Teachers spend nearly $500 a year on supplies. Under the GOP tax bill, they will no longer get a tax

[Kosh]

[QU

Because the unions are not interested in teaching and the far left keeps dumbing down the system. That is why the far left needs illegal in the school systems, so the standards can be kept very low.

I sent my kids to private school and they got a good education but I had a neighbor whose children went to public schools. The public school they went to was suppose to be one of the better ones.

My neigbor told me his High School student was taking a class in American history. Post WWII.

They spent one class period discussing the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and the fall of the Soviet Union. No assignments.

They spent three weeks discussing the Civil Rights movement including tests and project assignments.

No wonder we are turning out uneducated people in the public schools.

The civil rights movement was an historical milestone in our country. Of course you are going to spend more time on it...it spanned an era roughly Jim Crowe through the 60's and entailed significant cultural and political upheaval.

It is kind of uneducated to think this is something not worth much attention.

And you prove that the far left wants the make sure that is a small event since it was the far left that was against it!

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

But never let a good religious narrative go to waste!

Educate yourself on real history vs the far left religious narrative!

As usual you confuse political parties with political ideologies.

Wrong! That would be you far left drones, you do it with each every post!

But then again when have you ever shown that you understand anything beyond far left religious dogma!

Proof once again the far left should never be in charge of anything!

 

[Flash]

[QU

The civil rights era was certainly as influential as the Cold War, more than the Korean War And intwined with the Vietnam war. Why minimize it?

Bullshit. Your silly post is one of the most stupid things ever posted on this forum.

You are confused about this Moon Bat. Typical for a Libtard.

There were over 100 thousand Americans killed in the hot part of the Cold. The geographic boundaries of the world were re drawn and it expended the resources of trillions of dollars. We came very close to destroying the world.

To have one day to discuss 40 years of history and then three weeks to discuss the Civil Rights movement is absolutely ridiculous and an example of what happens when you let stupid Liberals be involved in education.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The deduction to which the article refers is the "educator expense deduction." That deduction is a "carve out" made in explicit recognition of the fact that teachers typically do take money out of their pockets to buy stuff for their students.

To take the deduction, teachers must itemize their deductions. An alternative, if the educator expense deduction is indeed eliminated, is for teachers to record the expenses as unreimbursed business expenses, which also is an itemized deduction, which, insofar as it's classed as a miscellaneous deduction, it is subject to a 2% floor. That may not as good as the educator expense deduction -- I don't know if that deduction also is classed as miscellaneous -- but it's the best I can think of to suggest at this time.

Indeed, I didn't know about the educator expense deduction, but I (my accountant, really) routinely avail myself of the unreimbursed business expense deduction, most especially when I have reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses in the final two weeks of the year and have not yet been reimbursed for them. After all, individual tax returns are filed on a cash basis, so while it's not generally a lot of money, it some money, and I'm not about to pretend that I don't take every deduction and credit for which I'm legitimately eligible, though I'm not much of a "rule stretcher." That is, I'm unwilling to knowingly put myself in debatable position against the IRS whereby to defend an assertion in my tax return, I must take the matter to tax court.

So if a teacher earns $40,000 a year, that 2% floor is not met until the teacher spends $800 out of pocket

That may be completely correct, but thematically is correct. The reason for my uncertainty is that I don't know whether the floor amount is calculated with gross income or with AGI as the multiplicand.

Certainly, if one's gross and adjusted gross incomes be the same, your presentation is spot on. If the teacher were to spend $500, s/he'd be eligible for no deduction, whereas were s/he to spend $1000, s/he can take a $200.

One thing to note is that the unreimbursed business expenses I deduct are Schedule E deductions, not Schedule A deductions. That difference is important because Schedule A deductions all have either a floor or a ceiling of some sort whereas Schedule E and other "before AGI" ("above the line") deductions have no such limits.

Make of that what you will, but as goes the matter of tax equity, the difference in the "usefulness" of before versus after AGI deductions is yet another manifestation of how everything about the tax code is designed in a way that favors business owners over employees. Mind you, business owners are, first and foremost, financially benefitted most by their business endeavors; the tax code merely amplifies their benefit, relative to their employee peers. (I suppose one can also put it as the tax code minimizing business owners' burden to fund the government, relative to their employee peers.)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The countries that charge fees or tuition for kids to attend school have low literacy and education rates and are typically third world. Why do we want to be like that?


70 million children get no education, says report

So what you're saying is that if we had parents pay a little more than the taxpayers who don't have kids in school, we would end up like a third world country? I have some bad news for ya, and that is our inner-city kids aren't too far from that point now. So do we continue failure or perhaps experiment with something new?

No. Because that is not what you proposed. You said "Maybe if we had tuition for public school students as well,"

Yes, that’s what I said. A small tuition that may make a parent value their child’s education a little more.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

A you going to up their welfare check to offset that increased tuition? If so, you are still paying for it!

These people have some cash and not everybody is totally dependent on welfare. These HUD houses in the suburbs are not totally paid for. They get a voucher and whatever the difference is in rent, they have to come up with cash.

I'm sorry, but taking money that they are given for basic subsistence and then taking it away for tuition is just a huge waste of time, effort, and money.

I think federal employees should not pay income tax as they are just paying part of their own salary. Reduce their salary by the taxed amount and reduce the paperwork.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what you're saying is that if we had parents pay a little more than the taxpayers who don't have kids in school, we would end up like a third world country? I have some bad news for ya, and that is our inner-city kids aren't too far from that point now. So do we continue failure or perhaps experiment with something new?

No. Because that is not what you proposed. You said "Maybe if we had tuition for public school students as well,"

Yes, that’s what I said. A small tuition that may make a parent value their child’s education a little more.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

A you going to up their welfare check to offset that increased tuition? If so, you are still paying for it!

These people have some cash and not everybody is totally dependent on welfare. These HUD houses in the suburbs are not totally paid for. They get a voucher and whatever the difference is in rent, they have to come up with cash.

I'm sorry, but taking money that they are given for basic subsistence and then taking it away for tuition is just a huge waste of time, effort, and money.

I think federal employees should not pay income tax as they are just paying part of their own salary. Reduce their salary by the taxed amount and reduce the paperwork.

Get rid of unnecessary paper pushers? The Democrats would never allow it. Remember the heart attack they had when the Republicans started to block grant money to the states for welfare programs?????

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

[Q


Sorry, but your whine-fest is devoid of any truth. Our education system is not piss poor. Anyone who says it is, obviously did not avail themselves of that educational opportunity. Our best students surpass the best students other countries have. Unfortunately, we have the poor and minority students who could give two shits about education that drag the average down.

You need to look up the word "monopoly" and stop treating it like a game. You post your story that proves that the system is not a monopoly and then call it one anyway. That's intellectual dishonesty, which is probably what I hate most about posters on this forum, and human beings in general, as it is rampant on both sides of the political spectrum.

You are really confused about this aren't you?

We spend more money than any country on earth on a failed education system and we don't make it in the top ten in Science, Math and Reading.

U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries

U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries


There is most certainly a monopoly on education when it comes to what you can get with the tax money the filthy ass government takes from you by force. That is why we need a voucher system to break that stupid monopoly. The big government assholes are the ones that oppose breaking the monopoly by offering choices for the tax payers.

I am truly sorry that I do not have the time nor inclination to teach you the statistics needed to understand that these international tests are simply not indicative of the state of public education.

Again, you sent your kids to private school, so by your own admission there is no monopoly. Words have meaning and I would appreciate it if liberals and those who trash education would actually learn some of them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. Because that is not what you proposed. You said "Maybe if we had tuition for public school students as well,"

Yes, that’s what I said. A small tuition that may make a parent value their child’s education a little more.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

A you going to up their welfare check to offset that increased tuition? If so, you are still paying for it!

These people have some cash and not everybody is totally dependent on welfare. These HUD houses in the suburbs are not totally paid for. They get a voucher and whatever the difference is in rent, they have to come up with cash.

I'm sorry, but taking money that they are given for basic subsistence and then taking it away for tuition is just a huge waste of time, effort, and money.

I think federal employees should not pay income tax as they are just paying part of their own salary. Reduce their salary by the taxed amount and reduce the paperwork.

Get rid of unnecessary paper pushers? The Democrats would never allow it. Remember the heart attack they had when the Republicans started to block grant money to the states for welfare programs?????

They would allow it if we gave them no choice in the matter.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

All teachers care about in my state are their bloated pensions....

What state is that? I'm in New Jersey now and I don't know enough about teachers here, but I'm originally from New York where I do know that what you've said is largely true.

It is all a function of cost of living. Find a place with a low cost of living and they pay their teachers peanuts. High cost areas will pay teachers more of they won't stick around because everything costs too damn much.

 

[initforme]

Those who believe teaching is so easy should quit their jobs and give up a decent wage and accept a pittance and teach. Otherwise they should simply shut up.

 

[80zephyr]

Its funny. I have been hearing for years now about how the poor teachers spend their own money to help out their classrooms, and now I find out they could deduct it from their taxes. Some hardship.

Mark

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Its funny. I have been hearing for years now about how the poor teachers spend their own money to help out their classrooms, and now I find out they could deduct it from their taxes. Some hardship.

Mark

A tax deduction doesn't mean the government reimburses you, it just means you get a small amount of money back. The teachers still pay for those supplies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those who believe teaching is so easy should quit their jobs and give up a decent wage and accept a pittance and teach. Otherwise they should simply shut up.

Good advice if there was a need for teachers. If you're a teacher, it's hard getting a job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All teachers care about in my state are their bloated pensions....

What state is that? I'm in New Jersey now and I don't know enough about teachers here, but I'm originally from New York where I do know that what you've said is largely true.

It is all a function of cost of living. Find a place with a low cost of living and they pay their teachers peanuts. High cost areas will pay teachers more of they won't stick around because everything costs too damn much.

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Its funny. I have been hearing for years now about how the poor teachers spend their own money to help out their classrooms, and now I find out they could deduct it from their taxes. Some hardship.

Mark

$250 bucks is all. Nothing major. You had to itemize to get it. Not having that to get tax reform will be fine with me and most of the teachers I know.

 

[Coyote]

Those who believe teaching is so easy should quit their jobs and give up a decent wage and accept a pittance and teach. Otherwise they should simply shut up.

Good advice if there was a need for teachers. If you're a teacher, it's hard getting a job.

No...it isn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those who believe teaching is so easy should quit their jobs and give up a decent wage and accept a pittance and teach. Otherwise they should simply shut up.

Good advice if there was a need for teachers. If you're a teacher, it's hard getting a job.

No...it isn't.

Where do you live at? I've known several teachers that couldn't find work. Some took jobs outside of their profession just to make a living.

 

[Coyote]

Those who believe teaching is so easy should quit their jobs and give up a decent wage and accept a pittance and teach. Otherwise they should simply shut up.

Good advice if there was a need for teachers. If you're a teacher, it's hard getting a job.

No...it isn't.

Where do you live at? I've known several teachers that couldn't find work. Some took jobs outside of their profession just to make a living.

Probably depends on where...I am in WV....but it is everywhere.

Analysis | Teacher shortages affecting every state as 2017-18 school year begins

 

[usmbguest5318]

Its funny. I have been hearing for years now about how the poor teachers spend their own money to help out their classrooms, and now I find out they could deduct it from their taxes. Some hardship.

Mark

That a K-12 teacher earning an "average" income gets to deduct a few hundred dollars on a Schedule A and thereby reduce their potentially taxable income by some small sum is but the tax corollary to the platitudinous lip service paid them. To deny such teachers the tiny bit of recompense shown by the educator expense deduction is little but reprehensible. Quite simply, nobody "gets rich" due to their allowed tax deductions, least of all people who don't earn a "get rich" gross income.

According teachers the educator expense deduction won't purge any hardship they may face, however, denying it to them most certainly can exacerbate the nature and extent of hardship they face, nevermind the increased challenge(s) their students may face as a consequence of the teachers not making expenditures on behalf of their charges because the tax code no longer offers the educator expense deduction. How many teachers might that be? I don't, but I know if it were my kid benefitting from the teacher's largesse, I'd just as soon not see my child lose whatever "edge" the teacher's generosity bestows.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Maybe instead of the unions giving millions to politicians they can help these teachers supply the kids with what they need.

that's a good point, the unions should be kicking in to make up the difference, not the teachers they are claiming to represent

 

[MikeK]

It seems the best way to deal with this situation is to allow teachers to retain receipts up to a specific amount spent on materials and include that amount in their claimed deductions.