Chicago teachers make 100k a year.

That fact from George Will on Sameoldstuffolous's show.  He was illustrating how those people need tax cuts, and his horror that Obama might allow tax cuts to expire. It's not just Charlie Gibson's concern: it's EVERYONE's.  EVERYONE makes a hundred grand a year.  It's just YOU that isn't.

Actually he said, "100k a year is a chicago teacher, is a chicago cop."  So maybe he's got two specific people in mind, who inherited a ton of cash.   But that's not the wage of a Chicago teacher.

Will also stated that capital gains are received by people making under 50,000 a year.  It's true. Retired people living off their investments.  Why should I working for my fifty grand, pay full boat up to 28% on my wages, why someone who doesn't work pays 15% on their income?  What is so BAD about WORKING for a living?  Because Gibson has investments?

And Will lies and says Obama accepted premise that cutting cap gains taxes increases revenue.  If Will wants to pretend his OWN stupidity, fine.  But leave the rest of us out of it.

•  The thing about taxes on the rich is,

  unless you are one of them, or a lawyer, or an accountant, you have no idea.  

  by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:19:56 AM PDT

  •  please email this to Georgie!

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM PDT

    •  Oh, he KNOWS. Just like Rush knows

      when he tells his listeners that investments are taxed twice.  They don't fill out a schedule D, so they have no idea.

      by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:06:26 AM PDT

•  er, NO.

  from the CPS website, the real numbers

  46,761 - $51,822 (B.A.)              (Lane 1, Step 1 – Lane 1, Step 3)
  $50,000 - $55,060 (M.A.)              (Lane 2, Step 1 – Lane 2, Step 3)
  $51,620 - $56,679 (M.A. +15)       (Lane 3, Step 1 – Lane 3, Step 3)
  $53,239 - $58,299 (M.A. +30)       (Lane 4, Step 1 – Lane 4, Step 3)

  Will is full of shit. But what else is new?

  by agnostic on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM PDT

  •  Thirty years AND and M.A.

    gets you 59 k.  

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:23:11 AM PDT

    •  That's starting salary.

      Masters degree and 30 years' teaching experience, but not in Chicago Public Schools.  Here are the schedules (PDF) for a full-time (9-month) teacher already in the CPS system.  Masters plus 13 years tops at $70,991 plus pension "pickup" (whatever that means, exactly) putting it at  $75,961.

      Still nowhere near $100,000 for 9-month, which is what the public thinks of as a run-of-the-mill "teacher".  With a doctorate and 16 years in the system, you'll get to that $100K sometime after 2012 when it will still be 99,753.

      It you happen to be on 52-month contract with a doctorate and 16 years today, you are very close to breaking the $100K mark -- $93,045, $6,513 "pension pickup", total $99,558.  Coaching a sport or sponsoring a few clubs on the side ought to put you over the top.

      Regardless, George Will is wrong.  Big surprise -- he's a conservative.

      CPS Salary Schedules

      by dsteffen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM PDT

      •  Also I should mention

        That those salaries are "maxed out", top of the scale, the most you can get, not a typical or average salary as Will's comment implies.

        by dsteffen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:01:30 AM PDT

        •  and the bell curve applies to

          those numbers.

          Not to mention the fact that the infrastructure is poor, the books are not replaced anywhere near as fast as necessary, the neighborhoods are, well, dangerous at times, and the classrooms are crowded, and in some cases, some families use school as a dumping ground babysitter, not a way to educate.

          not pleasant facts, but the truth is the truth. painful as it is.

          by agnostic on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM PDT

          •  You paint such...

            ...an un-enticing picture.  Maybe that's why the program some of my wife's colleagues work on intended to pipeline student teachers into the Chicago schools  has such a lackluster track record...

            by dsteffen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM PDT

          •  Gotta factor in

            the classroom supplies that teachers buy just to keep the classroom functional as a learning environment.

            Had one elementary school teacher who bought a class set of Crayola 24-count at the beginning of the school year. Every kid got gifted a box of crayons the minute he or she found his or her desk, and I know in hindsight that some of my classmates likely wouldn't have had otherwise. We loved it. The money she spent on that was part of her pay. Same teacher in later years kept a class-pet hamster. That was part of her pay.

            But of course no one will look at the after-tax after-classroom-prep teachers' salaries, because making sure everyone has the supplies to do the color-by-number math worksheets isn't necessary somehow...

            by Cassandra Waites on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:45:38 AM PDT

            •  One year...

              ...back in the late 70's or early 80's when the school district was in bad financial shape, my wife's budget for classroom supplies was forty bucks -- for the entire year.  That included stuff like paper to mimeograph tests, chalk for the board, everything.

              by dsteffen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM PDT

      •  Starting at CPS with 30 years elsewhere and MA.

        I'm thinking that's a hypothetical one.

        by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM PDT

  •  Chicago teachers are paid

    very well compared to teachers across the country.  Why would we even be talking about their salaries being "typical" for the profession?

    by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:30:49 AM PDT

    •  It also

      Costs more to live in Chicago than it does in Smalltown, Montana.

      by BrighidG on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:35:28 AM PDT

      •  Yes, but let's not pretend

        their salaries are "typical".  Across the country, teachers are paid far less, and when we throw out these kinds of numbers, there are far too many people who are going to say "hey, that sounds pretty good".  I live in a city in which the cost of living is less than that in Chicago, but our teachers, heavily unionized, are starting out at around $30,000/yr and haven't had a raise in nearly 8 years.

        by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:38:35 AM PDT

        •  Mr wife taught...

          ... in a rural Illinois public school for 16 years.  When they went union (AFT), it was pointed out to the school board that based on their salary schedule in place at the time, a teacher in the school system maxed out at the top pay on the schedule would not even make the average Illinois teachers' salary.

          by dsteffen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:07:58 AM PDT

      •  and do not forget that

        23 students were shot to death this school year.
        and the teachers are going nuts, not only from safety concerns for themselves, but for their kids.

        by agnostic on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM PDT

    •  Very well?

      Why do you say that? Are you factoring in the cost of living in Chicago? CPS teachers have to live in the city.

      by JayGR on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:01:43 AM PDT

    •  After you remember that they're

      required to live in city limits...and that the cost of a small 2 bedroom condo in the city is on average about $200,000...and they have to pay city taxes on that.

      They barely make enough to pay their mortgage.

      by Elise on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:04:01 AM PDT

•  Just making numbers up

  http://www.alleducationschools.com/...

  About $65k a year is the average pay.

  These millionaire DC insider, cocktail party going pundits continue to reveal their own ignorance and continue to nail their coffins shut.

  George Will is one of the biggest elitists out there. To be so full of oneself not to recognize that people know how much they make a year is absurd.

  by pd1969 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:22:21 AM PDT

  •  Not a single one questioned him on that.

    It's amazing.  They DO know.  They don't care.

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:31:20 AM PDT

    •  They're all from the same choir

      They sing perfect harmony at the country club.

      by RustyCannon on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:33:05 AM PDT

•  Oh, please

  You don't start as a Chicago teacher at $100,000.  Maybe, after years and years and years.  

  But it's George Will.  Who never met a fact he couldn't manipulate.

  by 57andFemale on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:22:31 AM PDT

•  I highly doubt many

  Chicago cops pull down 100k unless they are in the executive offices.

  by Hawkjt on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:22:45 AM PDT

  •  Lieutenants, not beat cops

    Wonder if George Will even knows the difference. All those guys in uniforms look the same to a snob like him.

    by beltane on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

  •  the county guy next to me is

    the top sheriff in charge of an entire department, and reports directly to the chief. he ain't close.

    by agnostic on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM PDT

  •  In New York City

    it appears to be somewhere around 1/6 of police officers, which encompasses half of those who make detective or sergeant.  

    I would imagince Chicago is roughly similar.  

    by Justanothernyer on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:53:48 AM PDT

  •  I know a whole lot of Chicago cops

    and they CAN make in the 80s by moonlighting as private security guards.  I know some that work as security at Wrigley Field, where they make $20 an hour for 6-8 hours a day while the Cubs are in town.

    It's actually a little frightening that some of these guys are working 16 hours a day on four hours sleep for long stretches-- and carrying a gun around.

    by Pangloss on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM PDT

•  That so frosts me...

  As a teacher I think I'm paid a fair wage, but the exaggerations are crazy. I'm surprised he didn't "blame" that fantasy salary on teacher's unions, the favorite whipping boy of the right wing...

  by Wisteacher on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:24:31 AM PDT

  •  Wis you deserve to make $100k. I wish we

    would invest in you since you are helping to shape our most precious resource.

    by TennesseeGurl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:28:06 AM PDT

•  High School principals

  may have a seven digit salary, but I know lots of teachers in different parts of the country who don't make anywhere close. In fact, many make a third of what George Will claims. Perhaps if enough teachers taught him a lesson via email he would become educated about the matter. Right now I would give him an F-.

  by beltane on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:16 AM PDT

  •  "Seven digit"?

    Try six.

    by davybaby on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:39:54 AM PDT

    •  I meant to say six

      I didn't realize I wrote seven until I posted. Duh on me. :)

      by beltane on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM PDT

  •  Six digit...

    and my mom is one - and she's been at school just this past week:

    Monday - 6am-1am
    Tuesday - 7am-4am
    Wednesday - 6am-10pm
    Thurdsday - 6am-9pm
    Friday - 6am-11pm
    Saturday - 6am-4pm
    Sunday -(after she's done playing organ at her second job from 8-1pm) she'll be there this afternoon...who knows how long.

    by Elise on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM PDT

    •  Just fyi...

      those hours are about average.

      by Elise on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM PDT

•  At least this confirms that the Washington elite

  is completely disconnected from reality. I have never heard of any teacher making $100k a year. If that was true we would have less lawyers and more teachers. Hey George get outta your bubble.

  by TennesseeGurl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:48 AM PDT

•  You would be surprised

  Starting teacher salaries in Chicago are around 50K and go up from there. They are also for 40 weeks so George might be increasing them by 25% to make it 50 weeks. My guess is he just made that up or there are some teachers (or more likely administrators) who make that much even if it seem substantially above the average.

  by sam storm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:26:48 AM PDT

  •  he just made it up. See my post above.

    direct from the CPS website

    http://www.cps-humanresources.org/...

    100K? Not even close.

    by agnostic on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:28:13 AM PDT

    •  Exactly what I said, glad you agree

      I pointed out that starting salary is around 50K for 40 weeks. You linked to a site that says precisely that.

      I then said I suspected he made it up and you even included that in the title of the post.

      The only thing you didn't explicitly agree with me on was my conjecture that somewhere there is someone considered a teacher making 80K which George could then normalize and somewhat disingeneously claim is the equivalent of a 100K anual salary

      It really doesn't help anyone to set up stawmen and knock them down no matter how self gratifying it is for you personally.

      Another poster suggested that the average salary (not the starting salary) is 65K per year (81K for 50 weeks). For that to be the average salary that means that the top salary probably is at least 80K (100K for 50 weeks) so it seems highly plausible that a claim, while being misleading and deceptive, could be justified.

      by sam storm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

      •  In New York State

        I believe for 2006, the highest paid teacher in NYC made somewhere in the 80,000 range.  

        It is possible you could find a handful in Westchester or Nassau who topped 100,000.  

        by Justanothernyer on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:55:42 AM PDT

        •  Again...not typical.

          It's like saying Bill Gates' income is "typical" for those who started businesses in the technology field.

          by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:59:55 AM PDT

          •  I agree

            Clearly saying teachers make 100k (or even 80k) is ridiculous.

            by Justanothernyer on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:02:09 AM PDT

            •  Top Chicago Teacher's Salary: $89K / 40 weeks

              Another poster dug that up so the real question is how deceitful would someone have to be to claim a chicago teacher makes $100K.

              I'm not arguing in favor of George here just trying to figure out how big a fibber he is.

              by sam storm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:07:35 AM PDT

        •  I live in a district in Westchester which has

          one of the highest salary scales.  The principals in our elementary schools make about 120K.  And a teacher with 20 years experience makes about 80k.  

          Of course, George Soros, Joseph Aboud, Chevy Chase, Glenn Close, Ari Fleischer and RFK Jr. all live in the district.

          by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM PDT

      •  of course 60 hour weeks.....

        Since as a teacher I generally work at least 60 hours per/week.............let's see, that is 2,400 hours per/year divided by 50 weeks. That would be the same as 50 weeks at 44 hours per/week. At $65,000.00 per/year (after 28 years of teaching) I am making about $1,300 per/week before taxes.  

        I live 1.5 hours north of NYC in a high tax district. I am certainly doing OK and I love my work but these kinds of exaggerations confuse the issues.

        by BMarshall on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:21:34 AM PDT

        •  don't argue with me

          While not a teacher myself, my grandfather and mother were teachers and both my sister-in-laws are teachers. I know very well how much they work, that days are quite long and there are hours and hours spent at home grading papers or making out tests or planning lessons.

          I know all about all the activities they have to attend outside of school and the clubs and groups they have to help organize. I know all about the courses they need to take in the summer to advance their careers. Teachers are not over paid anywhere and are substantially underpaid in a lot of places.

          I also know how people try and distort any discussion of teacher's pay and the first thing they point at is "40 weeks". I agree they confuse the issues but that is some people's intention so you have to be ready for that.

          by sam storm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:46:43 AM PDT

          •  I wasn't trying to argue

            just responding to your post. I was in agreement.

            by BMarshall on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM PDT

  •  So Will was wrong to say they would be affected

    by a factor of 100%.  Instead of all chi teachers being affected, it's ZERO.  Well, close enough for national policy.

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

  •  Sam I guess we have to think about the cost of

    living too. But it has to be pretty tough to find a teacher that made that much.

    by TennesseeGurl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:29:21 AM PDT

  •  Mi Madre worked CPS for 35 years

    and had a Master's. She never got close to 100K. She didn't even break 70.

    by JayGR on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM PDT

•  One of McCain's arguments doesn't hold water.

  100 million Americans may have some stake in stocks an/or mutual funds through their 401Ks or other retirement funds but these are not taxed at capital gains rates. They are tax free until retirement then taxed as normal income(with some rules and regulations ect.)

  by irate on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM PDT

•  Capital Gains (CG) tax cuts increases revenues...

  in the short run, just as CG increases do decrease tax revenues, in the short run. It is true and logical. If the tax on selling a winning stock goes down, one is more likely to sell, particularly since the tax code is played with all the time and you do not know when it will go back up.

  With that said, sales of winning stocks reverts back to pre-CG rate change within 1 - 1 1/2 years. After that an increase yields more tax revenue, and cuts in CG rate hurt revenues.

  Think long term.

  by mlandman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

  •  It's an incentive to disinvest.

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:29:49 AM PDT

    •  Clearly,

      if I can make an additional 5% on a winning stock NOW, I am more likly to sell, lock my gains and pick a new stock.

      You never know what the next congress will do.

      by mlandman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:32:56 AM PDT

      •  No, not "Pick a new stock".

        Where's the incentive to pick a new stock come in?  Only in a prediction of what will happen later with taxes....which, in the mix of uncertainty in an equity investment, is probably not very material anyway.

        If people were serious about encouraging investment, it would allow a deduction of stock PURCHASES.  But that wouldn't help people who are already rich.  The already rich want to be able to cash out without paying taxes.  Period.

        by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:28:32 AM PDT

    •  And an incentive to invest.

      If I know taxes aren't going to increase, I'm more likely to invest 'cuz I know my investment won't get smacked with an tax increase.

      But the point is that any revenue effects are temporary and come from changes in the tax rate, rather than from something inherent about the rate itself.

      by burrow owl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:33:03 AM PDT

      •  Precisely, which is why the discussion in the

        debate was SO disingenuous. I was VERY disappointed Obama did not challenge the question as to its validity.

        by mlandman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:34:59 AM PDT

        •  He's never struck me as much of a debater.

          So I wasn't really surprised, but it'd have been nice to avoid the obnoxious righty response that was inevitable due to his failure to take the factual premise head-on.

          by burrow owl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

        •  He didn't challenge it because he wasn't prepared

          for the question. Has noone noticed that he brushes off and redirects questions he doesn't have a canned response for. To wit, the incident in the PA diner when he was asked about Carter's trip to meet with Hamas - rather than responding he pleaded to be left alone to "eat [his] breakfast".

          Perhaps this man doesn't have the grasp of economics you think, or hope, he does.

          by jqmilktoast on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:19:44 AM PDT

      •  Half Truth

        If I know taxes aren't going to increase, I'm more likely to invest 'cuz I know my investment won't get smacked with an tax increase.

        You might be more prone to invest in low-yield, higher risk type investments, but you are going to keep your savings working in any tax situation.

        by setmatch on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:37:48 AM PDT

        •  Not on the margins.

          If the choice is spend or save, knowledge of a tax hike will influence my decision on what to do with some of my cash.

          Your point, though, is well-taken: most of my funds will be invested, regardless.

          by burrow owl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:41:08 AM PDT

        •  Question???

          You might be more prone to invest in low-yield, higher risk type investments,

          Who, other than the inexperienced, makes such investments? It makes little sense regardless of the prevailing tax rate.

          The fact that tax policy has any bearing upon one's decision to invest/divest is itself a burden upon the process.

          by jqmilktoast on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:24 AM PDT

      •  You could warn the tax rate is going up soon

        and get the same bump in revenues.  

        by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:09:14 AM PDT

•  There may be Chicago Policemen and teachers,

  with salaries in the 100K range but they have many years experience, advanced degrees . The median salaries for teachers and policemen is well below 100K.

  by irate on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:30:46 AM PDT

•  The thing about capital gains

  Gibson and Will are pushing BS. Not news to anyone here, I know, but we have to stop this line about how cutting capital gains results in higher revenues for the feds on capital gains taxes. It isn't true.

  Here's the way that works. I've got some stock I that I've had for years or a house that I've had for years and I'm going to owe capital gains when I sell. So congress changes the capital gains rate and I know that if I hold off on selling until the new rate comes into effect, I'll save myself some bucks.

  So then the new rate comes into effect, there is a ton of pent-up selling that takes place and revenue increases - temporarily. That increase in revenue is from volume of sales, not some magical, trickle down, unexplainable phenomenon.

  by RustyCannon on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:31:00 AM PDT

  •  Your logic is faulty

    It's called the fallacy of construction, where you take a specific and apply it to the general.

    Here's a question for you: What exactly do you think prompts the increase of decrease in the volume of sales? If you said the tax rate, go to the head of the class. So, if the volume of sales (and thus purchases to eventually be sold) increases with a lower tax rate, it follows that those sales (and thus purchases to eventually be sold) will decrease. The former will result in an expanded tax base willing to buy and sell more freely while the latter will result in a contracted tax base that buys and sells more cautiously, perhaps even selling at a loss to accept the benefit of the write-offs.

    The concept really is pretty simple provided your mind isn't clouded with the typical class warfare propaganda.

    by jqmilktoast on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:29:17 AM PDT

•  And correct me if I'm wrong,

  but during the debate, were they not talking about Social Security tax withholdings when the $100,000/yr figure was bandied about?

  And that is significant here, as FICA tax rate is not based on household income but on one individual worker's income.

  by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:32:40 AM PDT

  •  The cap on FICA taxes should be removed

    completely, IMO.  And we should add a FICA tax on investment income when an individual's investment income for the year reaches the median U.S. yearly salary.  Then let's see what Social Security's financial outlook is.

    by catleigh on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:43:15 AM PDT

    •  It should either be removed completely,

      or at the very least set to go up automatically to adjust for inflationary effect.

      by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:03 AM PDT

      •  It is set up to rise

        evry year to account for inflation already.

        by Justanothernyer on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:57:25 AM PDT

        •  Unfortunately that increase

          doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. People continue to get crap for pay increases while inflation (and the FICA tax cap) soar -- thus, more and more people who are mid-income are paying more of the FICA ocsts and the ultra-high income earners are seeing less of their income taxed for FICA.

          I've thought it should be the other way around: most of the FICA should be paid by higher-income earners while those in the middle class pay less as a percent.

          by PBnJ on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM PDT

•  Capital Gains Tax is about rich people

  taking care of themselves. Thats it. Will should just come out and say that rich people don't want to pay taxes.

  by TennesseeGurl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:34:35 AM PDT

  •  Well, they SHOULDN'T pay taxes, says Will.

    It's not fair. It's not right.  And it hurts the economy.  Only wage earners should pay taxes.

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:16:24 AM PDT

  •  Nobody wants to pay taxes.

    You should just come out and admit it.

    Your post title demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance regarding how widespread capital gains realizations are.

    by jqmilktoast on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:30:42 AM PDT

•  What a liar that man is

  I have friends who are teachers and I am the daughter/niece/cousin of Chicago cops.

  For a cop? The maximum is $60,000/$65,000. Anything higher and we're talking a captain or some such thing. Not the regular joe working the beat.

  Likewise, the average salary for a Chicago school teacher is around $55,000, more if you work in a univeristy (or have tenure). But the average public school teacher isn't making $100,000 or anywhere near it.

  by BrighidG on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:34:53 AM PDT

•  Maybe he meant a couple?

  As in, one is a teacher, one is a cop, and their joint income for the year is $100k?

  by Wit Whither Wilt on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:35:01 AM PDT

  •  You're being very generous.

    by middleagedhousewife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:42:13 AM PDT

  •  Maybe he meant husband, wife and child.

    The three of them together would make 100k, if they lived together.

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM PDT

•  Interesting Story About Buffalo, NY Cop..

  Buffalo police officer retires with yearly pension of more than $100,000

  He worked 4,684 hours in 2007 — the equivalent of 12.5 hours a day every day of the year - to earn $189,456, with $122,774 in overtime, in 2007. Based on the number of years McDonald worked, his final years’ salaries and the pension formula, The Buffalo News estimated his pension at more than $100,000 a year.

  by raster44 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:37:00 AM PDT

  •  That's a scam

    that some folks pull on taxpayers, working overtime in their last year to get their pension fixed at a higher rate.

    Let's get real. Here's what people earn:

    In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the US Census Bureau.[3] The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.

    Household = 48,000
    Individual = 26,000

    Stories about anomolies feed the right wing machine.

    Union home health care workers in California make $11.50 an hour.  Or $92 for an 8 hour day. Or $2070 per month gross.

    by kid oakland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:45:16 AM PDT

  •  Disgusting

    His pension is based on his income from his last year of work, so he spent the last year working as much overtime as possible - which he was eligible to do because of his senority.  

    This kind of garbage had a lot to do with the decline of unions.

    by Mia Dolan on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM PDT

•  George Will is absolutely wrong

  From employmentspot.com:

  Teacher salary also varies according to education level of the teacher. A teacher with a four year bachelor’s degree may make less than a teacher with a master’s degree. The ranges for teacher salary in Chicago, IL vary from $37,372 to $89,620. This wide range obviously incorporates education level and experience of a multitude of teachers. Teacher salary also depends on what school level or subject teachers specialize in. A secondary school teacher may make more than a primary school teacher. In Chicago, a primary school teacher makes approximately $44,480. A secondary school teacher makes about $4,000 more, or $48,180. The average mathematics teacher makes $38,211, while the average science teacher makes $62,391. These teachers may make up to $52,977 or $87,946, respectively. A history teacher at the secondary level makes $38,256. The highest reported income for a history teacher in Chicago is $53,106. These wide ranges include teachers in public and private institutions at a variety of experience levels.

  It took me about 2 minutes to find and post this information.  Will's an idiot, but we knew that.

  by middleagedhousewife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:39:21 AM PDT

  •  remember 40 weeks

    All those teachers' salaries are for 40 weeks.

    My grandfather, mother and both sister-in-laws are/were all teachers. I know the arguments about teacher's compensation inside and out and I know how people on the right distort them.

    It is extremely common for people on the right to normalize salaries to a 50 week anual salary. Not that a teacher could find a job for 8 or 10 weeks that would pay that well. It is deceptive and disingeneous to make that argument but a lot of people are willing to accept it to some degree.

    by sam storm on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:01:20 AM PDT

    •  Even more deceptive

      is when they try to "normalize" salaries to a 6-hour workday. If they were running a fast-food franchise, they'd hardly be able to get away with not paying their workers for the duties that have to be done before it opens to customers or after it closes to customers. The notion that teachers show up at the same time the students do, and leave at the same time the students do, is just as ludicrous.

      by ebohlman on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM PDT

•  These people (pundits, DC insiders)

  just have no grip on reality.  It amazes me that anyone listens to them or watches them anymore, since they have proven time and time again that they don't know what the heck they're blathering about.

  As for all those people who make $50K and the retirees who have capital gains--give me a break.  Yes, some middle class and retired people own stocks or mutual funds, but those holdings are either 1.) retirement funds which are taxed differently (as has already been pointed out), or 2.) so small that they are only a tiny fraction of the household income.  The only people who really benefit from capital gains tax decreases are the rich, especially those who live off of investments from inherited wealth.  Current tax code makes sure that those who never have to work for a living pay a lower tax rate than those who scramble to make ends meet.  It's ridiculous.

  by catleigh on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

  •  Since we're talking

    about teachers, police officers and fire fighters, I might add that their retirements are usually funded through fixed rate pension plans.  

    by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PDT

    •  Well, the salary figures Will was pulling out of

      his butt were for police and teachers.  But when he, and other mindless repeaters of right-wing talking points, start defending the capital gains tax rates (and more cuts to the same), they always claim that it's not about rich vs. middle class because all these middle class people and retirees benefit, too.  

      by catleigh on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:10 AM PDT

      •  Yes...but we know,

        that the vast majority of "investors" are people with employer based 401K's for their retirements.  All of us  "regular folk" aren't just sitting around switching investments about day in and day out.

        And as far as the "but if you sell your house" argument, well, that can be, and has been, effectively dealt with in the past.

        by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:49:38 AM PDT

•  George Will

  .....writing crap for 30 plus years

  by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:41:01 AM PDT

•  Capital Gain is not always Capital Gain

  I'm in favor of raising capital gains taxes on the rich.

  Keep in mind, though, that there are two avenues for capital gain that are both used by prudent, hard-working, middle-class people who try to save their money responsibly.

  One is in selling a house, which has been a lifetime investment.

  The other is taking money out of a self-retirement plan like a 401k.

  I think an average working person should be rewarded for trying to save for their retirement, especially since congress and business have colluded to wipe out a lot of promised pensions.  People with those kinds of capital gains should get a good tax break, and it's not so hard to distinguish between the two types of capital gains.

  by Clues on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:46:00 AM PDT

  •  Correct me if I'm wrong,

    but we have made provisions in the past, haven't we?  I know we used to have such provisions on the selling of a house.  

    by tjb22 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:52:13 AM PDT

    •  500k of gains on sales of home exempt for a

      lifetime.  Not a bad deal on an investment subsidized by the government with interest deductions.

      by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

  •  401k profits are normal income, not gains

    Meaning that, depending on whetehr McCain gets in, you would have been better off taking the income, paying the tax on wages, investing in stocks, and taking cap gains tax.

    and you already have a 500k lifetime credit on the sale of your house.  

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:12:15 AM PDT

    •  $500K for married couple

      If my memory serves me correctly the $500K lifetime deduction is for a married couple and the individual exemption is $250K.

      by VClib on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM PDT

      •  That's could be married, yes. nt

        by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM PDT

    •  thanks for the replies

      I know that there's a tax break on house sales now, but my worry is that if someone starts changing the tax rules, it'll get cut, particularly with all the animosity for people who might be involved in the subprime crisis.

      I didn't know 401k withdrawals were taxed as regular income, and am not sure why I'd assumed they were capital gains!  Thanks for that info.

      As for being better off just investing the money in the stock market -  at this point I feel I'd be better off investing it in a sock in a hole in my backyard.

      by Clues on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:18:54 PM PDT

•  Wow. My mother worked CPS for

  35 years, retired last year, and topped out at 65K or so. I guess she should file some sort of lawsuit since she should have been making 100K.

  My cop friends would also be surprised that they are supposed to be making 100K. They're totally getting ripped off!

  by JayGR on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

•  In NYC...

  I am NYC public high school teacher.

  Next month we get the last raise of the current contract.  Someone with a BA or BS fresh out of college will make $45,530.  Someone who has been in the system for 22 years, has their Masters (required within the first five years) and an additional 30 college credits (often a second masters) will make $100,049.  There are dozens of intermediate steps between the bottom and top.

  An overwhelming amount of teachers do not actually have that as the gross base for their net salary because so many of us participate in a Tax Deferred Annuity Plan (TDA).  (For instance, I hit that top rate in October, but I have 16% taken out for that TDA... my net is based on a gross of around $84K.  No complaints from me, but this hardly puts me anywhere close to the top 5% of wage earners in the country.

  Of course, like most teachers across the country, that is for a work year that goes from about August 29th to June 28th- give or take a day depending on the calendar.

  As many people probably realize, making a $100K in NYC if you have a family is not all it's cracked up to be.  Want to buy an apartment in Manhattan?  HA!  You'll need to add at least a zero to that annual salary....and you still won't get much.

  As far as capital gains- I personally believe that the rates should remain where they are for most people.  However, for any one who makes either a certain percentage of their income from capital gains- let's say 66% or over a million dollars a year in capital gains, then that long term 15% rate should be something like 24% or 25%.

  I am sure that would affect a very small percentage of the very wealthy in this country.  It would definately end the example that Obama uses of how Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretaries since his earned income is far less than his capital gains income.

  Finally, since we're talking about taxes.  I favor lower corporate rates for new and smaller businesses.  I believe it would encourage more American based companies.  (ExxonMobil is not included! :) )

  by oxfdblue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:15:43 AM PDT

•  If You Make 100 Grand A Year Vote Republican

  If not vote Democrat. See who wins. Then we will not need to argue the point. The type of "logic" used to conclude cutting the Capital Gains Tax will increase Federal Revenue is the same logic that created our Ten Trillion Dollar Debt. Which is actually a good thing according to the same clowns.. We really do need to stop listening to such imbeciles. If you gave Americans a tax cut in 1961 they would then use that tax cut to go buy things like a television or refrigerator made right here in the USA. That would make our economy boom. That would create jobs. It worked back then because we manufactured most of what we buy. That would increase Federal Revenue back then by creating more tax payers. The same thing does happen today in a way. While I'm sure China is grateful for the boom we give them we Americans are still fucked.. To add insult to injury we borrow from China after they're done eating our lunch. Make sure your kids learn Mandarin. They'll need it.

  by Sam James on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM PDT

  •  Who should I vote for

    ...if I want to make $100K?

    by Samulayo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM PDT

•  Chicago Teacher Salary Schedule

  100k for a chicago teacher is complete bs.

  according to CPS' own salary schedule, a teacher with a doctorate degree and 13 years of experience tops out at 76,986.  This is certainly not an average teacher in chicago.

  a chicago police officer starts at 43,104.

  by elie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM PDT

•  They are fucking MORONS.

  I don't know a single Chicago teacher that makes that...even with all the extra after school hours...even with summer school...even with grants for Saturday programs...even with pay grades due to higher education...even with pay grades for experience.

  Before my mom became an Administrator in the Chicago Public School system she had been teaching in it for 30 years...30 years of experience. She did EVERY extra thing she could possibly do - because when you have 5 kids to support, that's what you need to do. And she was still shy of $100K by oh...about $30K.

  Seriously...some day I hope I run into George Will. Someone needs to tell him that he's literally wrong every time he opens his mouth.

  by Elise on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:01:45 AM PDT

  •  And anyone thinking would suspect he was wrong.

    I don't know any Chi schoolteachers, or know what any schoolteacher made, period.  But my first reaction was, "That CAN'T be anywhere near right, not for teachers."

    But not a single person on the panel said, "the median houselhold income is about 50k, and 100k is twice that, and there's really not all that many people, and no cops or teachers, that are going to see their taxes raised."

    It's like Charlie Gibson talking about StAnselm professors.  They have no fucking clue.

    by Inland on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM PDT

•  Let's look at another angle

  for a sec.  This is also another way of showing disrespect to teachers.  After all, anyone making $100k should be able to produce class after class of prodigies, right?  So here are these blood-sucking teachers making all this money for a few months' work, and they can't even do their jobs. What the heck are they whining about?  Yada, yada, yada...

  It's true none of these folks have any idea what the rest of us do or how little we are compensated for it, however I refuse to believe that any of their remarks are just tossed off casually.  After hearing about the military "analysts" who spun us blithely into a disastrous war in Iraq, I don't think any pundit utters one syllable without measuring its meaning or effect.  

  by luckylizard on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM PDT