tax burden that they have created for themselves onto the people that don't live in the high property tax towns. They don't like the fact that their property taxes are 10K for their McMansion. They want their taxes lowered. Well nobody forced them to buy their overpriced house out in the burbs and drive their gas guzzlin' SUV's. They want to now have those taxes passed off to the rest of us. THAT is what I oppose, NOT funding for schools.

I am not sure exactly how a wealth tax would work.

[LynneSin]

72. Put your head in a hole and let the children who live in lower incomes rot

Fortunately, I know enough people in New Jersey that really do care about this issue. Obviously the only thing important in your world is you. Enjoy your shallow existance!

[tcoursen]

76. Did you look at the link with the budgets?

Did you look at the link with the budgets?

Newark, which is one of the worst school districts in the state, has a budget that is more per pupil that most other places in the state. It was more than 2K above the state average per pupil.

How much more do we need to spend on a district like that? Just curious.

I am not saying that we should not spend money on these districts. I am arguing against the change that the many in the state want to do. There are many in NJ that want to change how the schools are funded. They want to stop having it done through property taxes.

Guess who else doesn't want it to change. THE TEACHERS UNION. So I guess they have their heads in a hole also. I am on the same side as the NJ teachers union on this issue.

[LynneSin]

87. Like I said - enjoy the head in the hole

Get over it - you want to make sure you kid and your neighborhood isn't touched by poverty. As Irate pointed out they may be getting more money for the schools (which many are overcrowded) but don't think your fancy neighborhood isn't syphoning off just as much tax dollars in order to keep it all nice and clean from poverty.

Must be nice to live in your sheltered world

[IrateCitizen]

18. Your first sentence is completely and utterly false

But the poor schools are already paying more per student than the rich towns.

No, they are not. They are receiving more state funding per pupil than the rich towns. That additional funding, however, goes very little toward making up the funding disparity that already exists between poor and rich areas due to vast differences in property tax income.

Property values are already overpriced in NJ. If you kill the values of those then you are just killing the economy of NJ for no reason. That makes sense to you? Lets kill the value of the homes in the rich suburbs so they don't have any more money to send to the inner cities.

This is also an incorrect statement. Rich suburbs usually RECEIVE more tax funding from the state than they contribute toward inner cities. After all, where do you think the money comes from when a new road is built or an existing one is upgraded in the suburbs? It comes from the state coffers, by and large. OTOH, if rich suburbs in NJ were truly giving money back to the inner cities, then I would think that Camden, Trenton and Newark wouldn't be the shitholes that they currently are.

And don't worry about sounding greedy to us. You're sounding perfectly greedy to us. In fact, by John Kenneth Galbraith's definition, you're sounding downright conservative. JKG defined conservatism as the relentless search of justifying selfishness as a virtue.

Which would you rather pay -- tax dollars now to help these inner-city kids get a chance at a better life, or tax dollars later (and more of them) to house them in penitentaries? It's you're choice, one or the other.

[LynneSin]

21. damn that was good

:yourock:

Then again I was always more of an emotional poster but you always come up with the best facts to back what you have to say!!!

[IrateCitizen]

25. I've become insulated to emotion in responding to this bullshit

As the son of two teachers, husband to another, and someone studying to switch career tracks into the field myself, I've heard all the arguments out there, and then some. It was absolutely amazing some of the stuff that was directed at my parents when they taught -- like people saying that if both the husband and wife taught in the district(as my parents did), they should only receive one salary!

Basically, the perspective of tclausen is one of selfishness based on fear. He/she sees that his/her kids currently have a privilege of being able to attend school in a rich district, and sees the possible leveling of educational opportunities as a threat to that privilege. The problem tclausen doesn't recognize is that this is an extremely shortsighted way of thinking, and fails to take into account much longer term effects. In short, tclausen is blinded by his/her own selfishness in this matter to all reality to the contrary.

[tcoursen]

38. about me

First of all, I never said I live in a rich district. I don't. I live in a very middle class blue collar town. I live in this town because I can afford to live hear and not have my wife have to work. She can be a stay at home mom.

So it is selfish to want my kids to go to decent schools? Sorry if I want to put my kids first. Isn't that what a good parent is supposed to do? Sorry if I don't want the value of my house to go down.

[tcoursen]

37. school budgets

I am talking stritcly about school budgets. Do you live in NJ? DO you know how the schools are funded here?

A vast majority of the schools budgets come from the property taxes in that town. The poor towns like Newark, Jersey City, Camden, etc. get a lot more state aid for education than do middle class towns.

Newarks school budget for the year is more PER STUDENT, than most other towns, including many of the wealthy. This is the total of what they spend. Money they get from their own funding, and money they get from the state. The inner cities, while poor, do still collect a lot of property taxes.

I am conservative when it comes to property taxes. I like the idea of property taxes and how they fund the stuff that I use. I pay the tax, I use the service. If you change the model and make property taxes lower, you are just gonna spread out the money everywhere, and it will all end up in the inner cities. That is were the state aid goes, at least in NJ it does.

I don't think it is greedy to be more concerned with the education of my OWN kid than kids in other towns. Sorry, that is not greedy, it is trying to be a good parent.

[IrateCitizen]

63. Wanting the best for your own at the EXPENSE of others is selfishness

See, that's the difference. You want the best for your kids, which is what any parent wants. But in wanting the best for your kids, your view is in effect saying the hell with less fortunate kids. That's pure selfishness.

The fact that you said you live in a relatively blue collar town makes even MORE sense with your view now. BTW -- Karl Rove thanks you for your service in the cause. You are, by nature of your inflexible stance, looking to deny the children of others the tools for creating a better life for themselves, simultaneously blaming them for their own condition, while the ultra-rich and the ruling class screw BOTH of you over. Those undesirables living in Camden, Newark and Trenton, among other places, are being used as a buttress against you to inspire fear, and the sad thing is you're playing right into their hands.

You keep saying that state aid all flows in NJ to the cities, yet you have provided NOT ONE EXAMPLE of this outside of saying that inner city kids get more per-pupil state funding than suburban kids. If all this money is flowing into Newark and Camden, then why in the hell is life so damned hopeless for so many people living there? Oh, I forgot -- it's their own damned fault.

[tcoursen]

80. I have posted

I have posted links to the budget of every school district in the state.

It is a fact that towns like Newark and Camden do spend more per student than other places. A fact is a fact. I do not have an answer for why those places suck. I think it goes well beyond the schools. You can spend all you want on the schools and I honestly think it wouldn't make much of a differance. if the parents of the kids still live in poverty, don't have money to feed and clothes the kids, etc. etc., how well are they going to do in school? if the kid doesn't get support at home to make sure he/she is keeping up with school work, encouraging them, etc. etc., are they going to do well? People in other threads have said that poor people move a lot. So if the kids don't have a stable home life and bounce from school to school are they going to do well? It seems to me that the a lot of the problems in these towns go beyond what happens in the school.

Here is the link again :

http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc04/menu/01.html

From here you can go to any city in NJ.

For some examples of poor towns check out

Newark
Irvington
East Orange
Camden
Jersey City
Atlantic City

For some rich towns check out

Rumson
Colts Neck
Short Hills
Tewksbury

I do want what I think is best for my kids, who doesn't. I don't live in a town with the best schools. My towns schools are right smack dab in the middle.

[LynneSin]

16. Sorry but NO - you're wrong

So you're saying it's ok that we punish those who live in areas with less property taxes to fund the schools. Great, let's punish our children who happen to come from poorer backgrounds. Thus the whole system of property taxes for education is a vicicious cycle - these kids in urban areas get poorer education, have a tougher time getting into college and thus ending up restarting the circle with their kids.

New Jersey as a whole is just messed up with taxes but punishing children for it is just WRONG. Every child has the right to get a great education and if property taxes were more fairly distrubuted all children might have a chance. There are school districts out there that are overflowing with so much cash that they give their kids all sorts of extras including a district in PA that gave all kids palm pilots. That money could have been used for another system that needs stuff like current textbooks instead.

wrongwrongwrong.

[tcoursen]

39. tax dollars

Do the inner cities collect less in tax dollars?

The children in NJ are being punished because the schools in those towns are run poorly. They get more money each and every year, but they don't get results. I am not convinced that simply giving them more money is the best way to get results.

The city of Newark has some of, if not the, worst schools in the state. So is the mayor concerned with that? Not really. The city just signed a long term lease for the land that is used for Newark airport. hundreds of millions of dollars. HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. So guess what they want to do with the money. Build some new schools, hire some new teachers? NO, they want to build a f'n arena for the hockey team. Give me a break.

These cities have more than enough money to pay for their own stuff, if they really wanted to.

[ryan_cats]

22. I agree

What chaps me is that when developers build housing tracts, they overload the local infrastructure. It seems that they always get a sweetheart deal and never have to come up with cash to cover the burden their new homes put on us the taxpayer.

If it were up to me, the developers would have to pay to increase the infrastrcture first, then they can build their mcmansions.

[jmcgowanjm]

73. yes, the Suburbs are being subsidized

They must be. The Housing boom-see Toll Bro,
Hovnanian, Comstock, Ryland Group, for details-
demands it.

I'm living in the fastest growing region of the US-
NWArk, and schools are the last consideration-
following developments. The West side Sewer
facility is just now getting off the drawing board (
Fayetteville has one wastwater treatment plant now).

Benton Co has just announced that the entire county
will be zoned, meaning farmland will automatically
come in second to development. Benton is one
of the top 100 Ag Counties in the US.

Springdale, the state's largest school district
just built another HS, and it's going to be packed.

This area is the ultimate WalMart model-Urban
Sprawl financed at the expense of densley populated
inner cities and made possible only w/ cheap gas.

The good news will be that when the collapse comes
the schools won't suffer that much, because basic
infrastructure never made it to the 'Burbs.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Where are the figures that support your statements?

I keep hearing about "dumping more money" into poor districts & how it doesn't work. (The older phrase was "throwing money at"...)

Looking at the real numbers will help.

[tcoursen]

41. here ya go

Here is my town :

http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc04/dataselect.php?c=23;d=5850;s=260;lt=CD;st=CD&datasection=all

Budget per pupil : 10,333

here is newark : http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc04/dataselect.php?c=13;d=3570;s=170;lt=CD;st=CD&datasection=all

Budget per pupil : 14826


Here is Rumson. Richest town in the state. Home of Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen

http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc04/dataselect.php?c=25;d=4580;s=050;lt=CD;st=CD&datasection=all

Budget per pupil : 14650

So show me where the poor towns are getting screwed?

[AllegroRondo]

52. Your links arent working

[sybylla]

26. Have I said lately how much I love Robert Reich?

If our next President doesn't find something for that man to do I'll, I'll...well, you know what I mean.

[LynneSin]

13. How much of your money goes to buying supplies?

I'll give credit to our local drug stor Happy Harry's here in Delaware - they offer school teachers a discount on any supplies they purchase with ID.

[liberalitch]

23. My kids are all VERY poor (phoebus section of Hampton)

So they don't have pens, pencils, paper, notebooks..... me and my colleagues mostly supply them

Between $50 and $150 every two months

[LynneSin]

50. Check around, I"m sure there are places that offer discounts to

teachers for supplies they purchase.

[GOPBasher]

15. I'm a teacher working for $24,000/yr, and I actually take home less than

$20,000, because I pay for health insurance and, of course, taxes. I live in a house that my dad owns (thank God), and I wouldn't be able to live otherwise because, like you, I have tons of debt. My debt came from getting through school -- student loans and credit cards that I was living off. I got that degree to, apparently, make less than $20,000/yr. Yeah, we just got it made, don't we? :eyes:

I feel bad for your situation, and trust me, I can relate.

[flvegan]

19. Thanks for the reality check, and for your profession.

[ryan_cats]

20. Thank You!

Thank You.

A friend's wife is a teacher. Not only does she not make a lot of money, she usually buys supplies for the class out of her own pocket. Without good teachers, we'd all be buying the republican's message.

[amazona]

29. careful with this argument

A lot of us would LOVE to make $36,000 a year. That is $3K a month!!!!! Isn't this just about the median income in the U.S.?

People are not necessarily going to be sympathetic to the argument that teachers should earn more than average when the rest of us are falling so much further behind.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[lapislzi]

32. That's before taxes

I don't know what kind of area the OP lives in, but a salary like that doesn't go too far in the NY area. My SO teaches in a charter school and makes about the same. He brings home about 2/3 of that 36k salary.

He takes freelance work and teaches summer school to help pay the bills--and that's as a part of a 2-income household. We're not starving, but I would say that we're 1 or 2 paychecks (or 1 serious illness) away from real financial trouble.

You can't afford to LIVE in the area in which you teach if it's a place like NYC or its suburbs. We live far out of town.

[bloom]

33. another thing

about teacher's salaries - around here anyway - is people automatically make more the more years they work - so they get up into the $50,000+ range. That isn't the case for a lot of jobs.

There are a lot of underpaid professions - people who are required to have a Bachelors or a Masters and are paid average or less.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. you are only looking at the income

you are not thinking about the scope and enormity of what they do.

Teach in a school for oh, about a month and then get back to me.

[LWolf]

70. Let's look a little closer, shall we?

First of all, as others have pointed out, the $36,000 is before taxes.

Secondly, $36,000 means different things in different places. It depends on the cost of living where you are teaching. Many teachers can't afford housing where they teach, and have to live farther out and commute. I can afford housing only a few miles away from my school; I live in a little (800 sq ft) cottage built in the 1940s, in constant disrepair, zoned industrial, across from a truck yard. On the edge of the "projects." Between the trucks and the frequent gunfire, and the screaming group street fights, it's a lively place.

Thirdly, there are many costs you didn't figure in. I spend 4 figures on classroom supplies and professional development every year. And, of course, the student loans.

Here's a stark example of teacher pay vs the rest of the world: Four years ago, my son was attending the local community college, and working to support himself and his apartment. He went to work for a local corporate "chain." A year later, he was promoted into management. He finished his AA, and chose not to pursue his BA. He saw me working too many hours, still paying student loans, and shelling out the hard earned cash for on the job supplies, and decided my years of toiling in college while he was a kid just wasn't worth it. A year later, he was a manager. A year after that, 3rd year in, he was managing more than one branch, and making more money than I do. Three years, no college, no out-of-pocket expenses, shorter hours, comparable benefits, no student loans....and he makes more than I do after ten years in the classroom.

[UdoKier]

30. A translator's reality.

I only made $25K last year and pay $1100 in rent in SF. Drive a 10-yr old Escort wagon - 2 kids.

Count your blessings...

[Bouncy Ball]

46. But what are your working conditions?

To only compare salary to salary isn't an apt comparison.

Compare the working conditions, resposibilities, hours put in, extra money paid INTO the job to do it, etc.

[UdoKier]

54. I'm not disagreeing with the OP.

I'm sure I would still have a tough time getting by on 37K, but I wish I made that much, and could find such cheap rent here. I'd be out of debt in no time.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. My Wife Shares Your Pain

I understand because i know how underpaid she is for the work she does, just like you.

Under $30k for special ed, 60 miles from Chicago. College degrees and 25 years experience. Ridiculous, isn't it?
The Professor

[Binka]

47. That Is Just A Ridiculous Wage Prof

Before I got my degree I worked with disabled kids for $9.00 per hour it was difficult hard hard work. I had shitty hours and I spent much of my own money to buy supplies. But I was doing something so good. I am not a kid BTW I went back to school at age 38.

When I got my degree from Cal I went to work for SOLA Optical. I was given an entry salary of $43,000 and expenses, this was 2000. I was just a well paid good looking pimp for their products. My degree in Biz had little to do with my job I just had to look good and SELL.

Now I had skill yes I did, but I got this gig because I talk pretty and my face is easy on the eyes. WTF is wrong with this picture? I was doing a much more valuable job at $9.00 an hour but NOT according to corporate logic.

The whole thing made me sick to my stomach. I told them to fuck off in 2002.

I am now writing children's books and getting a law degree because I know one day I am going to be fighting these bastards. And fighting hard for the oppressed. And fighting them hard REALLY hard!

[LanternWaste]

55. I have a feeling...

After reading yesterday's DU brouhaha about teacher pay, I have a feeling that you might receive a few, "It's your fault" replies (I'm surprised you haven't already...) that you don't make anywhere near what the contributions you pass on to the kids are really worth.

As for me, I'm glad there are people who work for the common cause of America and can do so much with so little.

Rounds of applause from me to you and then a standing ovation!

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

65. This thread was inspired by others posted in the last few days...

The pay is considered, along with hours worked & education required. And the college loans are still being paid off.

I'd require a lot more than that to spend all day with a bunch of the little darlings. It's good that some people want to do it--society benefits.

[IrateCitizen]

66. That's the funniest thing I've ever heard asked on DU!

NOBODY who teaches gets into it for the money. Granted, in relatively affluent districts, teachers can make a pretty decent living. But I don't know ANYONE who has ever gotten into it for the money.

Most people don't get into teaching to make money. They go into it to make a difference. That's why I will be taking probably a 40% pay cut to switch into teaching, but will be doing it enthusiastically. All I ask in return is a wage that gives me enough to take care of my family and cover professional expenses. I don't think that's too much.

[LWolf]

69. That's what our superintendent asked.

At each staff meeting that he attended, at each school in our district, as he went around lobbying for the pay cut (4%) plus another benefit cut (at a cost of $300- $400 per month out of our salaries) last month.

He publicly proclaimed March 1st "Armageddon Day," when the cuts were to be voted on (the backlash he got for that one postponed the vote).

One of the responses, from a school custodian, at Tuesday night's board meeting, went like this:

"I've heard our superintendent asking this question. I would respond to him by asking if Mr. ____________, (a board member), went into the legal profession to 'make a buck' or to help people. If you yourself postponed your retirement last year to accept a job as superintendent for this district out of the goodness of your heart and desire to 'help' us, or if the massive wage package, as well as all of the extra 'perks' offered, had something to do with it. If the management in our district are there for the students, or there for their salaries and benefits, which, I'll point out, are better than that offered to the actual people working at school sites, and which have not been offered up for 'cuts.' I'd ask if you think that I, as a marine, and all of the people I served with in Iraq last year were there for the cash, or to serve our country. And if we were just there to serve, if you think we deserve support in the form of medical care, adequate supplies and equipment, and pay for risking our lives for you."

He said it better than I. And the standing room only crowd, as well as the overflow crowd outside, roared their support of his remarks.

[jmcgowanjm]

74. School Boards are notorious for corruption n/t

[Bridget Burke]

79. School Boards are also targets for "stealth" candidates....

The ones who want to censor textbooks. And often the ones who hate Public Schools & want them to fail.

[Bouncy Ball]

84. You said it!

We have a fundie on our school board, only one, thank goodness and she is going to lose her spot soon. Everyone hates her. Seriously.

She wants the Ten Commandments hung in the schools and on book covers. She takes up so much of the school board's time with her religious agenda they find it hard to get anything done.

She's hijacked it.

Her husband ran for school board and lost, 70% to 30%, WHEW!!!

Now she is running her 22 year old son. Yeah, good luck, he's gonna lose even more than her husband did.

Then next May she's up again and we are re-running the guy she beat by only 25 votes a few years ago (no one thought she would win, so fewer people bothered to vote, that will never happen again).

Her little fundie church organizes all of this and funds the races of her family.

That's ok, soon we will not hear from THAT particular churches members anymore. They have been beaten badly and because she doesn't have a majority on the board (and because most of the board are common sense Democrats) she hasn't been able to accomplish diddly squat on her religious agenda.

Yay us!

[jmcgowanjm]

86. White flight School district- Beebe, AR putting anti evolution stickers

on school books.

Looking for ACLU to sue anytime now.

Deltic Timber -a Little Rock Developer
has just raised the timber tax issue (meaning
developers pay no tax-can't be changed w/o
changing the constitution-by getting the Senate
to pass a bill that subjugates the City Water Board
to Development. Deltic is wanting to build a
development on the Watershed of Lake Maumelle, the
region's water supply.

So schools are notoriuously underfunded,
while our environment is being degraded
and Jesus is coming very soon so
we don't have to worry about any of it.
Except the HS sports programs of course.
(See Billy Bob Thornton's Friday Night Lights
for exactly how Arkansawyers have their priorities
set)


And while at it, the leg said separation of church
and state should not be taken literally.