Devos Confirmed

[Dug]

What kind of common core nonsense is that? 10% is 10%, 20% is 20%, no matter how much money you apply it to. The problem I have is 30% > 10%. Why should I have to pay a HIGHER percentage just because I make more? It makes no sense to me. I would already pay more at the same percentage if I make more, as that's how percentages work. But the current system is progressive, and goes up as I make more and more.

Heck that's about as dumb as saying raising the minimum wage to $15 will solve all the problems. Nope, it'll just push the cost of living up to offset the increase, and net net there will be more people at the poverty line as all the people who already made > $10 and < $15 will now be bucketed in to this same group (no one truly believes that if they increase the minimum wage from $10 to $15 that a person making $14 an hour today will go up to $19 do they?)

Lol I love how you keep trying to insult me with "common core", "public education". Here's some napkin math for you:

10% of $10,000 is $1,000 therefore you have $9,000 left
10% of $100,000 is $10,000 and you're left with $90,000 (woe is me!)

Let's go farther. 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000 and you're left with $900,000. Bless your poor soul the struggle must be terrible.

[zaphon]

Lol I love how you keep trying to insult me with "common core", "public education". Here's some napkin math for you:

10% of $10,000 is $1,000 therefore you have $9,000 left
10% of $100,000 is $10,000 and you're left with $90,000 (woe is me!)

Let's go farther. 10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000 and you're left with $900,000. Bless your poor soul the struggle must be terrible.

Hey, and if I make $100k vs $10k, I'm also not going to live in the double wide down by the tracks. So my income goes up and so do my expenses, but that's evidently hard to understand (come buy a house here in Southern California in a decent neighborhood). But I guess in your world, you'd prefer me to make $10k when I make $100k or even god forbid a $1m per year (America, the land of the free, unless you actually succeed, then it's the land of hand over your successes please for those who are too lazy to)

But let's look at the reality

10% of $10k is $1k as you pointed out, leaving that person with $9k
30% of $100k is $30k, leaving that person with $70k
45% of 1m is $450k, leaving that person with $550k

NOTE: in reality people at the higher income levels end up paying less as there are "legal" ways to offset these, but these are pretty close to published rates

But if we just look at the numbers as above, the person make $10k earns $0.90 per dollar they earn, the guy at $100k earns $0.70 per dollar they earn, and the guy at $1m earns $0.55 per dollar they earn. You all get upset and scream from the roofs about the gender pay gap (OMG women only make $0.70 per dollar vs a man), here is an ACTUAL pay gap. Where are the SJW's at?

[Dug]

But if we just look at the numbers as above, the person make $10k earns $0.90 per dollar they earn, the guy at $100k earns $0.70 per dollar they earn, and the guy at $1m earns $0.55 per dollar they earn. You all get upset and scream from the roofs about the gender pay gap (OMG women only make $0.70 per dollar vs a man), here is an ACTUAL pay gap. Where are the SJW's at?

And yet you're still ending up with more disposable income compared to someone with lower incomes. Even after paying for your children's expensive private schooling and expensive living expenses you'll still have more disposable income than they do. And hey, you deserve to for your success. But there's a very obvious reason lower incomes are not taxed the same as higher. Guess they didn't teach you common sense in those private schools, eh? And they call the left "elites" lol

[zaphon]

And yet you're still ending up with more disposable income compared to someone with lower incomes. Even after paying for your children's expensive private schooling and expensive living expenses you'll still have more disposable income than they do. And hey, you deserve to for your success. But there's a very obvious reason lower incomes are not taxed the same as higher. Guess they didn't teach you common sense in those private schools, eh? And they call the left "elites" lol

More disposable income? Not if you look at it using pure percentages. You're only focused on $1000 vs $100 instead of 1% of $100k vs $10k. Yes, 1% of $100k can buy more items at the dollar store than the guy earning $10k, but no one earning $100k is doing most of their shopping at the dollar store. Nor are they driving a beater car that's been paid off for 10 years, etc. In the investment world, percentages are what matters, not the dollar amounts. Yes I'd rather earn 5% on a million than $100, but it's still a good return no matter which one I earned it on.

[Dug]

More disposable income? Not if you look at it using pure percentages. You're only focused on $1000 vs $100 instead of 1% of $100k vs $10k. Yes, 1% of $100k can buy more items at the dollar store than the guy earning $10k, but no one earning $100k is doing most of their shopping at the dollar store. Nor are they driving a beater car that's been paid off for 10 years, etc. In the investment world, percentages are what matters, not the dollar amounts. Yes I'd rather earn 5% on a million than $100, but it's still a good return no matter which one I earned it on.

Yes also common sense that rich people buy more expensive stuff. Not claiming that the rich (well some do) are walking around with stacks of cash and making it rain all over town. But they're certainly not struggling or uncomfortable in their position regardless of how expensive the private schooling and house payments are. Now let's look back at lower incomes, the poor, and see how they work pay check to pay check, barely having enough money to keep the lights on, their home warm and food in their stomachs. Going to a movie theater is a real luxury or eating at a restaurant.

As I said it's a pretty obvious reason why they're taxed differently.

[zaphon]

Yes also common sense that rich people buy more expensive stuff. Not claiming that the rich (well some do) are walking around with stacks of cash and making it rain all over town. But they're certainly not struggling or uncomfortable in their position regardless of how expensive the private schooling and house payments are. Now let's look back at lower incomes, the poor, and see how they work pay check to pay check, barely having enough money to keep the lights on, their home warm and food in their stomachs. Going to a movie theater is a real luxury or eating at a restaurant.

As I said it's a pretty obvious reason why they're taxed differently.

And again, hardly my problem that they choose to live like that. I don't come from a rich family, I worked hard in school (I went to a public high school in the midwest, where by my junior year in high school I had completed every course they offered (there was no calculus in my high school), so was dumped on the local college) to get out of the farming community I was raised in (I didn't want to become the 5th generation farmer in my family). I got into a great private college, got degrees in computer science and mathematics, got into a great graduate school, etc. And I went in major debt doing so, and spent almost 10 years after school paying it off.

I didn't get here because of privilege, or because my parents were rich, etc. I lived off ramen and pizza (I took a second job working evenings after school delivering pizzas just so I could get free food) for several years after college. I know there are people who are dropped into the world with tons of money, but to me America is a country where anyone can succeed if they simply work hard enough at it. I worked my butt off, and now can enjoy the rewards of it (if you want to call putting 2 kids through private school at $34k per year (each) a reward). But now that they're both off at College, I finally get to spend some of it. But it's people like you who would prefer I have none of it. No thanks.

[Dug]

And again, hardly my problem that they choose to live like that. I don't come from a rich family, I worked hard in school (I went to a public high school in the midwest, where by my junior year in high school I had completed every course they offered (there was no calculus in my high school), so was dumped on the local college) to get out of the farming community I was raised in (I didn't want to become the 5th generation farmer in my family). I got into a great private college, got degrees in computer science and mathematics, got into a great graduate school, etc. And I went in major debt doing so, and spent almost 10 years after school paying it off.

I didn't get here because of privilege, or because my parents were rich, etc. I lived off ramen and pizza (I took a second job working evenings after school delivering pizzas just so I could get free food) for several years after college. I know there are people who are dropped into the world with tons of money, but to me America is a country where anyone can succeed if they simply work hard enough at it. I worked my butt off, and now can enjoy the rewards of it (if you want to call putting 2 kids through private school at $34k per year (each) a reward). But now that they're both off at College, I finally get to spend some of it. But it's people like you who would prefer I have none of it. No thanks.

And off you go exaggerating. Never once did I claim you're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labor or rather your wealth. I'm not asking for you to pay 90% income tax but you should certainly be paying more than someone who's making <20k a year. How much more? I'll let economists and policy makers sort that out but it should be more.

You're also under the impression that poor people are poor by choice. While certainly some are the poor work very hard to try and break the cycle but with high costs of living and low wages it can become a damn near never ending cycle. But yes it really isn't your problem I suppose if you want to feel that way. Regardless the law is the law so until that changes you'll just have to keep paying.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Devos getting confirmed is just a microcosm of the entire presidency - somebody wholly incompetent and with numerous previous failed endeavors on their resume somehow getting the job.


/thread

[zaphon]

And off you go exaggerating. Never once did I claim you're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labor or rather your wealth. I'm not asking for you to pay 90% income tax but you should certainly be paying more than someone who's making <20k a year. How much more? I'll let economists and policy makers sort that out but it should be more.

You're also under the impression that poor people are poor by choice. While certainly some are the poor work very hard to try and break the cycle but with high costs of living and low wages it can become a damn near never ending cycle. But yes it really isn't your problem I suppose if you want to feel that way. Regardless the law is the law so until that changes you'll just have to keep paying.

I would already pay more in a flat tax system (most people say 15-18% for a flat tax). 15% of $100k is $15k while 15% of 10k is $1.5k, so I would already pay 10 times more simply because I make 10 times more. But under todays system, the person making $100k has to pay 30 times more (technically infinitely more, as the person making $10k has no effective tax rate)? This makes NO sense to me no matter how you explain it.

And you're right, I do believe they choose to live that way, and continue to make choices that further harm them. They may not see this or understand this, and that's probably true in the majority of these scenarios. But more government intervention isn't going to fix it, it's only continuing to enable them to live this way.

As for the law, you're correct, and as I said before, it's why I pay an accountant to minimize my taxes each year to the full of the extent of the law. And I also realize my visions don't align with the left or the right, so very likely will never happen. But as I said, I can dream.

[Dug]

I would already pay more in a flat tax system (most people say 15-18% for a flat tax). 15% of $100k is $15k while 15% of 10k is $1.5k, so I would already pay 10 times more simply because I make 10 times more. But under todays system, the person making $100k has to pay 30 times more (technically infinitely more, as the person making $10k has no effective tax rate)? This makes NO sense to me no matter how you explain it.

I've tried explaining it to the best of my ability but if you cannot understand then so be it. Agree to disagree.

[draykorinee]

I've tried explaining it to the best of my ability but if you cannot understand then so be it. Agree to disagree.

It's a lost cause, you can't educate everyone.

[stomination]

Even though i know this doesn't matter since we are on an internet forum and ppl will look.


What was the last 3 ppl in charge of the department of Education? I bet most ppl don't know because the department is pretty defunct for years upon years now.

[Glorious Leader]

It's a lost cause, you can't educate everyone.

Nor can you educate those who wilfully choose to remain ignorant. Apparebtky the poor choose to be poor but its more likely the ignorant choose ignorance.

[zaphon]

It's a lost cause, you can't educate everyone.

LOL! When you can explain to me why someone who makes 10 times more than another person has to pay 30 times the taxes (I even welcome common core nonsense), then I will consider myself educated (and it's worse at 100x, it's 450 times). But all I keep hearing is more disposable income (actual values not percentages, because the other way doesn't help the cause), privilege, etc. This belief that because someone earns more they should carry a larger percentage of the load is silly and backwards from the American dream, $0.70 per dollar vs $0.90 per dollar (hello there wage gap), so now I have to work even more hours and harder to offset it (and unfortunately at these pay levels it's salary not hourly).

All I see is a system that punishes those who are the most successful and rewards the least successful. Real world Robin Hood right here, except it's the IRS doing the robbing. I'm pretty sure I could do more good for those at the bottom with the money I pay in taxes then the government is (like invest more in my business, hire more employees, pay hire wages, etc.) But hey let's give it over to the government, where each department between the IRS and the person receiving benefits takes a cut. That'll show em!

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Just to be clear, AFAIK nothing Clinton did was as wrong or as blatant as Devos buying her way into a cabinet position. The worst 'pay for play' incident (and I still dispute that donations to a charity qualify for that term) was for access, not an unearned position of power. Lay off the false equivalencies already; the election's over. Though I agree her total lack of qualifications is somewhat more damning than having bribed Trump for it.

The only false equivalency here is yours: I mean, selective truth is sad.

Pay to Play from the Clinton administration was utterly disgusting. Oh, yes, it was legal. And outrageously disgusting.

Donations made in the millions of dollars resulted in positions within the Clinton government. So, while you're busing trying to twist your way out of this, I'm going to keep saying that both are completely wrong, unethical and disgusting while still saying that you're a hypocrite.

[Merie]

I really would like to know if anyone, right, left, moderate, democrat, republican, anyone have anything positive to say about this?

We got to stick it to the Libs.

[Felya]

Not really, but that's neither here nor there. What I'm saying is the current system is broken. I'm a proponent of the private market vs letting the government continue to run the system (something they don't do well at). I'm also anti-union which is another huge problem with the education system (and for the record, my own mother is retiring this year from the public education system (elementary school teacher)).

Then you are an idealist, not someone who seeks an actual solution. John Dewey has nothing to do with public vs private, but the way education is actually functioning. Instead of idealistic points for your general view of private vs public, it actually addresses the issue of education.

All I ultimately care about is kids getting a good education that's actually useful to them, and that is not happening in the majority of the public education system today (even if the school you quoted is as good as you say, though according to k12.niche.com it's not).

Bullshit on every account here. Nothing you said thus far is about actually providing a quality education. You have spent the entire time talking about cost and the private vs public dichotomy, not anything to do with actual education. Cheaper and private, are not actual principles or ways to educate.

In simplest terms... I'm talking curriculum, while you are discussing federalism. If that doesn't set off alarms about how you are being manipulated, then nothing will.

By the way, A- avarage when the lowest individual score is for sports, just acts as another example of blinding idealism:

https://k12.niche.com/edward-r-murro...l-brooklyn-ny/

(Hint, we had a planetarium and marine biology because 0 was spent on sports.)

Not sure what state your in, but here it is attendance based funding, with the schools losing a set amount per day if the child is not there (if they're enrolled, so sick days cost the school for example).

You don't know where I'm from, even though I linked and you commented on the school I went to? Alright... Brooklyn, NYC...

What you just did without realizing it, is highlight the problem I am addressing. What power does DOE have, to enforce a curriculum, when even the budget is determined by each state? Here is the shit sandwich that is "no student left behind", then tell me your per student assertion is true:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_C...eft_Behind_Act

However you're correct, if you don't enroll your kid there, they don't get that money. But trust me the school district did send their cronies over to verify that our kids were in school and god forbid we were NOT home schooling them EVERY SINGLE YEAR for about 8 years in a row, as they really wanted us enrolled there.

Devos proposals are to give your district more power, not less. Even according to you, her opinion is counter productive to what you see as a problem.

But what I'm saying is the money is there if I wanted to enroll my kid in a public school. Why can I not take that money and apply it towards the private school, so instead of me paying $34k per year (what I paid for 9-12), I apply the $10k or $5k or whatever it is towards it and I pay the remainder.

Because as I already pointed out, the avarage cost you are bringing up is not individual cost, but an X amount decided across Y students. By changing the Y, you are not changing the X. It doesn't mean that 10k would go to your choice, it means the tax payer would be on the hook for an additional 10k. If you don't like the minimum provided, just like with everything else, you buy extra. You are demanding public funding to support your choice of a private institution? Devos history can have you guess, but outside the silly notion of getting 10k per kid, I have no clue what's in it for Americans... those paying the taxes...

If you still haven't figured it out. Let me put it this way... Why do you want the state to give a welfare queen 120k a year for her 12 kids, to do with as she wills? Does that hit the necessary ideological buttons?

[Draco-Onis]

We got to stick it to the Libs.

You enjoy cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[cubby]

Beyond incompetent - and just humiliating for the United States.

[Halyon]

Nor can you educate those who wilfully choose to remain ignorant. Apparebtky the poor choose to be poor but its more likely the ignorant choose ignorance.

Well, they are poor...in brain cells.