Why is education always the first place hit by cuts when states need to reduce budgets? Education is one of the biggest areas of expense, but education is also one of the most important to fund. What other service or commodity is worth more than children?
How often do I hear how important teachers are, how underpaid they are, and what a tough job they have. But those elected to govern education don’t seem to feel that way. They say that “to lower the budget, cut education costs.”
But they expect more and more from teachers. When all students, no matter their abilities or motivation, don’t meet standards, they say, “It must be the teachers’ fault.”
School districts are being compelled to entice veteran teachers to retire in order to either prevent cutting staff, or so they can hire someone to fill that position at half the cost. Many of those veteran teachers have good teaching years left.
Now, Gov. Paul LePage has proposed a bill that will negatively affect the retirement benefits these teachers were promised.
It appears he wants all those veteran teachers to retire this year. If not, they’ll have to wait until they’re 65 to receive their health insurance benefits.
So when do teachers get a break?
Banks, car companies, big business, they all got breaks. What did they do? They had parties, took trips, got bonuses.
Why is it so difficult to spend money on the children and the hardworking teachers?
Jan Bordeau, Mexico

Conclusion
Yes Mr.Riml,I consider it a crime. Any time we "TAX"a certain segment of the population more then an other1 it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Our bourgeoning debt is due to "OVERSPENDING".We get in debt by spending what we don't have. And to take "from Peter to give to Paul" is certainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If company"A" makes better widgets than company"B" and there revenues is twice as good,should they be in a different tax bracket than just the same %? Taxing equally is the only Constitutional way! Not penalizing those that choose to do better for them selves and give to those that choose to be unproductive! I understand this may be contrary to all those "Kool-Aid drinking Pinkos". The GAO has already pointed out 100's of billions of $$$$ that could be realized in savings(bringing down the debt) if our Legislatures would only have the will!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Supreme Court Decision that states it's 'Unconstitutional?'
Care to produce that, Mr. Cyr??
You can rant and rage all you want - but it's SCOTUS that get's to make that determination.
Produce the case.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why not post why you "Disagree?" Too much work???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Tax them to Death?
Mr.Riml, If you are correct that the "top 20% own 93% of the wealth in this country", since when is private property a crime in this country?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What brings you to that conclusion???
I simply wonder why those on the right side of the aisle disregard it as a viable source to effectively pay down our bourgeoning national debt.
Do you consider that a crime???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Help me, help you.
You're unreal. We're arguing about income tax and capital gains tax. I make a statement about how the top 10% of income earners pay over 50% of the taxes to which you call BS. I provide a link which, admittedly proved me wrong because it was really 68%, and you say I spin stuff because the links I provide only talk about income tax and not other taxes. Wasn't that what we've been arguing about for the last several posts??? Holy smokes guy. But since you brought up other taxes, lets talk about those. But first, lets talk about the capital gains chart I linked too. The whole point of me brining it up was that filthy rich people already pay an increased income tax % of 33%-35%? Can we agree on that? Ok, so, if they're already that filthy rich, they probably invest. Which means, whatever money they get after the 33%-35% that is lost in income tax, another 15% gets taxed in capital gains. Which backs up what I was talking about earlier. Still trackin? Short term capital gains, which you brought up, not I, is even higher than 15%. It's identical to whatever they pay in income tax. So again, this only proves my point further, which is rich people already pay way more than the average Joe. (by the way, I despise you for make me defend filthy rich people) As far as my other link, you saying it doesn't back up what I was saying, is again, wrong. You said my comment is no where back in the article. Did you just read the title and then give up? Or maybe you just have selective sight. Let me post a paragraph for you.
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
If there is a big blank spot between this paragraph and my first paragraph, you officially have selective sight. 10% of earners pay 68% of the income tax, which is what we have been arguing about for the past several posts along with the capital gains tax. Only you, Ronnie, could take that and try to spin it into "well rabble rabble rabble there are thousands of other taxes out there rabble rabble rabble so your link that totally backs up every thing you were saying and proves me wrong is totally not legit rabble rabble rabble tax the rich, rabble." But since you brought up other taxes, lets talk about them, shall we? You mention property taxes. Do filthy rich people live in filthy huge houses? On filthy large tracts of land? That would result in....gasp....more property taxes being paid than the average Joe. Don't they buy filthy rich toys such as boats, cars ect, which would result in them paying more sales tax, excise tax what have you which results in.....omg...I'm seeing a trend here.....more taxes paid than the average Joe. Heck it's disgusting to think about, but some filthy rich person probably pays more in sales tax alone than I do all year. So you can take an argument that starts on income tax and capital gains tax and filthy rich people and how you think we should tax them to death, and try to spin it/deflect it to any different subject that you may think you have a better chance of arguing, and I'll still be right there to keep you in check, gramps. Half the age, twice the wisdom. Scary. Is that clear enough for you?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If you state 'Taxes' Zack - it's 'Taxes' - not 'Income Taxes'
State what you mean - not what you thought you mean.
I see you also neglected to cite the source of your psoting. Nevermind that plugging in the vebriage results in over 4,200 hits - it turns out that it was originally published in the Journal of the American Enterprise Institute by Stephen Moore in it's Nov/Dec '07 edition --> http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents...
- Then copied without attribution by countless other Tom, Dick & Harry who felt no need to cite the entire article. Did you also copy tests, etc when you were in the military??
Note that the author also writes "There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases." Glory be - weren't Republican administrations in power all that time? Didn't I tell you they ran up the deficit? But you just accused me of ragging on Reagan and Bush. Hey - if you want to quote an author - you've got to live with everything he writes there, Lad. The foibles of youth.
So, what kind of property taxes you pay there??
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I think we should tax them to death???
No, merely enough to put a nice, big dent in the national debt.
After all - the top 20% own 93% of the wealth in this nation. They have the resources to pay down the debt.
Or do you want to pay it down? Be my guest.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I believe
You have an obsession with me and my posts. When I say "I believe X" it's because at one time or another I came across the facts so, like I said earlier, I pull the numbers off the top of my head. You're free to dispute them, which you never do with any references, footnotes or thesis of your own. You just tell me I'm wrong and I need to back up everything I say with facts. So you want links to sate your ravenous appetite for facts that don't back up your beliefs? Fine, I'll waste more time arguing with you.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/capgain.htm
Capital gains tax at a 33%-35% earned income tax bracket- 15% just like "I believed" earlier.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents...
Turns out I was wrong about the top 10%. They pay even more than I thought, 68% of the taxes but that really just furthers my point and dumps on yours. Also, with your skewered W Buffet comment, the dude probably makes very little money on earned income. Most of his ridiculous amount of money comes from investments, so the capital gains tax would be what he pays a ton for. So your comment on his earned income taxes are less than his secretaries earned income taxes is pretty lame. Funny, feels like we just had a discussion on the difference of the two. Maybe even in your same post. So there are the links to back up my beliefs which I didn't want to waste the time to look up before. But since if anyone says anything that disagrees with you, you need links, references, footnotes and 150 page paper written to back it all up. But you're free to spew all your 'tax the crap out of the rich' rants all you want, foot note free and no one even asks you to provide them proof of your claims. Probably because you've been spewing the same rants for over a year now and no one even bothers to waste time on you, other than me because I'm new. And something else, I haven't bragged anything about my major. You told me I should stop watching tv and go to school, which I only replied I do, and for Finance. You've brought it up multiple times now. And finally, I don't feel like I come to these discussions "ill prepared" at all. I feel like "my beliefs" hold their own pretty well against someone over twice my age.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You pick and choose when it's convenient for you, Zack....
Capital Gains Tax 10% - 35% by your own link - you didn't mention that in your post (short term rate)
And nowhere in that article or graph does it justify your position: "top 10%. They pay even more than I thought, 68% of the taxes"
Why are you misrepresenting facts again, Zach? It states that they are paying 68% of the total Federal Income Tax bill. That is only one of literally hundreds - perhaps thousands of taxes.
Aren't you paying property taxes, personal property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, motor vehicle registration taxes, ad infinitum? All the others???
How about some clarity, truth, and frankness, Zach. Not spin.....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Totally agree with you Jason....but
If LePage gets results, unlike Obama, people are not going to care about his suggestive butt kissing, or his bearded woman comment. We'll have to see what happens.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.LePage will save the Motor-Mouth Industry
as Obama saved the Auto Industry......
Ford Motor Co. widened its lead as the world’s top-earning automaker in the third quarter, and General Motors Co. overtook Toyota Motor Corp. amid record global sales for the industry. GM reported third-quarter net income of $2.16 billion yesterday, bringing the Detroit-based automaker’s earnings this year to $4.77 billion. That tops the $4.46 billion profit by Toyota City, Japan-based Toyota, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
see ---> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/gm-profit-tops-toyota-trails-fo...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Love it
You love talking about my major more than I do. Care to go to school with me? I realize capital gains tax is different than income tax. Did I even remotely imply they were the same? No. It was in response to people saying rich people need to pay their 'fair share.' So let me rephrase my point, Ronnie boy. Evil rich people pay an increase income tax % of 33%-35% as opposed to 25% of an average citizen. Not to mention, again, 25% of an evil rich persons income would be much more tax contribution than 25% of the average person. Typically, if someone is in the 33%-35% income bracket(also once you hit around 350k+, your tax % stays flat at 35%) you're probably making money on some sort of investment which would be the capital gains tax which is around 15% I believe. My whole point is that I believe the top 10% of income earners pay over 50% of the taxes. That is quite a bit. Is that better Ronnie? If there's anything else you're having a hard time understanding, let me know and I'll break it down for you. Also, if you have any other questions about my Major and/or school since it seems to be so important to you, let me know and I'll answer those for you as well.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Zach - Why should I go to school with you??
I earned one of my Bachelor's degrees 'pre-computer' when research and typing was a real bear.
The BS in computer science therefore was a bit easier..... ;)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You were the one who bragged up your majors - not I.
So are you going to school to learn, or to soak up that monthly VA stipend?? Ah, the joy of entitlements - earned or otherwise!!
You wrote: "The capital gains tax which is around 15% I believe" You believe? You don't know what it is? Why not? You're the one who threw it into the equation! You did know how to perform research on that, do you not???
What I do understand is that you've come so ill prepared into these discussions with actual facts because you're so overloaded with dogma and pre-conceived belief structures that you appear to shy away from objective research.
For example your statement: "My whole point is that I believe the top 10% of income earners pay over 50% of the taxes."
"You believe?" Go out and find the truth - do some reseach. Then find out what the income of the top 10% is. What is the wealth of the top 10%. What taxes are you talking about?
Remember that Warren Buffet - the third richest man in the world - calculated that his "Tax Burden" was 17.7% on the $46.6 million he earned in 2006 while his secreatary, who earned $60,000 that year, had a tax burden of 30%. So who is really getting hit the hardest?
See --> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
"Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.
They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain’s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists “paying less tax than a cleaning lady”.
There might be hope for you, but it's going to be a long time a'coming.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Weak
I'm tired of the 38% argument. He won. Get over it. Isn't that what Obama said about himself? The "he didn't get the majority" and calls for his removal because you don't like him just make you like childish. It's like a game of baseball in the back yard and because they're not going to play by your rules, you're going to go inside and pout. And rich people do pay more. Even if it was at the same percentage, rich people pay more because it's a percentage. 25% of 40,000 is no where near the same amount as 25% of 150,000. But that percentage is even higher, somewhere between 33%-35%, not to mention most likely getting nailed on a capital gains tax as well. Also, we already spend a ton of money on education.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/ (Link Ronnie! yay!)
We spend, percentage wise, way above countries that out perform us in education. To me, granted I don't know anything, that says that money is not the fix-all to education if other countries are doing better with less. Just saying...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.the 38%
I do not disagree that LePage won the governor's race - but his campaign did not win the majority of Maine votes - Cutler and Mitchell split the votes of folks with a similar agenda. I agree that some of the education spending could be pared - the number and pay of administrators is high. But this does not address the fundamental disconnect facing our country. We have gutted the manufacturing sector, the middle class is under attack and the ability to earn a living wage is becoming more and more difficult. The L-A used to have many shoe shops and textile operations - how many exist today? When the middle class is gone - and it is endangered now - who will the rich sell their goods to? We have long had a graduated income tax - which means that rich people pay no more taxes than I pay on whatever my lowly middle income is - say $20,000 - the rich pay the same as I do on that amount of money. It is on the amounts above that - that the rich pay more - with the reduction of the upper class tax rate - the rich pay only slightly more. When Bush gave us all a tax cut I got $300 while a person making $250K got $20,000 - is that fair? Am I, a hard working, college educated worker worth that much less because I chose a life of service to the community?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.A liberal would witness a
A liberal would witness a philanthropist write a check for $500,000 to a charity and accuse him of not paying his fair share of taxes because he took a tax deduction for the charitable contribution at tax time. They just don't get it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Zack's a bit confused.......
Zack writes: "not to mention most likely getting nailed on a capital gains tax as well."
You pay a capital gains tax on unearned rather than earned income, Zack - not "as well as." And as such the tax rate is often lower. So actually it's to the taxpayer's advantage.
Didn't you state you were an economics or financial student? Don't you know tax law??
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Disagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So what's the problem, Zack???
There're a problem with the capital gains tax, Zack?
What is it? Care to let us know???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The problem is
LePage is acting like a 38% Governor. Hell, to put it in terms as you did, he's acting like Obama did.
Obama came into office with 60+% approval and a democratic congress. He threw his weight around, and pushed through bills. Now he's at 46% and has a Republican house. LePage is acting the same way, and will yield the same results. Except, LePage doesn't have a 60+% approval rating. He keeps this up(and we're only 2 months in at this point) I would be surprised if he lasts 2 terms.
Hell, I would be surprised if the GOP maintains majorities in both house and senate in next November(2012).
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3)
Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Governor Page won about 38%
Governor Page won about 38% of the vote - he does not represent the majority view of voters in Maine. There are always two sides to the questions of budgets - expenditure and revenue - Like the federal government we need to look at having folks that are in the higher income brackets pay more - they have gotten the greater financial benefit - so they should pay more in taxes. We'd have plenty of money in this country if we were not so militaristic and involved in 2 foreign active military operations. It is all about priorities and the middle class does not have the voice or the resources of the wealthy and the corporate entities.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (9)
Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wrong target
Good post Mr. Gray, All the "concerned citizens" should also keep in mind that when the topic of pay per year is actually 9 months of schooling! The cost per student is ridiculously out of proportion. And certainly does not meet the priority of "teaching". It seems that Mr. Morrill does not have the priority of all the the citizens in line with the true task of actually "teaching" and "learning"of the students!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's funny how this writer is
It's funny how this writer is really complaining about cutting teachers benefits but attaches it to the notion that LePage is "cutting education".........nobody wants to see our children suffer (that's why liberals attach everything to "cutting education") but in the end, when the school system doesn't manage it's expenses, the children will suffer just as well.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (4)
Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Education budgets are bloated
I can't speak statewide, but I can speak to our situation here in Auburn.
The education budget for Auburn is equal to the rest of the municipal budget. We have 10 or so departments providing services for roughly the same money that we teach our children. That is expensive. Why does it take more than $30,000,000 a year to educate 3600 students? Why when enrollment is trending downward are cost spiraling upward?
I understand there are costs the school administration can't control. The cost of heating fuel, the cost of foodstuffs, etc. but there are lots of costs that can be controlled and, apparently, simply aren't.
For example, do we need so many administrators/principals/vice principals in our schools? Then to add a police presence seems excessive. Do we need to pay these folks so much money for a partial year of work? Superintendent of schools makes more than $105,000 a year. The business manager (what is his function?) makes more than $90,000. Many of the principals make more than $85,000. Why do we need this many administrators earning top dollar? Why should someone make more than $85,000 a year to oversee 200 or so kids 6 hours a day? And they have teachers to help them out.
Mr Morrill (city school superintendent) has said costs must go up 5% this year. He stated most of that was salaries and benefits. The average person in Auburn did not get a 5% raise this year or any year for that matter. How is that equitable? In the same article Mr Morrill stated we need to teach individually because that is the way people learn. I would imagine that is the way we all learn but we weren't taught that way. If a person was interested in a subject, they usually got the individual education on their own and didn't require a full school system to cater to them to teach them it individually. It would be great if it did, but the public simply can't afford that.
Yes, education is very important. I hope everyone gets a first rate education. I don't mind paying my fair share to provide that education. But there is a limit and the taxpayers have reached it. We can cut lots of areas, but education should not be taboo...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well said.
Well said.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.