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.
It's strange how the generation that lived through the Depression imposed a nominal rate of 90% (actual, 50%) on the country's wealthiest in the late 30's, the 40's and the 50's--
That's kind of revisionist history. In 1960, the median household had a significant Federal income tax burden. Today, a family of four at the median who own a working class home pay just about zero Federal income taxes. Feed the tax brackets of 1960 into an inflation calculator. Those high brackets kicked in at extremely high income levels and there were all kinds of tax loopholes that have since been closed to escape paying the tax. The few who were making an inflation-adjusted $500K+ had the same effective tax rate as today. The huge difference is the middle class largely escapes paying Federal income taxes in 2016. If you ignore the full Bernie class warfare rhetoric, the reason we have an out-of-control national debt is because, as Mitt said four years ago, 1/2 the country pays no Federal income taxes. Another 25% pay almost nothing.
Circling back to the Vermont schools discussion...
The standard options for funding public schools are:
* The historical usual way where local property taxes for the town pay 100% of the costs. That is massively unfair to towns with a low tax base relative to the number of children in the school system. The Vermont Supreme Court certainly agreed with that. It's why Act 60 happened.
* The Vermont Act 68 method with a state school tax. The problem is that renters have no stake in it. It is a Robin Hood tax on the affluent, commercial property owners, and nonresident property owners. The means test for residential property owners lets half the state property owners escape paying the tax.
* An education sales tax. Nope. Far too regressive.
* Use the state income tax to fund the poor towns. I think this is the right way to do it but Vermont already flings so much money at social services that it would cause a huge amount of business and white collar flight. Not that business and white collar flight isn't already happening.
Since I don't think Vermont is capable of controlling spending, Act 68 is the only viable solution.
It's strange how the generation that lived through the Depression imposed a nominal rate of 90% (actual, 50%) on the country's wealthiest in the late 30's, the 40's and the 50's-- and somehow that class didn't flee the country or get ground into poverty. Plus, with that tax money being used for massive improvements in infrastructure, America experienced perhaps the greatest boom in innovation, transportation education and health than in any other time in its history. But today, America's wealthiest groan under a nominal rate of 35% (actual, 18%). Summer soldiers!
Contrast that with the Reagan tax cut on marginal income: It freed up $13 trillion which of course went to Wall Street. In conformance with classical economics, the demand for investment vehicles exceeded the supply, so all that happened was prices went up. As a result, brokers, traders and management started making more money. The best and the brightest graduates started getting going to Wall Street rather than productive lines of work. They invented new investment vehicles which we read about in "The Big Short," "Inside Job," and "Barbarians at the Gates." As was written in Leopold's The Looting of America, it was all paper profits, which turned the financial world into the equivalent of a fantasy football league. There was very little that made a substantial positive impact on our country.
There were no cities renewed, no people hired to repair bridges, roads and schools, no colleges made more affordable, no public water or sewerage systems upgraded. There was a boost in the Dow Jones Industrial Index-- which doesn't feed anybody and certainly doesn't directly benefit anybody making less than $160,000-- which is about 94% of Vermont households.
Good to know you feel better about your present tax status. I would like everybody to enjoy my income status-- which is to have $12,000 a year more than I need to live on. Never thought I'd ever have it this good!
THIS!!!
I would LOVE to see more $$$$$$ go to our schools. What really bothers me is that there are many people who think that our teachers are overpaid. Teaching is probably one of the hardest jobs in the world. Teachers are asked to do more & more. Not only do they have to teach-trying to keep the bright kids engaged and making sure the slower kids don't get left behind, they also are surrogate parents, councilors, babysitters, disciplinarians, and many other roles. But yet, many don't make a livable wage. The average salary for teachers at the elementary level in Vermont is only $52K. They also usually buy their own materials because their schools can't afford to. When I was student teaching, my class only had ONE package of construction paper to last the YEAR! I don't know how many of you remember 5th grade and how many projects included construction paper. Yup-something as insignificant as construction paper is rationed.
My husband is a retired college professor. A lot of people think that professors make boocoo bucks. Not in Vermont. As he said, "I didn't go into teaching thinking that I was going to get rich. Nor did I take a vow of poverty either." I think if we raised teachers' salaries, we will attract more and better teachers which will enrich our kids' educations. There would be a bigger pool to select from. With higher wages, they will also pay more income tax that will go towards our schools. Then maybe schools won't have to ration construction paper.
More $$$$$ to our schools? As noted in the original post, only NY, NJ, CT, and AK spend more than we do per student in VT, and those States are considerably wealthier than VT. I'm a town official and know all too well there are many people straining under the weight of our current property taxes. Each year some lose their homes to tax sales which is heartbreaking to witness. Income taxes already fund much of our school cost through State Payments, and we already have one of the highest marginal rates in the country. How much higher can that be raised before it chases people and businesses away? I hear from small and medium size businesses struggling under VT's high taxes and regulatory environment. This is not theoretical. VT must come to grips with its school costs. The most cost effective solution would be to start consolidating schools to rid ourselves of the expense of keeping so many half empty schools open. At the middle/high school level we'd get the added benefit of being able to offer more comprehensive curriculum offerings.
Our population is not rising nor is our economy growing at a level that can sustain education costs rising faster than inflation. Many people are not seeing wage increases even at the level of inflation. There is no magic pot of money out there so as to keep doing things the way we've always done them.
More $$$$$ to our schools? As noted in the original post, only NY, NJ, CT, and AK spend more than we do per student in VT, and those States are considerably wealthier than VT. I'm a town official and know all too well there are many people straining under the weight of our current property taxes. Each year some lose their homes to tax sales which is heartbreaking to witness. Income taxes already fund much of our school cost through State Payments, and we already have one of the highest marginal rates in the country. How much higher can that be raised before it chases people and businesses away? I hear from small and medium size businesses struggling under VT's high taxes and regulatory environment. This is not theoretical. VT must come to grips with its school costs. The most cost effective solution would be to start consolidating schools to rid ourselves of the expense of keeping so many half empty schools open. At the middle/high school level we'd get the added benefit of being able to offer more comprehensive curriculum offerings.
Our population is not rising nor is our economy growing at a level that can sustain education costs rising faster than inflation. Many people are not seeing wage increases even at the level of inflation. There is no magic pot of money out there so as to keep doing things the way we've always done them.
I did not say that we had to raise property taxes to pay our teachers more. As I said before, we need to get rid of the bureaucracy. There shouldn't be anything higher than principal. No superintendent, no supervisory unions. The $$$$$ spent on those positions should go towards teachers. I do agree that SOME schools could be consolidated but not all. Consolidating high schools is more doable than consolidating elementary schools.
And when it comes to specialty programs, why not have a few qualified teachers who travel from school to school? We do it with music teachers. Why not do it with advance placement courses?
CatwomanofV, I can agree that I'd rather the money go to teachers than to administrators and their staff. Schools may drop teaching positions in reaction to dwindling enrollment but the administrators and their staff never seem to go away. I went to the public hearing earlier this year for our regional high school's budget and asked about this very thing. If looks could kill I wouldn't be here right now. I didn't get an answer to my question either.
I'm game for anything that will help our best and brightest compete on the larger stage they will encounter once they graduate from our little schools. This includes traveling teachers as you suggest.
I'm in my 60's and though born to a large blue collar family I had the good fortune to go to a large public high school that provided options just not available to kids around here. I was not at a educational disadvantage when I went to college relative to kids who came from more advantaged households. My career success enabled me to send my kids to one of those old private schools you find throughout New England. I sent them there because I was unimpressed with what was offered at my small local high school. In my heart of hearts I think all kids should have the same quality public high school that I had, and had such been available in my town that's where my kids would have gone. We spend on the order of $16,000 per student per year which seems to me more than enough money to give them more than they are getting. We're just not spending it well.
We dance around the edges of the problem when we talk about simply paying teachers more.
The crux of the problem is that we don't educate children well when we use a cookie-cutter approach (the one we've used ever since the start of our public education system).
We need to start from the bottom-- with the expectation that a good teacher brings out in children potentials they didn't know they had. This means giving teachers the autonomy and resources to do what they think will work best for each child. It also means providing them the money to do so. Springfield's average cost per child is two-thirds of what the tuition is for one of the best k-12 systems in the country-- the University of Chicago Laboratory School-- and their results are far superior educationally (although I don't think civically the students are up to par). I am willing to bet that the per student cost in one of the best public school systems in the world-- Finland's-- is probably not much greater than that of Vermont. What is it about their approach that makes results so much better?
I agree that administrative costs are high, but is the real problem that administrations don't work for the teachers and principals?
We dance around the edges of the problem when we talk about simply paying teachers more.
The crux of the problem is that we don't educate children well when we use a cookie-cutter approach (the one we've used ever since the start of our public education system).
We need to start from the bottom-- with the expectation that a good teacher brings out in children potentials they didn't know they had. This means giving teachers the autonomy and resources to do what they think will work best for each child. It also means providing them the money to do so. Springfield's average cost per child is two-thirds of what the tuition is for one of the best k-12 systems in the country-- the University of Chicago Laboratory School-- and their results are far superior educationally (although I don't think civically the students are up to par). I am willing to bet that the per student cost in one of the best public school systems in the world-- Finland's-- is probably not much greater than that of Vermont. What is it about their approach that makes results so much better?
I agree that administrative costs are high, but is the real problem that administrations don't work for the teachers and principals?
I agree. Like I said before, when I was teaching, it was a challenge trying to keep the brighter kids engaged and not get bored while making sure the slower kids didn't fall behind. And the cookie-cutter approach just doesn't cut it. Any teacher will tell you that no all kids learn the same way. Some are visual learners, some audio, others need a totally different approach. Standardized tests do not help ANYONE-expect the companies who make standardized tests. They only measure how well some can take a test. And thanks to No Child Left, many resources go toward teaching the test and not teaching the students. I would love to see the country move away from them.
And I agree about the administrations. I understand that each school needs someone to answer phones, make copies, & such. But, when you have more people doing that then people who are actually TEACHING, then something is totally wrong.
I did go to private school for 1st & 2nd grade but then went to public school for rest of my education-including college.
"And thanks to No Child Left, many resources go toward teaching the test and not teaching the students. I would love to see the country move away from them. "
Then you have never lived in the south. Without some outside objective standard, students in parts of the south would be taught how to measure the capacity of Noah's Ark, the history of General Lee, how to BBQ, how to keep football scores, and little more.
I totally get the frustration that kids learn differently and that some are difficult to teach. My mother was a teacher, and I've taught many starting employees while they were still in school. The issue "no child" addressed was union featherbedding of p***-poor teachers and focus upon teachers and administration needs more than those of the kids. Moaning and gnashing of teeth was to be expected when it was implemented.
Learning can be hard. Learning can take time and be frustrating to those teaching. Without a baseline set of goals, the cracks in "education" get wider and more kids fall through.
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.
