Teacher Compensation

[boedicca]

You must not know anything about 401Ks.

I think we are starting to see a trend here with all of things you think you know about, yet don't.

Are you a stalker?
I think we see why you are in the classroom now, well part-time because you can't even hack that.
You know the saying "for those that can't do...teach".
We see clearly by you how that saying was formed.

OK, dumbass! I wasn't going to embarrass you but where are funds in 401Ks usually invested?

The stock market, DUH!

Being stupid is not a crime, but you should at least realize how stupid you are!

What in the hell are you talking about??
Of course I know 401ks are invested in the markets. What made you think I didn't?
I said, 401ks consistently underperform in the market averages.
No wonder you a only a substitute!!

401Ks provide limited choices for participants.

But the real drawback is that the Feds always have the option to jack up taxes through the roof when you withdraw the funds in retirement.

As well as companies can stop matching your contribution anytime they want.
Companies used to finance 100% of employee pension plans...."but lookee here.... 401ks!!!...whoohoo...we'll tell them this is awesome...and it is "Free Money" for them cause we love them so much...and then in a few years phase out pension plans so they will finance their own retirements!!!...are we awesome or what!".......... said every company CEO/CFO

It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Are you a stalker?
I think we see why you are in the classroom now, well part-time because you can't even hack that.
You know the saying "for those that can't do...teach".
We see clearly by you how that saying was formed.

OK, dumbass! I wasn't going to embarrass you but where are funds in 401Ks usually invested?

The stock market, DUH!

Being stupid is not a crime, but you should at least realize how stupid you are!

What in the hell are you talking about??
Of course I know 401ks are invested in the markets. What made you think I didn't?
I said, 401ks consistently underperform in the market averages.
No wonder you a only a substitute!!

401Ks provide limited choices for participants.

But the real drawback is that the Feds always have the option to jack up taxes through the roof when you withdraw the funds in retirement.

As well as companies can stop matching your contribution anytime they want.
Companies used to finance 100% of employee pension plans...."but lookee here.... 401ks!!!...whoohoo...we'll tell them this is awesome...and it is "Free Money" for them cause we love them so much...and then in a few years phase out pension plans so they will finance their own retirements!!!...are we awesome or what!".......... said every company CEO/CFO

It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.

It should be. That was the deal. Pensions were a part of your compensation package. It would be no less wrong to say companies are not responsible for our wages. It was a part of our end of the "service for hire" deal.

 

[boedicca]

OK, dumbass! I wasn't going to embarrass you but where are funds in 401Ks usually invested?

The stock market, DUH!

Being stupid is not a crime, but you should at least realize how stupid you are!

What in the hell are you talking about??
Of course I know 401ks are invested in the markets. What made you think I didn't?
I said, 401ks consistently underperform in the market averages.
No wonder you a only a substitute!!

401Ks provide limited choices for participants.

But the real drawback is that the Feds always have the option to jack up taxes through the roof when you withdraw the funds in retirement.

As well as companies can stop matching your contribution anytime they want.
Companies used to finance 100% of employee pension plans...."but lookee here.... 401ks!!!...whoohoo...we'll tell them this is awesome...and it is "Free Money" for them cause we love them so much...and then in a few years phase out pension plans so they will finance their own retirements!!!...are we awesome or what!".......... said every company CEO/CFO

It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.

It should be. That was the deal. Pensions were a part of your compensation package. It would be no less wrong to say companies are not responsible for our wages. It was a part of our end of the "service for hire" deal.

OK. Then you risk a company being in control of a pool of pension assets, with all the moral hazard that has led to underfunded pensions.

This, and health care, are just gimmicks put in place to get around wage controls and tax disincentives.

If your pension contribution was added to your cash comp and tax exempt for retirement account purposes, you'd be far better off.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What in the hell are you talking about??
Of course I know 401ks are invested in the markets. What made you think I didn't?
I said, 401ks consistently underperform in the market averages.
No wonder you a only a substitute!!

401Ks provide limited choices for participants.

But the real drawback is that the Feds always have the option to jack up taxes through the roof when you withdraw the funds in retirement.

As well as companies can stop matching your contribution anytime they want.
Companies used to finance 100% of employee pension plans...."but lookee here.... 401ks!!!...whoohoo...we'll tell them this is awesome...and it is "Free Money" for them cause we love them so much...and then in a few years phase out pension plans so they will finance their own retirements!!!...are we awesome or what!".......... said every company CEO/CFO

It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.

It should be. That was the deal. Pensions were a part of your compensation package. It would be no less wrong to say companies are not responsible for our wages. It was a part of our end of the "service for hire" deal.

OK. Then you risk a company being in control of a pool of pension assets, with all the moral hazard that has led to underfunded pensions.

This, and health care, are just gimmicks put in place to get around wage controls and tax disincentives.

If your pension contribution was added to your cash comp and tax exempt for retirement account purposes, you'd be far better off.

Not as long as they were properly regulated.
I am one of the rare people my age (53), works in the private industry and have the fantastic benefit of having 20 years with an old fashioned real pension. It wasn't the evil companies that raided pension funds etc. It was the evil companies colluding with the government to remove the regulations that prevented them from getting their hands on it. Enron, etc. were not original pension plan sets, they were modified "investment" pensions in which a large percentage of your pension is shares in the company.
Since my pension is the old plans that are locked away in guaranteed asset funds held by an independent firm - regardless of the companies finances, no matter what happens to them.... I will get my $2,200 a month. That doesn't sound like much I know, I would have loved to have been able to add another 10 years to that, but they froze the plans in 2004.

 

[hunarcy]

but it looks like its about 26 or so pages of DEVIANT Teachers in just 2 articles or pages over the years and its probably gotten worse as more Young Teachers are hired . ------------------------ and they ALL want more money and respect Hunarcy .

Such an impressive list! But, out of 3.2 MILLION? Still not many. But, don’t let this stop your ignorant jihad against educators.

---------------------- its all in a moment of searching so its all i could find as i don't have access to all of YOUR friends , teachers and colleagues . Hey , look , as i said , my kids are grown and went to School many . many years ago so i just do this for Fun . As a way to measure Teacher success i just read articles about teaching incompetence , education failing and similar in the USA as i have already posted . At least , taxpayers that read my lists will be informed and they can either ignore or be informed about some teachers that they pay to molest and teach their kids , Its fun Hunarcy .

Unlike the politicians you support, when teachers behave that way, they are indicted and put on trial.

 

[hunarcy]

Far too many conservatives have bought into the indoctrination myth, so they do hate teachers!

No, they don't. They don't like the system that's in place right now that is failing to educate the children. They don't like the fact that it can be very difficult if not impossible to remove bad teachers and that good teachers are not often rewarded for their excellence. They don't like the fact that we spend far more per student than most countries that are outperforming our students. They don't like the fact that students feeling good about themselves and knowing how to put a condom on a banana SEEMS more important than whether they can read, write, and make change for a dollar.

But they don't hate teachers.

So, you have bought into the "indoctrination" hoax?

You just listed lie after lie, with a few half-truths thrown in for good measure. Why do you not know what you are doing?

Can you be specific?

See the quote above.

Red text - lie.
Orange text - Half truth.

-------------------------------------------------------- the good thing is that many see many teachers as unAmerican enemies and that all by itself is a good thing Hun and Admiral !!

The TRUTH is that most of the teachers I work with are very conservative and are the guardians of our culture. We are hindered by society's expectation that their children be entertained, by State Education Departments and Federal authorities that insist that every child is going to lockstep out of the high school and straight into college, when the reality is that we know that college is not for everyone and each student should be allowed to choose. We deal with children who live in some of the worst conditions through no fault of their own and help them learn in spite of their circumstances. You are free to stereotype me and Admiral, but the fact is your prejudices (probably based on the fact that you didn't have the best experience in school) don't define me. They merely limit your ability to cope with the truth.

 

[hunarcy]

“Normal people” don’t get social security?

For people working today, SS is a net loss. We would all do better investing that money for ourselves. The unfunded liability is so huge that the Feds are going to "solve" it with inflation and cutting benefits. Anyone planning to rely on SS to support their retirement is fooling himself.

That’s a failure of government

No, it's the inevitable failure of a collectivist policy. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

I don’t disagree, but you pay into Social Security. It’s your money that government failed to manage correctly

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that nobody has a right to their SS payments. It should be our money, but as the government has spent it all, that is cold comfort.

What we need are individualized accounts that the government can't touch. Instead, we see the Dems advocating for things such as nationalized 401K plans in order to provide some assets to stave off the inevitable cratering of the SS ponzi scheme.

Then, shouldn't we take it out on our representatives?

 

[Dekster]

It is a case of priorities of your state and you get what you pay for

These states look at education as nonessential and are willing to hire those who may not be the best available. The bottom of the barrel is good enough to educate their youth

There is only so much money to go around. Raising education spending may require cuts to police or fire departments or highways or whatever. States cannot print their own money so if teachers need to be paid more, then you should tell us what you think should be cut to pay for it. Whenever teacher pay makes the front page of the paper (or police pay or sanitation workers pay) I know for certain I can expect 1) to see the real estate assessor's car setting in front of my house reassessing my property and 2) Enhanced enforcement of zoning/local code is about to start up. They just raised rates over 11% this year so they know they will not be able to raise those again anytime soon so they will inflate assessments.

Again, you get what you pay for

If education is not a priority, teachers are always at the back of the line
A college educated teacher who is not even making $40,000 after ten years on the job will find better options

I have long said teachers pay should commensurate with the results of their teaching. Merit based.
I have zero problem with my tax dollars paying a teacher very good wages as long as their performance is equally high.
I have a HUGE problem with teachers making $50k a year with very good bene's and more time off in one year than most people get in 5 years...and their performance is abysmal. Every single school system carries the weight of teachers they can't get rid of due to teachers unions making it basically impossible to fire a teacher over performance, no matter how bad. Some schools have teachers so bad they pay them to sit in rooms and do absolutely nothing. Known as "rubber rooms". I remember one Chicago system that employed something like 400 teachers I believe, and had something like 30 teachers in such programs. How can they afford to pay better wages when 10% of the employees are paid to do nothing??

That would require letting teachers teach which would require repealing No CHild Left Behind

 

[Dekster]

It is a case of priorities of your state and you get what you pay for

These states look at education as nonessential and are willing to hire those who may not be the best available. The bottom of the barrel is good enough to educate their youth

There is only so much money to go around. Raising education spending may require cuts to police or fire departments or highways or whatever. States cannot print their own money so if teachers need to be paid more, then you should tell us what you think should be cut to pay for it. Whenever teacher pay makes the front page of the paper (or police pay or sanitation workers pay) I know for certain I can expect 1) to see the real estate assessor's car setting in front of my house reassessing my property and 2) Enhanced enforcement of zoning/local code is about to start up. They just raised rates over 11% this year so they know they will not be able to raise those again anytime soon so they will inflate assessments.

Ever hear of volunteer fire departments?

Yes but those of us who live in civilization like to get somebody there in less than 30 minutes when our house is on fire or our heart stops ticking.

You would be surprised how fast Volunteers get to a fire. Of course in a big,rural area that would be impossible. But we lived in a TWP that had 4 Fire Stations.

When the TWP became a city they were able to hire , but we had already moved, so it did not affect us. It is very hard work but rewarding.

One of my brothers was on his areas VFD. A guy I worked with had his house catch on fire. He was telling us the story, suddenly stopped and looked me straight in the eyes, and said, "And your damned brother just leaned against the truck". Of course I asked him and he was, "Yep pretty much. Nobody in the house, so not much to do except stand there while it burned down. Fully involved when we got there, so we mostly just tried to keep it from setting the fields on fire.."

 

[Dekster]

Yes but those of us who live in civilization like to get somebody there in less than 30 minutes when our house is on fire or our heart stops ticking.

So you are wiling to pay for a service you will probably never need, but let children use a broken educational system. Please relocate to a third world shit hole ASAP, you will love it.

I have called 911 a few times. The first responders are here usually in about 2 minutes. The only thing that has broken the educational system is standardization and treating it like a profession instead of a job.

Teachers are very professional

They should be compensated as such

Should the students be well compensated for the stud services they provide to these "professionals"?

 

[Dekster]

There are still some out in the hinderlands of our county. My brother did it for awhile. They are not allowed to make entry into a burning structure unless there is a 100% confirmed live person in it. The EMT's keep threatening to quit unless they get paid what the paid ambulance service people get. The list goes on and on and on as to why they are a bad idea.

Ours work great here, maybe its that lack of education that hinders your area.

My high school had a 97% college acceptance rate. Try another straw

Sure it did, there is no where in the US that has a 3% dropout rate.

What happened at my Magnet school and what happened at yours are two different things.

 

[Dekster]

Yes but those of us who live in civilization like to get somebody there in less than 30 minutes when our house is on fire or our heart stops ticking.

So you are wiling to pay for a service you will probably never need, but let children use a broken educational system. Please relocate to a third world shit hole ASAP, you will love it.

I have called 911 a few times. The first responders are here usually in about 2 minutes. The only thing that has broken the educational system is standardization and treating it like a profession instead of a job.

Why would you need 911? Can't imagine you have crime or medical problems or accidents with such highly educated folk about.

Once for an old woman with stroke like symptoms and a lot in the neighborhood kept going up in flames. They first blamed tossed cigarettes. Then they blamed arson. And eventually discerned that it was because the trees were rubbing the electric lines. Education doesn't keep people from getting old and sick, nor does it prevent an absentee landlord from allowing his land to become a fire hazard. Any other questions?

 

[saveliberty]

What happened at my Magnet school and what happened at yours are two different things.

Didn't happen at yours for sure.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is a case of priorities of your state and you get what you pay for

These states look at education as nonessential and are willing to hire those who may not be the best available. The bottom of the barrel is good enough to educate their youth

There is only so much money to go around. Raising education spending may require cuts to police or fire departments or highways or whatever. States cannot print their own money so if teachers need to be paid more, then you should tell us what you think should be cut to pay for it. Whenever teacher pay makes the front page of the paper (or police pay or sanitation workers pay) I know for certain I can expect 1) to see the real estate assessor's car setting in front of my house reassessing my property and 2) Enhanced enforcement of zoning/local code is about to start up. They just raised rates over 11% this year so they know they will not be able to raise those again anytime soon so they will inflate assessments.

Again, you get what you pay for

If education is not a priority, teachers are always at the back of the line
A college educated teacher who is not even making $40,000 after ten years on the job will find better options

I have long said teachers pay should commensurate with the results of their teaching. Merit based.
I have zero problem with my tax dollars paying a teacher very good wages as long as their performance is equally high.
I have a HUGE problem with teachers making $50k a year with very good bene's and more time off in one year than most people get in 5 years...and their performance is abysmal. Every single school system carries the weight of teachers they can't get rid of due to teachers unions making it basically impossible to fire a teacher over performance, no matter how bad. Some schools have teachers so bad they pay them to sit in rooms and do absolutely nothing. Known as "rubber rooms". I remember one Chicago system that employed something like 400 teachers I believe, and had something like 30 teachers in such programs. How can they afford to pay better wages when 10% of the employees are paid to do nothing??

That would require letting teachers teach which would require repealing No CHild Left Behind

Hey dumbass! NCLB was repealed when Obama was still in office, back in December 2015! Catch a clue!

Obama signs new K-12 education law that ends No Child Left Behind

 

[Dekster]

What happened at my Magnet school and what happened at yours are two different things.

Didn't happen at yours for sure.

Sure it did. You just don't like that some schools are successful, particularly ones that you have to have more than a pulse rate to attend.

 

[Dekster]

It is a case of priorities of your state and you get what you pay for

These states look at education as nonessential and are willing to hire those who may not be the best available. The bottom of the barrel is good enough to educate their youth

There is only so much money to go around. Raising education spending may require cuts to police or fire departments or highways or whatever. States cannot print their own money so if teachers need to be paid more, then you should tell us what you think should be cut to pay for it. Whenever teacher pay makes the front page of the paper (or police pay or sanitation workers pay) I know for certain I can expect 1) to see the real estate assessor's car setting in front of my house reassessing my property and 2) Enhanced enforcement of zoning/local code is about to start up. They just raised rates over 11% this year so they know they will not be able to raise those again anytime soon so they will inflate assessments.

Again, you get what you pay for

If education is not a priority, teachers are always at the back of the line
A college educated teacher who is not even making $40,000 after ten years on the job will find better options

I have long said teachers pay should commensurate with the results of their teaching. Merit based.
I have zero problem with my tax dollars paying a teacher very good wages as long as their performance is equally high.
I have a HUGE problem with teachers making $50k a year with very good bene's and more time off in one year than most people get in 5 years...and their performance is abysmal. Every single school system carries the weight of teachers they can't get rid of due to teachers unions making it basically impossible to fire a teacher over performance, no matter how bad. Some schools have teachers so bad they pay them to sit in rooms and do absolutely nothing. Known as "rubber rooms". I remember one Chicago system that employed something like 400 teachers I believe, and had something like 30 teachers in such programs. How can they afford to pay better wages when 10% of the employees are paid to do nothing??

That would require letting teachers teach which would require repealing No CHild Left Behind

Hey dumbass! NCLB was repealed when Obama was still in office, back in December 2015! Catch a clue!

Obama signs new K-12 education law that ends No Child Left Behind

Hey dumbass changing the name doesn't let teachers teach. It still has the same mandatory testing requirements that don't let teachers teach anything but the test. Of course you don't see that because you think it is better that students count on their fingers and go through some contrived process rather than actually learn their multiplication tables.

 

[boedicca]

401Ks provide limited choices for participants.

But the real drawback is that the Feds always have the option to jack up taxes through the roof when you withdraw the funds in retirement.

As well as companies can stop matching your contribution anytime they want.
Companies used to finance 100% of employee pension plans...."but lookee here.... 401ks!!!...whoohoo...we'll tell them this is awesome...and it is "Free Money" for them cause we love them so much...and then in a few years phase out pension plans so they will finance their own retirements!!!...are we awesome or what!".......... said every company CEO/CFO

It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.

It should be. That was the deal. Pensions were a part of your compensation package. It would be no less wrong to say companies are not responsible for our wages. It was a part of our end of the "service for hire" deal.

OK. Then you risk a company being in control of a pool of pension assets, with all the moral hazard that has led to underfunded pensions.

This, and health care, are just gimmicks put in place to get around wage controls and tax disincentives.

If your pension contribution was added to your cash comp and tax exempt for retirement account purposes, you'd be far better off.

Not as long as they were properly regulated.
I am one of the rare people my age (53), works in the private industry and have the fantastic benefit of having 20 years with an old fashioned real pension. It wasn't the evil companies that raided pension funds etc. It was the evil companies colluding with the government to remove the regulations that prevented them from getting their hands on it. Enron, etc. were not original pension plan sets, they were modified "investment" pensions in which a large percentage of your pension is shares in the company.
Since my pension is the old plans that are locked away in guaranteed asset funds held by an independent firm - regardless of the companies finances, no matter what happens to them.... I will get my $2,200 a month. That doesn't sound like much I know, I would have loved to have been able to add another 10 years to that, but they froze the plans in 2004.

Oh blah blah blah evil companies.

 

[boedicca]

For people working today, SS is a net loss. We would all do better investing that money for ourselves. The unfunded liability is so huge that the Feds are going to "solve" it with inflation and cutting benefits. Anyone planning to rely on SS to support their retirement is fooling himself.

That’s a failure of government

No, it's the inevitable failure of a collectivist policy. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

I don’t disagree, but you pay into Social Security. It’s your money that government failed to manage correctly

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that nobody has a right to their SS payments. It should be our money, but as the government has spent it all, that is cold comfort.

What we need are individualized accounts that the government can't touch. Instead, we see the Dems advocating for things such as nationalized 401K plans in order to provide some assets to stave off the inevitable cratering of the SS ponzi scheme.

Then, shouldn't we take it out on our representatives?

Yes, we should. Good luck with that given the appalling ignorance of a large portion of the voting public.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is only so much money to go around. Raising education spending may require cuts to police or fire departments or highways or whatever. States cannot print their own money so if teachers need to be paid more, then you should tell us what you think should be cut to pay for it. Whenever teacher pay makes the front page of the paper (or police pay or sanitation workers pay) I know for certain I can expect 1) to see the real estate assessor's car setting in front of my house reassessing my property and 2) Enhanced enforcement of zoning/local code is about to start up. They just raised rates over 11% this year so they know they will not be able to raise those again anytime soon so they will inflate assessments.

Again, you get what you pay for

If education is not a priority, teachers are always at the back of the line
A college educated teacher who is not even making $40,000 after ten years on the job will find better options

I have long said teachers pay should commensurate with the results of their teaching. Merit based.
I have zero problem with my tax dollars paying a teacher very good wages as long as their performance is equally high.
I have a HUGE problem with teachers making $50k a year with very good bene's and more time off in one year than most people get in 5 years...and their performance is abysmal. Every single school system carries the weight of teachers they can't get rid of due to teachers unions making it basically impossible to fire a teacher over performance, no matter how bad. Some schools have teachers so bad they pay them to sit in rooms and do absolutely nothing. Known as "rubber rooms". I remember one Chicago system that employed something like 400 teachers I believe, and had something like 30 teachers in such programs. How can they afford to pay better wages when 10% of the employees are paid to do nothing??

That would require letting teachers teach which would require repealing No CHild Left Behind

Hey dumbass! NCLB was repealed when Obama was still in office, back in December 2015! Catch a clue!

Obama signs new K-12 education law that ends No Child Left Behind

Hey dumbass changing the name doesn't let teachers teach. It still has the same mandatory testing requirements that don't let teachers teach anything but the test. Of course you don't see that because you think it is better that students count on their fingers and go through some contrived process rather than actually learn their multiplication tables.

More stupid from you? NCLB required Common Core standards. The new ESSA law does not. You are so ignorant that you do not know the difference.

As to teaching to the test, that is hopefully what teachers have done forever, and will continue to do.

Why would test something you don't teach? That's automatic failure. If the test is on geometry, shouldn't you actually be teaching geometry?

Why would you teach something you do not test? That's a waste of time! Why would I teach probability and statistics to my 8th graders if it was not on their test?

You amateur "teacher wannabees" never put forth the time and effort to actually think about it! Unfortunately, there are a few teachers who do not understand this either!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As well as companies can stop matching your contribution anytime they want.
Companies used to finance 100% of employee pension plans...."but lookee here.... 401ks!!!...whoohoo...we'll tell them this is awesome...and it is "Free Money" for them cause we love them so much...and then in a few years phase out pension plans so they will finance their own retirements!!!...are we awesome or what!".......... said every company CEO/CFO

It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.

It should be. That was the deal. Pensions were a part of your compensation package. It would be no less wrong to say companies are not responsible for our wages. It was a part of our end of the "service for hire" deal.

OK. Then you risk a company being in control of a pool of pension assets, with all the moral hazard that has led to underfunded pensions.

This, and health care, are just gimmicks put in place to get around wage controls and tax disincentives.

If your pension contribution was added to your cash comp and tax exempt for retirement account purposes, you'd be far better off.

Not as long as they were properly regulated.
I am one of the rare people my age (53), works in the private industry and have the fantastic benefit of having 20 years with an old fashioned real pension. It wasn't the evil companies that raided pension funds etc. It was the evil companies colluding with the government to remove the regulations that prevented them from getting their hands on it. Enron, etc. were not original pension plan sets, they were modified "investment" pensions in which a large percentage of your pension is shares in the company.
Since my pension is the old plans that are locked away in guaranteed asset funds held by an independent firm - regardless of the companies finances, no matter what happens to them.... I will get my $2,200 a month. That doesn't sound like much I know, I would have loved to have been able to add another 10 years to that, but they froze the plans in 2004.

Oh blah blah blah evil companies.

Pretty much