Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
that's a good point, the unions should be kicking in to make up the difference, not the teachers they are claiming to representMaybe instead of the unions giving millions to politicians they can help these teachers supply the kids with what they need.
false equivalencyDoes the Teamster's union pay for air-cushioned shocks for the trailers their driver's haul so as to not damage the freight?
You are proposing basically the same thing for teachers by having the unions supplying kids with school supplies. That is not what unions are for!
false equivalencyDoes the Teamster's union pay for air-cushioned shocks for the trailers their driver's haul so as to not damage the freight?
You are proposing basically the same thing for teachers by having the unions supplying kids with school supplies. That is not what unions are for!
if the drivers were voluntarily paying for those shocks then I would be saying the union should pay for them,...and I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that unions are not there to provide for the students needs, that's why I felt it needed to be...I am though pro-education, and pro-teacher/educator...they deserve our support, the problem they face with funding is an inherent one with universal/socialized funding which is why so many oppose it
kUnions do not provide school supplies to students. My examples still stands.
You are not understanding the purpose of a union.
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.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
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.
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.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
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.)
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.
What?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.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
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.
Not the point. It was always pushed that the teachers did this out of the goodness of their heart. Nobody ever mentioned they could deduct it.
Mark
This is a great example of the failure of American schools. Of course this is in a Democrat controlled area,which is typical. Teachers union members get a ton of money as payoff to support Democrats and the children get screwed.
13 Baltimore high schools, no students proficient in math, report says
13 Baltimore high schools, no students proficient in math, report say
One-third of high schools in Baltimore, last year, had zero students proficient in math, Fox 45 reported Wednesday, citing new state testing data.
Based on 2017 state test scores, 13 out of 39 high school had zero students proficient in math, the report said. Another six schools had only one percent of their students who tested proficient in math.
The city reportedly starting a new math curriculum this year aimed at closing the achievement gap in addition to enhanced teacher training and partnerships that would serve students.
