[Pesqueeb]

God dammit, I've got all of this bottled-up rage since I wasn't able to -rep BMADED into submission, and here you go making reasonable posts and basically agreeing that we need to raise revenue and cut spending.

Do what I do, find old posts by desmondo and -rep those. You'll feel better.

 

[Beef Supreme]

Three things on the budget deficit.

1) Any real conversation on reducing spending must include the military budget.

2) Capital gains must be taxed as income.

3) Offshore tax havens must be eliminated.

Anyone who discusses the deficit without addressing these three things would be better off spending their time fapping.

 

[stevew]

Anyone who discusses the deficit without addressing these three things would be better off spending their time fapping.

you talk as if this is a bad thing?

 

[$tinkle]

1) Any real conversation on reducing spending must include the military budget.

which is a business killer, and by extension, a tax killer. it's not just halliburton who will suffer when the gov't has a decimated mil budget. entire towns go in the crapper when tangent industries don't have [yes, lucrative] contracts. not saying it shouldn't be eval'd, but when this is first on the list, i'm not so sure this has been thought out.

2) Capital gains must be taxed as income.

and they should call it something clever, like "capital gains tax"

3) Offshore tax havens must be eliminated.

besides being classist, why?

howsa bout re-evaluating so-called entitlements?
or an open & transparent gov't that won't create anon earmarks? (not sure if that number will make a dent, but may start a trend of responsiblity)

 

[Silver]

So throw the money into infrastructure building. Let America's best and brightest build bridges and highways instead of murdering poor people for fun and profit. If they don't like it, they can always get a job in the private sector and leave the comforting embrace of socialism.

 

[$tinkle]

So throw the money into infrastructure building.

what -- iraq wasn't enough for you?

If they don't like it, they can always get a job in the private sector and leave the comforting embrace of socialism.

what -- iraq wasn't enough for you?

 

[dante]

which is a business killer, and by extension, a tax killer. it's not just halliburton who will suffer when the gov't has a decimated mil budget. entire towns go in the crapper when tangent industries don't have [yes, lucrative] contracts. not saying it shouldn't be eval'd, but when this is first on the list, i'm not so sure this has been thought out.

Lol, that sounds a lot like good ole-fashioned Socialism to me... Can't have the government employing people to build roads and rails, but they should be employing people to fight an enemy that broke up in 1991? So we're employing people for employment's sake with no actual benefit?

and they should call it something clever, like "capital gains tax"
besides being classist, why?

Last I checked income tax and capital gains taxes were two different things, and taxed at two different rates. I'm not sure of the validity of this idea (taxing cap gains as income) as it's part of a government incentive to encourage investing, but cap gains taxes are definitely *not* the same as income taxes.

howsa bout re-evaluating so-called entitlements?

You mean the entitlements that are fully paid for through taxes completely separate from the federal income tax? In another 37 years when the SS Trust Fund burns through the last of the gov't bonds it's holding, then we can talk about either raising the SS tax or reducing benefits. Deal?

 

[$tinkle]

Lol, that sounds a lot like good ole-fashioned Socialism to me...

even when the free market bids on contracts?

Last I checked income tax and capital gains taxes were two different things, and taxed at two different rates

my understanding is short-term gains are effectively income, with long term lesser so

You mean the entitlements that are fully paid for through taxes completely separate from the federal income tax?

it's money laundering, plain & simple, and we're getting it in the cornhole

 

[Beef Supreme]

which is a business killer, and by extension, a tax killer. it's not just halliburton who will suffer when the gov't has a decimated mil budget. entire towns go in the crapper when tangent industries don't have [yes, lucrative] contracts. not saying it shouldn't be eval'd, but when this is first on the list, i'm not so sure this has been thought out.

This is a good example of how this whole debate is being held in full on retard territory. It's over half of the budget and conservatives won't even talk about. If we are going forward with unneeded projects in order to support the towns that make them, let's call that welfare which is what it really is. Seriously, let's just give the effen money away if that is the true goal.

There are also huge amounts of money being spent on things such as foreign contractors that provides zero economic benefit. You are not having a real conversation if you are not talking about that.

and they should call it something clever, like "capital gains tax"

Right, and it is 15% and not the 35% these individuals would be paying otherwise. I am self employed and pay more than that for my SSI alone. Why should someone pay more taxes on income from labor than on income from investments?

BTW, the investment argument is bogus too. These people are not going to put the money in their mattresses.

besides being classist, why?

howsa bout re-evaluating so-called entitlements?
or an open & transparent gov't that won't create anon earmarks? (not sure if that number will make a dent, but may start a trend of responsiblity)

So, it is classist to think the rich should pay taxes on the money they earn? Call me a classist then. Again, that is full on retard territory.

 

[$tinkle]

This is a good example of how this whole debate is being held in full on retard territory. It's over half of the budget

look, trig, all you have to do is use the free wifi @ your community college to do some googling and quickly see how warbl-garbl-garbl you are. 20% is << "over half"

There are also huge amounts of money being spent on things such as foreign contractors that provides zero economic benefit. You are not having a real conversation if you are not talking about that.

like what? let's have "a real conversation"

Right, and it is 15% and not the 35% these individuals would be paying otherwise.

that's only for long term cap gains. short term is the same as income. but don't worry, in only a few yrs, their tax will increase 33% on long term gains.

why aren't you clamoring for the 15% bracket,which pays *no* CGT on long term investments? gotta eat the rich.

.Why should someone pay more taxes on income from labor than on income from investments?

"it's no fair" isn't a very compelling argument

BTW, the investment argument is bogus too. These people are not going to put the money in their mattresses.

precisely. so why not give them incentives to keep it here?

So, it is classist to think the rich should pay taxes on the money they earn? Call me a classist then. Again, that is full on retard territory.

since we're not talking about the rich not paying taxes on the money they earn, i'm not sure i understand what your beef is, besides "it isn't enough". who are you to say what's fair?

make your case.

or continue to call me a retard.

your choice.

 

[Beef Supreme]

Words.

I am calling the arguments retarded, not you personally.

 

[$tinkle]

look, my position is this: i hold great disdain for any entity which produces nothing & reserves the right to distribute everything as they see fit.

i start off defending the "greedy" job-creating capitalist & work my way back as conditions warrant. i find it difficult to say we're a nation of laws, and then vilify those businesses who follow the letter of the law, just b/c we think they earn too much.

(of course, there are exceptions; this is my general principle)

 

[X3pilot]

Ummmm, Beef, you do realize that a larger percentage of the federal budget goes to Social Security than defense, right?

Also, the money that the President has to allocate for discretionary spending comes from the defense budget. So, kill that and the President has less wiggle room to make things happen.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/guide.pdf

Sorry that it's FY02, but that's the latest one on the CBO website.

 

[dante]

even when the free market bids on contracts?

You don't quite know what the definition of "Socialism" really is do you?

Ummmm, Beef, you do realize that a larger percentage of the federal budget goes to Social Security than defense, right?

Also, the money that the President has to allocate for discretionary spending comes from the defense budget. So, kill that and the President has less wiggle room to make things happen.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/guide.pdf

Sorry that it's FY02, but that's the latest one on the CBO website.

Exact same amount on SS as the DoD, $738b.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html?src=tp

That doesn't cover Veterans benefits, military retirement benefits, or the interest racked up by the previous military spending.

And while SS is tied for the largest expenditure of the federal government along with the military, SS is funded solely through SS taxes, as is Medicare and the DoT. As far as a percentage of your income taxes, the military is BY FAR the largest expenditure.

 

[Beef Supreme]

Ummmm, Beef, you do realize that a larger percentage of the federal budget goes to Social Security than defense, right?

Also, the money that the President has to allocate for discretionary spending comes from the defense budget. So, kill that and the President has less wiggle room to make things happen.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/guide.pdf

Sorry that it's FY02, but that's the latest one on the CBO website.

Sweet. From those figures we have a surplus.

I should have said discretionary spending. Of the descretionary spending, the military budget is more than half. That doesn't change my point.

My goal is not and never has been to give the president more control over descresionary spending.

i start off defending the "greedy" job-creating capitalist & work my way back as conditions warrant. i find it difficult to say we're a nation of laws, and then vilify those businesses who follow the letter of the law, just b/c we think they earn too much.

(of course, there are exceptions; this is my general principle)

The problem starts when those companies can, in essence, write the laws they are to follow. I don't have a problem with regulated capitalism but our government needs to be making decisions that are best for the country and not just those with capital. We wouldn't be having this conversation if our free trade expirement of the last 30 years had actually worked.

That is all I have time to address for now. I need to sell my American made products so I can spend the proceeds in my local community.

 

[stoney]

Right, and it is 15% and not the 35% these individuals would be paying otherwise. I am self employed and pay more than that for my SSI alone. Why should someone pay more taxes on income from labor than on income from investments?

BTW, the investment argument is bogus too. These people are not going to put the money in their mattresses.

This one is BS. For the small investor, the one who has the most to benefit from the sense of life improvement, capital gains taxes are brutal. I would make small investments at $500 lots and if I made a nice profit of 25% ($125), when I went to sell I would lose $19 to taxes.

That's almost 10% of my gain. I was risking $500, which was a huge chunk of change for me, for what felt like a heavy taxe rate. If I'm being taxed at 35%, then I am looking at $38 to taxes, which makes my gain a 17% gain.

For a large investor, define the investable funds (but be realistic about what qualifies as middle class nationwide, with regards to available assets), and tax above that.

For the average person, capital gains taxes are actually detrimental. Try targeting those who are bypassing income taxes by using cap gains. They are a different group of people.

 

[dante]

This one is BS. For the small investor, the one who has the most to benefit from the sense of life improvement, capital gains taxes are brutal. I would make small investments at $500 lots and if I made a nice profit of 25% ($125), when I went to sell I would lose $19 to taxes.

That's almost 10% of my gain. I was risking $500, which was a huge chunk of change for me, for what felt like a heavy taxe rate. If I'm being taxed at 35%, then I am looking at $38 to taxes, which makes my gain a 17% gain.

For a large investor, define the investable funds (but be realistic about what qualifies as middle class nationwide, with regards to available assets), and tax above that.

For the average person, capital gains taxes are actually detrimental. Try targeting those who are bypassing income taxes by using cap gains. They are a different group of people.

BULLSH!T. I'm sorry, but I've been investing / saving for the past decade and the cap gains / dividend taxes an ordinary investor pays are minuscule. In your analogy above, you made $125 (a profit of 25%!!!!) and have to pay $19 and you're complaining about it? Seriously? You just made over $100 for being smart and having money, and you're complaining that it wasn't enough. That cap gains tax that you paid on that $500 block was probably barely the sales commission you paid on the purchase... Only you would look at making $106 on a $500 investment and feel gypped that you didn't make more.

Furthermore, most people aren't making 25% year after year. If they were, they'd run a hedge fund. They're probably (netting) closer to 7-10%, or at best 12-15%. So lets say you had a $50,000 account that pulled in 7% / year, and you had to pay the taxes each year.

That's $3,500 in cap gains, which means you're paying $525 in taxes on your $50,000 account. Does that really seem that outrageous to you? And how many people in this country actually *have* $50k in post-tax accounts? I'd guess very, very, very few. Every year I'm floored by how little we pay in Cap Gains and dividends.

Of course, most "small investors" I know aren't in the 35% tax bracket either. They're somewhere between 15 and 25%, but that might just be the crowd I run with... From the hints you've dropped as to your net salary, I don't think you're in the 35% bracket either, and if you are, you're making enough to not be considered a "small investor".

 

[stoney]

Of course, most "small investors" I know aren't in the 35% tax bracket either. They're somewhere between 15 and 25%, but that might just be the crowd I run with... From the hints you've dropped as to your net salary, I don't think you're in the 35% bracket either, and if you are, you're making enough to not be considered a "small investor".

I was referring to individual trades wrt the 25%. And I've only averaged 5% out performance over the last 5 years (20% last 2 years), so I'm not smart enough to run a fund.

As for large accounts, that is all dependent on age.

For example, my parents have been saving since they were in their early-20's and now have a nest age in the $1mm range (ex-physical property). They are not using SS, and have no pensions. They fastidiuosly saved their entire lives, so explain to me why they should be paying 30% on their investments to pay for people who haven't been so fastidious in saving?

What about my grandparent's $500k? 30% of profits for them is a huge amount of money. These arent people trading, they are truly investing.

Keep trading cap gains where they are, and close the loopholes that allow people to realize income as capital gains. You have people making in the hundreds of millions and having their income taxed as cap gains at 15%, fix that loop hole first.

 

[Silver]

This is a good example of how this whole debate is being held in full on retard territory. It's over half of the budget and conservatives won't even talk about. If we are going forward with unneeded projects in order to support the towns that make them, let's call that welfare which is what it really is. Seriously, let's just give the effen money away if that is the true goal.

Killing lots and lots of people who Jesus put in a ****ty third-world country is a feature, not a bug, of US foreign policy.

For example, Thomas Friedman is a famous pundit that is not ostracized and ridiculed for this interview:

 

[dante]

I was referring to individual trades wrt the 25%. And I've only averaged 5% out performance over the last 5 years (20% last 2 years), so I'm not smart enough to run a fund.

As for large accounts, that is all dependent on age.

For example, my parents have been saving since they were in their early-20's and now have a nest age in the $1mm range (ex-physical property). They are not using SS, and have no pensions. They fastidiuosly saved their entire lives, so explain to me why they should be paying 30% on their investments to pay for people who haven't been so fastidious in saving?

What about my grandparent's $500k? 30% of profits for them is a huge amount of money. These arent people trading, they are truly investing.

Keep trading cap gains where they are, and close the loopholes that allow people to realize income as capital gains. You have people making in the hundreds of millions and having their income taxed as cap gains at 15%, fix that loop hole first.

Are you serious? Come on, do the math.

Your parent's nest-egg: $1m Let's be overly generous here and say that they average ~10%/year in investment returns. That's $100k/year. If they're retired, with no other deductions they're in the 25% tax bracket on that. Even without any other deductions, if they're 65+ they're paying $11k/year for their income taxes. Are they really that bad off if they have to pay $11k/year on their $1m post-tax nest egg, or 11% of their income?

Or your grandparents with $500k? That's barely $50k/year on 10% returns, which means they'd be in the normal 15% tax bracket anyway. So even if they had SS, or other forms of income that added another $25k on to that, they'd still be at the 15% rate after all of the exemptions/deductions.

If either of those are making ~5% instead, then your parents are making $50k/year (ie, in the 15% tax bracket) and your grandparents would be in the 0% tax bracket at 25k/year (taxable income of $6,000).

No, I really don't feel that your parents or grandparents really make the case on why cap gains and dividends should be at 15%......

 

[dante]

Oh, and keep in mind that your parents/grandparents don't have to pay the 7.65% FICA taxes on that income either. So my income taxes are at a higher rate than theirs, PLUS I have to pay the 7.65% FICA tax on virtually 100% of my earnings, unlike income taxes or cap gains taxes...

Yeah, I really don't feel too bad for them. Lets compare two sets of married couples:

Couple 1: $500k in combined income through jobs/salaries/etc. Each makes $250k/year.
Couple 2: $5m in mutual funds getting 10%/year, or $500k.

Couple 1 pays 27.75% of their income in federal income taxes, which is $138,763 (might be slightly off due to itemizing state income tax deductions, but let's roll with it). PLUS they pay 7.65% on the first $214k, or $16,371 in FICA taxes, for a total of $155,134.

Couple 2 pays 12.4% of their income in federal cap gains taxes, which is ~$62k. They pay zero FICA taxes. Their tax burden is exactly 1.24% of their net worth.

Are you claiming this is at ALL fair?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Are you claiming this is at ALL fair?

Would you believe "laissez faire"?

 

[$tinkle]

Couple 1: $500k in combined income through jobs/salaries/etc. Each makes $250k/year.
Couple 2: $5m in mutual funds getting 10%/year, or $500k.

Couple 2 pays 12.4% of their income in federal cap gains taxes, which is ~$62k. They pay zero FICA taxes. Their tax burden is exactly 1.24% of their net worth.

why do you choose net worth, and not their annual distribution?

 

[dante]

why do you choose net worth, and not their annual distribution?

Couple 2 pays 12.4% of their income in federal cap gains taxes, which is ~$62k. They pay zero FICA taxes. Their tax burden is exactly 1.24% of their net worth.

 

[$tinkle]

right; got that the first time.

point is, you seem to create a strawman by picking a tax burden to net worth ratio for couple 2 when tax burden to income ratio is used for couple 1. seems like you're intentionally trying to mischaracterize to exaggerate a point.

 

[SkaredShtles]

right; got that the first time.

point is, you seem to create a strawman by picking a tax burden to net worth ratio for couple 2 when tax burden to income ratio is used for couple 1. seems like you're intentionally trying to mischaracterize to exaggerate a point.

It wouldn't be nearly as dramatic otherwise...

 

[dante]

^^^^^Just putting that in to preempt the "taxed to death", or "taxed to abject poverty" comments.

 

[Pesqueeb]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/1/

 

[Serial Midget]

Anyone who discusses the deficit without addressing these three things would be better off spending their time fapping.

I bypass reason and go straight to fapping - the results are predictable, worth the effort and tax free.

 

[dante]

Our resident Joker snakes the NYT by a week!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html?_r=1&hp

The (conservative) WSJ's take: "We can already fvck over state employees, so please don't do anything that might hurt the bondholders!!!"

 

[stoney]

The (conservative) WSJ's take: "We can already fvck over state employees, so please don't do anything that might hurt the bondholders!!!"

It's a catch 22. Most state and muni bonds are held by pensions and 401k managers. Most pensions are held by govt employees.

You also need to look at it from the Lehman/AIG viewpoint. If you let them fall, the fallout could be immense. If you bail them out without fixing the problems (ie union pensions), nothing is fixed.

This will surely come back as an anti-wall street commentary, but we can not afford to keep bailing everyone out. I said this about the banks too.

The true solution is to make govt unions illegal and get rid of pensions going forward. Make each individual perform for their jobs; if they can't, find someone who will. As for 401k/pension issues, pensions (in most cases) are set as of your last year income. I wish that was how my retirement was set, as I'd retire today. Unfortunately, I need to fund my 401k and IRA's to prepare myself for retirement. Given that public sector employees are paid more and have better pensions, we need to reassess those expenses.

Make public sector employees have 401k's. Make it an as of today, we will contribute x amount which you have earned to towards your pension directly into your 401k. Then have public sector employees start contributing on their own.

 

[dante]

As for 401k/pension issues, pensions (in most cases) are set as of your last year income. I wish that was how my retirement was set, as I'd retire today.

Not true, you have to work X amount of years before you're vested. Last I checked you haven't been with the same company for 20+ years...

And after you have worked at that company for 20+ years earning 1/2 (1/4? 1/7?) of what you could make in the private sector, come talk to me. Why does every conservative forget that the employment market is a free market just like everything else? If you pay people $20k/year, with no benefits, you get workers who will work for $20k/year with no benefits. That's the quality of work you get. If you want some HS dropout teaching your kids, pay them a HS dropout's wage. If you want someone bright who could be earning $100k in the private sector working for a corporation, you have to pay them $100k/year. *Or* you have to pay them a comparable wage/benefits package. The public sector employees have worked for years at lower salaries than they could otherwise due to the combination of salary and benefits.

Even in this market you can't get enough teachers to fill certain inner city neighborhoods. Besides, name one occupation where you HAVE to have a masters so you can start out at $32,000/year. Or as a cop/firefighter protecting your ass out on the streets every day, running into burning buildings for $30k/year starting salary. People only take these jobs because of the total package, and the fact that they can retire (or semi-retire) after a set period of time with defined benefits.

But hey, I'm sure that you'd take that job for 1/7th your pay, right?

 

[Serial Midget]

I couldn't agree more - there is no earnings cap for my profession and plenty of room for movement - in or out but there is also limited job security. Public sector professions are not attractive to me due to their low pay but I can appreciate the job security and other benefits they offer.

Not true, you have to work X amount of years before you're vested. Last I checked you haven't been with the same company for 20+ years...

And after you have worked at that company for 20+ years earning 1/2 (1/4? 1/7?) of what you could make in the private sector, come talk to me. Why does every conservative forget that the employment market is a free market just like everything else? If you pay people $20k/year, with no benefits, you get workers who will work for $20k/year with no benefits. That's the quality of work you get. If you want some HS dropout teaching your kids, pay them a HS dropout's wage. If you want someone bright who could be earning $100k in the private sector working for a corporation, you have to pay them $100k/year. *Or* you have to pay them a comparable wage/benefits package. The public sector employees have worked for years at lower salaries than they could otherwise due to the combination of salary and benefits.

Even in this market you can't get enough teachers to fill certain inner city neighborhoods. Besides, name one occupation where you HAVE to have a masters so you can start out at $32,000/year. Or as a cop/firefighter protecting your ass out on the streets every day, running into burning buildings for $30k/year starting salary. People only take these jobs because of the total package, and the fact that they can retire (or semi-retire) after a set period of time with defined benefits.

But hey, I'm sure that you'd take that job for 1/7th your pay, right?

 

[dante]

I couldn't agree more - there is no earnings cap for my profession and plenty of room for movement - in or out but there is also limited job security. Public sector professions are not attractive to me due to their low pay but I can appreciate the job security and other benefits they offer.

It's a free market; you have to be able to offer the salary/benefits necessary to get the level of applicants that you want so that you can hire the level of candidate that you need to fill the job. To get a master's degree (required for teaching) at a private college is $75-100k in loans. You're already only offering them $30k to start, and *average* salary for all teachers is in the $40-60k range. Most teachers do it because of the benefits package, including health care and retirement. You take those away and you'll have Mooshoo teeching you're kides speeling. My wife looked at the public sector, and it would have required almost a 50% pay cut...

It's funny that Joker thinks he's "worth" the well-into-6-figures that he's being paid, but thinks that the $30k/year starting salary for a teacher with a Masters degree is vastly overpaid.


(Sorry Mark, gotta keep you honest. )

 

[KavuRider]

It's a free market; you have to be able to offer the salary/benefits necessary to get the level of applicants that you want so that you can hire the level of candidate that you need to fill the job. To get a master's degree (required for teaching) at a private college is $75-100k in loans. You're already only offering them $30k to start, and *average* salary for all teachers is in the $40-60k range. Most teachers do it because of the benefits package, including health care and retirement. You take those away and you'll have Mooshoo teeching you're kides speeling. My wife looked at the public sector, and it would have required almost a 50% pay cut...

It's funny that Joker thinks he's "worth" the well-into-6-figures that he's being paid, but thinks that the $30k/year starting salary for a teacher with a Masters degree is vastly overpaid.


(Sorry Mark, gotta keep you honest. )

You get what you pay for.

 

[stoney]

It's a free market; you have to be able to offer the salary/benefits necessary to get the level of applicants that you want so that you can hire the level of candidate that you need to fill the job. To get a master's degree (required for teaching) at a private college is $75-100k in loans. You're already only offering them $30k to start, and *average* salary for all teachers is in the $40-60k range. Most teachers do it because of the benefits package, including health care and retirement. You take those away and you'll have Mooshoo teeching you're kides speeling. My wife looked at the public sector, and it would have required almost a 50% pay cut...

It's funny that Joker thinks he's "worth" the well-into-6-figures that he's being paid, but thinks that the $30k/year starting salary for a teacher with a Masters degree is vastly overpaid.


(Sorry Mark, gotta keep you honest. )

Teachers need to be paid more, that is no question. But one would assume that if you.are smart enough to teach, you would be smart enough to get your masters from a public school....
Also, I've mentioned this before, I am somewhat surprised at what they pay me. My first offer was what I expected, my actual was not. (to the high side)

 

[X3pilot]

Not true, you have to work X amount of years before you're vested. Last I checked you haven't been with the same company for 20+ years...

And after you have worked at that company for 20+ years earning 1/2 (1/4? 1/7?) of what you could make in the private sector, come talk to me. Why does every conservative forget that the employment market is a free market just like everything else? If you pay people $20k/year, with no benefits, you get workers who will work for $20k/year with no benefits. That's the quality of work you get. If you want some HS dropout teaching your kids, pay them a HS dropout's wage. If you want someone bright who could be earning $100k in the private sector working for a corporation, you have to pay them $100k/year. *Or* you have to pay them a comparable wage/benefits package. The public sector employees have worked for years at lower salaries than they could otherwise due to the combination of salary and benefits.

Even in this market you can't get enough teachers to fill certain inner city neighborhoods. Besides, name one occupation where you HAVE to have a masters so you can start out at $32,000/year. Or as a cop/firefighter protecting your ass out on the streets every day, running into burning buildings for $30k/year starting salary. People only take these jobs because of the total package, and the fact that they can retire (or semi-retire) after a set period of time with defined benefits.

But hey, I'm sure that you'd take that job for 1/7th your pay, right?

I wish you could find it in your heart to substitute military member for any of those you mentioned and still feel that passionate about it!

But in all honesty, the pension is a good deal for military, I put in 24 years and rack up around $30K a year just for waking up in the morning..

 

[dante]

I wish you could find it in your heart to substitute military member for any of those you mentioned and still feel that passionate about it!

But in all honesty, the pension is a good deal for military, I put in 24 years and rack up around $30K a year just for waking up in the morning..

I sure do. Our military spending on pay for troops isn't great, and guess what, we have to lower our standards to meet recruiting goals. About the only thing keeping soldiers in the armed forces after 7-10 years is that pension, since they could easily leave and make 2x as much in the private sector. Our soldiers earn every penny we pay them, and deserve the benefits like (cough cough, socialized) health care and government backed loans.

Basically the only way the military can keep soldiers in uniform is to promise them a worthwhile pension and health care after they retire.... Hmmmm, sounds familiar....

 

[dante]

Teachers need to be paid more, that is no question. But one would assume that if you.are smart enough to teach, you would be smart enough to get your masters from a public school....
Also, I've mentioned this before, I am somewhat surprised at what they pay me. My first offer was what I expected, my actual was not. (to the high side)

You realize that the vast majority of public sector workers (that you had such disdain for) are teachers, firefighters and police, right?

NYC
135,000 in school district
14,000 in Fire Dept (and EMT/paramedic)
50,000 Police Dept workers

Whereas the Dept of Sanitation only has ~10,000 employees all told. Not sure where you're looking to save all of this money unless you want to really stick it to the people like Social Workers and the like...

 

[Toshi]

Ayn Rand told him that social workers are bad, mmmkay