Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can we do this to private business too so that the CEO's won't be making 320 times the amount the average worker makes? In one hour the CEO of walmart makes as much as the average worker at WalMart
The country needs a tax bracket for those making ridiculous income. Say 80% of anything over 1.5 Mill.
Individuals who bring in more money than some COUNTRIES could be very dangerous to the world at large.
If politicians feel the need to take back and harshly moderate public enterprise, let them do the very same to private enterprise where the true troubles in this country began.
I still firmly believe you would solve nearly ever labor problem in this country if top exec pay was capped at no higher than 10x that of its lowest paid employee. Which is actually not that far off from the union model, but as sabbat hunter has decribed- not commonplace in private industry.
Over the last 20 years minimum wage hasn't even doubled, while average top exec salary has gone up 6x it's amount on average. [ according to corporate liberty research firm ]
I agree with capping wallstreet salaries because they were bailed out by the government and American taxpayers. We should've just let them all lose their jobs.
How rare, a teacher (you) who is against capping the exorbitant salaries of her fellow employees at our expense.
The difference with the Wall St bailout - the federal gov't is supposed to be renumerated for the loans that bailed out these firms (though, I disagree with this as well - this is Darwinism at work) via equity offerings or regular payments. Who is going to repay the taxpayers for administrators making over 200K for a part-time job?
03-02-2011, 09:20 AM
grant516
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacci Balls
How rare, a teacher (you) who is against capping the exorbitant salaries of her fellow employees at our expense.
The difference with the Wall St bailout - the federal gov't is supposed to be renumerated for the loans that bailed out these firms (though, I disagree with this as well - this is Darwinism at work) via equity offerings or regular payments. Who is going to repay the taxpayers for administrators making over 200K for a part-time job?
i believe administrators work 11-12 month cycles, which even with generous holidays, I wouldn't call a part time job.
... or is a part time job anything less than every weekday, 2 weeks vacation a year, and 2 sick days? ... if so the entire EU is working a part time job! - what a lazy bunch.
Nobody needs to repay the taxpayers anything- they've got their quality schools, with a board they elected, who wrote the salaries for the people they're complaining about.
It's a directly changeable system, I doubt its easy... but these people are not appointed by untouchable government figures.
It does however seem like a dick thing to do, to run for school board, under the pretense that schools have enough, and it's time to take away from teachers and staff, and students. It does sound however like a really attractive lower-middle class platform.
I agree with capping wallstreet salaries because they were bailed out by the government and American taxpayers. We should've just let them all lose their jobs.
Then we'd be in great shape. Even less in taxes to NY State to fund the schools.
I appreciate the nomination. It does have a nice ring to it...
I think many people in the poorer performing school districts would take offense to your quote of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant516
Nobody needs to repay the taxpayers anything- they've got their quality schools, with a board they elected, who wrote the salaries for the people they're complaining about.
Some people in the Brentwood, W/F, Roosevelt, et al. districts also have residents paying a rediclous amount of taxes....think they're getting their money's worth?
Voter turnout is usually quite poor at school budget elections in general. Therefore, the prolific "yes" votes that most districts receive I believe are not representative of how the larger community feels. It's just a very active and vocal minority, many of whom are way too responsive to the intended panic from the tiring phrase of "save our children".
Personally, my taxes went from 7K in 2007 to over 12K for 2010 without any property improvements. The attitude of "we pay more in LI because we are getting a quality educational system" is bullsh*t. Really think those two administrators from Syosset and Commack are so talented and deserving of their 300K+ salaries. You really don't think there would be a large number of people more than willing and capable to do that job at half the cost and thus setting a precedent to a process of finally giving taxpayers some relief?
03-02-2011, 10:37 AM
grant516
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacci Balls
I appreciate the nomination. It does have a nice ring to it...
I think many people in the poorer performing school districts would take offense to your quote of:
Some people in the Brentwood, W/F, Roosevelt, et al. districts also have residents paying a rediclous amount of taxes....think they're getting their money's worth?
Voter turnout is usually quite poor at school budget elections in general. Therefore, the prolific "yes" votes that most districts receive I believe are not representative of how the larger community feels. It's just a very active and vocal minority, many of whom are way too responsive to the intended panic from the tiring phrase of "save our children".
Personally, my taxes went from 7K in 2007 to over 12K for 2010 without any property improvements. The attitude of "we pay more in LI because we are getting a quality educational system" is bullsh*t. Really think those two administrators from Syosset and Commack are so talented and deserving of their 300K+ salaries. You really don't think there would be a large number of people more than willing and capable to do that job at half the cost and thus setting a precedent to a process of finally giving taxpayers some relief?
I'm sure you could fill the job right now with plenty of 30K a year positions, I just don't necessarily think that anyone should. This isn't about reducing all working class people to slave wages so that the playing field is equal.
As for the people in the less-fortunate districts, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Those administrators contracts should be tied to performance gains, and if they don't see those gains in 2-3 years (as these things can't happen overnight) they should be ousted. I don't think it's unreasonable in someones 2nd year on that kind of job that they have to work weekends, fundraise on holiday breaks, or spend christmas day writing grants to improve the school system.
If I were a parent in one of those districts, believe me, I would be on the ass of the superintendent. Sadly it's why parents with decent aspirations for their children avoid those districts like the plague.
However, people should be worrying about their own children in their school situation before tackling that of other people.
I'm sure you could fill the job right now with plenty of 30K a year positions, I just don't necessarily think that anyone should. This isn't about reducing all working class people to slave wages so that the playing field is equal.
As for the people in the less-fortunate districts, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Those administrators contracts should be tied to performance gains, and if they don't see those gains in 2-3 years (as these things can't happen overnight) they should be ousted. I don't think it's unreasonable in someones 2nd year on that kind of job that they have to work weekends, fundraise on holiday breaks, or spend christmas day writing grants to improve the school system.
If I were a parent in one of those districts, believe me, I would be on the ass of the superintendent. Sadly it's why parents with decent aspirations for their children avoid those districts like the plague.
However, people should be worrying about their own children in their school situation before tackling that of other people.
I think your idea of attaching performance to administrators is a great idea, but don't just relegate it to the poorer districts. Super's in Commack should still have to justify their salary by showing an upward trend in standardized scores, acceptance rates, and other quantitative measures. I've never met anyone that made over $250,000 per year that wasn't highly accountable to their employers. In this case, I see very little measurable change in a lot of districts because of all these fancy degrees by these Superintendents.
"But Anthony Annunziato, the Bayport-Blue Point superintendent who leads the Suffolk County School Superintendent Association, said Long Islandsuperintendents would leave the state en masse once their contracts expire if such a cap is enacted.
"Absolutely, we will leave," said Annunziato, who is paid $242,550. "I can tell you personally that would be what I would look to do." He said there is already a dearth of superintendent candidates on Long Island and a cap would further diminish the field."
I have to wonder where they would go, New Jersey, Arkansas? There are just so many opportunities that would match those salaries and benefits.
"But Anthony Annunziato, the Bayport-Blue Point superintendent who leads the Suffolk County School Superintendent Association, said Long Islandsuperintendents would leave the state en masse once their contracts expire if such a cap is enacted.
"Absolutely, we will leave," said Annunziato, who is paid $242,550. "I can tell you personally that would be what I would look to do." He said there is already a dearth of superintendent candidates on Long Island and a cap would further diminish the field."
I have to wonder where they would go, New Jersey, Arkansas? There are just so many opportunities that would match those salaries and benefits.
Those administrators contracts should be tied to performance gains, and if they don't see those gains in 2-3 years (as these things can't happen overnight) they should be ousted.
But that goes against the foundation of collective bargaining, being paid more based on merit is a contradiction to 'collective' bargaining. Take away the unions and good teachers could be rewarded and bad teachers would have to improve or suffer with no promotions and bonuses like the good teachers.
Watch "Waiting for Superman", as the documentary describes the system and the struggle with unions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
