willow
Ruby
Posts: 19,607 Likes: 125,141
|
Post by willow on Oct 10, 2021 7:54:15 GMT -6
Also it just perfectly fits the boomer narrative that they can’t see past their own nose for the betterment of society. Yes this a generalization and not all boomers (my parents are very pro taxes for schools), but man. When you try to explain to them that the taxes improve the district curriculum and improve the chances of the students entering adulthood prepared for college, etc. which in turn will produce a better workforce and community/society in the future. They don’t care because they’ll be dead. I for one would prefer to make sure future generations have what they need to succeed. Even after my kids have graduated some day. It's going to really be something when these 10 and 11 year olds, who see boomers refusing to do simple things like wear a mask to help protect them, are old enough to vote and are asked to pay more in taxes to protect social security and Medicare for those same boomers Oh you mean like we’ve been doing with the knowledge that we probably won’t benefit the same way from SS? 😑🙄
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 7:57:57 GMT -6
To be fair - and no doubt stirring up debate - I think a lot of people look at the percentage school taxes take up in real estate and other tax bills. In my area - it's the largest chunk by far. We also pay our teachers well to be clear - my grammar school district average salary is $70,000, median $75,800. That's just the grammar school. There are high school and community college taxes as well.
And there are real questions about pensions and how much of a school, and tax, budget they take up. And school referendum narratives, IMO, don't often explain their need for, and use of, funds well. Most people truly think teachers get social security, for example. Or don't do well on explaining nonfunded mandates.
For example, I think we're far past the era where defined benefit pensions are viable for a population that's living longer. I would like to see teacher unions start talking about defined contribution pension plans for employees more than 10 years out from retirement.
|
|
willow
Ruby
Posts: 19,607 Likes: 125,141
|
Post by willow on Oct 10, 2021 8:04:56 GMT -6
I’m pretty far into the “socialist” perspective on taxes so I probably shouldn’t speak further because I’d be fine moving to somewhere like the Netherlands and benefit from the high taxes in so many ways.
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,603 Likes: 419,228
|
Post by dc2london on Oct 10, 2021 8:14:57 GMT -6
We struggle to attract and retain good teachers as it is. Making their benefit packages even worse is one option for reducing property taxes or we could make rich people actually pay taxes 🙃
|
|
jkjacq
Ruby
Posts: 21,739 Likes: 94,325
|
Post by jkjacq on Oct 10, 2021 8:28:22 GMT -6
Re teachers We have a 1 Billion surplus currently last year the state CUT the Ed budget by 5% so that’s how Idaho goes with taxes and education. My district has a levy vote this year.
Reclaim Idaho is currently working on an initiative to put a 1% tax on over 400k to directly fund programs for education because we’re like last in school funding.
So I’ll sit on whatever bench pays teachers more regardless of my taxes. Especially after all the shit they’ve been through in the past 2 years.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 8:30:46 GMT -6
We pay trillions in defense for funsies. Defined benefit pensions are absolutely viable. It's a choice.
But I also don't think property tax should pay for schools due to the inequity. I think income, sales, business, and excise taxes should.
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 8:36:22 GMT -6
I think most people can agree that over-reliance on local property taxes to fund education isn't the best overall mechanism, especially vis a vis the increasing weight of pension obligations. But local control, and mostly local funding, over school districts is what we have had historically and in the present, correct?
Question remains is how to change the mechanisms - and to what? And then how to attract buy-in and support? I mean, at a start funding all federal mandates would be a nice thing, right? How far, and how quickly, policy changes can be implemented via changes in the federal and state tax codes is a little nebulous in my mind.
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,603 Likes: 419,228
|
Post by dc2london on Oct 10, 2021 8:37:27 GMT -6
We graduated college with tons of student debt into an economic crisis where we started our working lives un or underemployed. It's harder and more expensive to buy a house than it was for previous generations. Day care costs more. We have to care for our aging and ailing relatives while also raising our children who will then have to care for us because previous generations also screwed social security. And those same previous generations don't think pharmaceutical companies should be regulated so the prescription drugs We all need to manage the anxiety if ALL THIS BULLSHIT cost a fortune and now we're talking about ending pensions.
But I'm sure if we didn't eat so many avocados we'd all be fine.
|
|
dc2london
Admin
Press Secretary
Posts: 61,603 Likes: 419,228
|
Post by dc2london on Oct 10, 2021 8:38:35 GMT -6
I'm going to go watch SNL and bake some goddam bread
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 8:40:33 GMT -6
origami, I wonder if it's hard to find actuaries these days who believe defined benefit plans are viable long term. I suspect it is. And I say that as someone who did shift from defined benefit to defined contribution. No doubt defined benefit is more of a plum - but not so viable when people are routinely living 20+ years after even a full retirement age of 66.
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 9:15:43 GMT -6
My natural gas (heating, water heater and kitchen range) budget plan already more than doubled a few months ago in preparation for anticipated increases. I was taken a little by surprise by that but kind of happy my utility was on the ball, it seems. My electric bill has gone up with lessened year over year usage. And our water rates have increased, but much of that has been anticipated when capital expenditures were approved some years ago. I'm concerned that inflation will not be as transitory as hoped. To be fair, I agree with this article that the US in general is in better shape than Europe or Asia to ride it out, but I had really hoped not to see energy prices swing this way. But I always remember what James Carville said for, granted, an internal campign audience. www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/soaring-energy-prices-raise-concerns-about-u-s-inflation-economy/ar-AAPlbnQ?ocid=msedgntp
|
|
|
Post by blurnette989 on Oct 10, 2021 10:42:01 GMT -6
Tell me your an old without telling me your an old.
|
|
|
Post by blurnette989 on Oct 10, 2021 10:50:09 GMT -6
You know how lots of people fight wealth taxes for the rich?
Property tax is a wealth tax we accept. We should have wealth taxes on other forms of wealth that are less necessary to basic life. Most people shouldn't need to pay any or such high property tax in order for government to function.
I have lots of issues with property taxes like the fact that they uphold white supremacy by continuing de facto redlining. And that it keeps people fighting amongst themselves about the fairness of property taxes when you don't "benefit" directly. It is literally meant to keep us infighting so we don't fight the actual wealthy. But so many boomers are so comfortable they don't have to think about it.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 10:50:23 GMT -6
origami, I wonder if it's hard to find actuaries these days who believe defined benefit plans are viable long term. I suspect it is. And I say that as someone who did shift from defined benefit to defined contribution. No doubt defined benefit is more of a plum - but not so viable when people are routinely living 20+ years after even a full retirement age of 66. Life expectancy of retirees is a bit of a misnomer. The vast VAST majority of the reason life expectancies have increased is a decrease in the infant and child mortality rate not that olds are living longer. There's just more of them. But again, budgets are choices. If reagonomics hadn't borrowed from Peter to pay Paul there would be plenty. If we didn't keep buying F16s and other tools of destruction there would be plenty. If we didnt waste time and resources processing and housing low level drug offenders there would be plenty. Actuaries aren't politically neutral robots. Everyone has an agenda.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 11:04:06 GMT -6
I have time today. lol
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 11:19:25 GMT -6
Current life expectancy in the US is 78.99. And I agree we could do a lot better to extend life expectancy across all demographics. I dislike the trend over the last three years, for instance. FWIW, as I understand it most financial planners tell people to plan for long term retirement income until age 95 these days. I was pretty surprised when that's what we were told at work! In any event, you're right - lots more people living past original 'term limits' used when pensions were devised (private or governmental). The time horizon has increased well beyond what was current in the 1940's and 50's, I believe. That said, I have't really seen a lot of evidence that moving toward defined contribution pension plans isn't a good idea these days from a realistic fiscal support basis. But, yes, I personally mourn the passing of the defined benefit plans for the majority of US residents - and of course that's for those fortunate to have had pensions to begin with. But I see the logic, and numbers, of why defined contribution plans have become more dominant for most employers, even beyond portability. And I can see why a lot of voters, who no longer have defined benefit plans, struggle when being shown the data on how much it costs to support defined benefit plans. Your mileage may vary, of course. I just have a different viewpoint. www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life-expectancy#:~:text=1%20The%20current%20life%20expectancy%20for%20U.S.%20in,was%2078.81%20years%2C%20a%200.03%25%20decline%20from%202017.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 11:25:46 GMT -6
It's obviously fine to have different opinions but life expectancy is based on the average age of death of all citizens. It has some to do with treatment of age related diseases but much more to do with younger people and children not dying. There are People who have lived to their 90s forever. It's good advice to plan for a long life because it is.
Where economists get wrapped up is that since people aren't dying young as much anymore, there are more people to account for. Period. But if we didn't deplete funds in the first place, that wouldn't matter. There is way more pork in government spending than would be taken up by supporting people a they age
|
|
willow
Ruby
Posts: 19,607 Likes: 125,141
|
Post by willow on Oct 10, 2021 11:26:14 GMT -6
There are myriad reasons why attorneys choose to go into the public sector, but I think I speak for many of my colleagues in that we exchange a substantial paycut from what we could earn in private for the understanding that we will have a pension when we retire. I agree with origami. If we actually taxed the super rich and reallocated where the money goes, pensions wouldn’t be an issue. My pension is defined benefit and I won’t lie and say I’d be pretty pissed if the full benefit wasn’t available when I retire after years of paying into it.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 11:27:36 GMT -6
And people would have more money for defined contribution plans if things like Healthcare or child care or whatever else was subsidized or paid for.
|
|
Minerva
Ruby
Posts: 15,381 Likes: 67,036
|
Post by Minerva on Oct 10, 2021 11:28:38 GMT -6
My parents’ and inlaws’ pension plans have been such a gift to our families. They are covered for the rest of their lives for housing, food, and medical care, which gives H, my BIL/SIL, my brother, and I much more financial freedom. We can spend our money on our own mortgage/childcare/retirement/college savings, instead of being financially and emotionally sandwiched by having to cover our parents’ basic needs.
Defined pension plans can be run sustainably and can successfully be combined with 401K style plans to give employees both flexibility and stability. The Federal Retirement plans are a great example. It’s a choice our society can choose to make to ensure our seniors are able to retire and are taken care of during their retirement. When we choose to give a free tax pass to billionaires and Fortune 500 companies, someone still has to pay for the basic needs of seniors who can no longer work. The burden just falls to their children or already overworked social services. Or we don’t care for them and they suffer in poverty, which sadly happens too often.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 11:32:00 GMT -6
It's a choice.
|
|
Minerva
Ruby
Posts: 15,381 Likes: 67,036
|
Post by Minerva on Oct 10, 2021 11:34:58 GMT -6
There are myriad reasons why attorneys choose to go into the public sector, but I think I speak for many of my colleagues in that we exchange a substantial paycut from what we could earn in private for the understanding that we will have a pension when we retire. I agree with origami. If we actually taxed the super rich and reallocated where the money goes, pensions wouldn’t be an issue. My pension is defined benefit and I won’t lie and say I’d be pretty pissed if the full benefit wasn’t available when I retire after years of paying into it. This is a major reason why my H became a Fed and I’ll probably take that path when I return to the workforce. Contractors in his field make more money (like tens of thousands more). But we love the stability, benefits, and work-life balance of his current job. Financial stability, now and in our future, is huge to both of us.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 11:35:11 GMT -6
Like my grandma, born in 1927 lived to be 91. She had a sibling die in infancy. Thus, the average life expectancy was lower for her than 91, but she still lived that long because biology isn't based on economic or mathematic factors. She had a defined benefit pension and was well taken care of until the end of her life and when she died, there weren't debts to settle because of health or housing because those things were paid for.
Using life expectancy as a reason those pensions went away is a logical fallacy.
|
|
origami
Amethyst
Posts: 6,422 Likes: 46,515
|
Post by origami on Oct 10, 2021 11:36:14 GMT -6
Who can tell that I'm avoiding writing a paper?
|
|
willow
Ruby
Posts: 19,607 Likes: 125,141
|
Post by willow on Oct 10, 2021 11:42:36 GMT -6
There are myriad reasons why attorneys choose to go into the public sector, but I think I speak for many of my colleagues in that we exchange a substantial paycut from what we could earn in private for the understanding that we will have a pension when we retire. I agree with origami. If we actually taxed the super rich and reallocated where the money goes, pensions wouldn’t be an issue. My pension is defined benefit and I won’t lie and say I’d be pretty pissed if the full benefit wasn’t available when I retire after years of paying into it. This is a major reason why my H became a Fed and I’ll probably take that path when I return to the workforce. Contractors in his field make more money (like tens of thousands more). But we love the stability, benefits, and work-life balance of his current job. Financial stability, now and in our future, is huge to both of us. Yeah, if I chose an area of law in the private sector that was more lucrative, I’d easily be making potentially 100k more than I make now and that is in this stage of my career. Private sectors attorneys close to retirement age can easily make anywhere between 250-450k depending on area of practice. I give up a lot of $$$ because I prefer the benefits of public sector for many reasons. My coworkers and I sometimes joke when we’re having a hard day that we need to remind ourselves that “we’re working for that pension!”
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 11:56:27 GMT -6
willow, question. Are those median salaries for Big Law, or for all attorneys, including the sole practitioner down the street who does some personal wills or real estate closings? I ask because in my experience people all think all CPAs are wealthy, when they're thinking perhaps mostly of the Big 4 and CFOs of major corporations. Not that a CPA probably isn't doing reasonably well, nor that attorneys don't do ok generally speaking. Well, maybe not vis a vis school costs in some cases. And, yeah, when my place went to defined contribution it was interesting. Well, first almost everyone had a reasonable background in finance/economics, and we have actuaries all over the place. I worked with more than a few. We also were aware of what peer employers had been doing (spoiler - moving to defined contribution), as well as clients, other than governmental entities. During our town hall to introduce the change, the HR director kind of tried the 'it's better for you', which of course landed with a dull thud, given the audience. We knew it wasn't better for us individually in most cases. Then, as possibly planned, our chairperson started talking real numbers and projections, which actually did make sense - but again, it was a kind of specialized audience. One upside was the whole portability angle - which HR did play up to the extent possible.
|
|
willow
Ruby
Posts: 19,607 Likes: 125,141
|
Post by willow on Oct 10, 2021 12:01:46 GMT -6
greykitty Private attorney salaries run the gamut like anything else. I would not say that those salary ranges are limited to only big law practitioners because I have seen many many salaries at this point given the area of my job and there are plenty of medium sized or boutique firms in our metro area that have partners making in that range. Solo practitioner salaries are going to range wildly based on area of law, experience, and their level of hustle. I worked for an attorney that did crim defense and family law and he could barely afford to pay me 30k at the time, but I know other solo attorneys that make over 100k in their 30s. It just depends. I know better than to assume all private sector attorneys are making more than me. But I also know enough to feel confident saying that my salary could be a lot higher depending on my choice of practice.
|
|
fatpony
Amethyst
Posts: 5,577 Likes: 30,797
|
Post by fatpony on Oct 10, 2021 12:02:25 GMT -6
I 100% have the golden handcuffs at my job with my benefits and pension. I'll never leave.
|
|
|
Post by greykitty on Oct 10, 2021 12:10:11 GMT -6
I 100% have the golden handcuffs at my job with my benefits and pension. I'll never leave. Yep, the 'downside' of good benefits is often feeling employment change is too risky to take. I know I was looking at vesting schedules and other benefits fairly early in my career. I was fortunate even if underemployed, since I graduated during a recessionary cycle, that I liked the people I worked with and had decent perks. Even if insurance coverage seemed to get downgraded every year (but, again, I could see some of the numbers and understand the why's behind that as well). And we still had stellar insurance compared to a lot of places - just not as great as my year 1 benefit But when you're really concerned about keeping a roof overhead and eating regularly, it can be scary to change out. I turned down offers from more IPO-type ventures. One was a mistake if I could have seen into the future. The others? Well, worked out better to be just hang in with the current employer.
|
|
|
Post by blurnette989 on Oct 10, 2021 12:36:53 GMT -6
I 100% have the golden handcuffs at my job with my benefits and pension. I'll never leave. Yep, the 'downside' of good benefits is often feeling employment change is too risky to take. I know I was looking at vesting schedules and other benefits fairly early in my career. I was fortunate even if underemployed, since I graduated during a recessionary cycle, that I liked the people I worked with and had decent perks. Even if insurance coverage seemed to get downgraded every year (but, again, I could see some of the numbers and understand the why's behind that as well). And we still had stellar insurance compared to a lot of places - just not as great as my year 1 benefit But when you're really concerned about keeping a roof overhead and eating regularly, it can be scary to change out. I turned down offers from more IPO-type ventures. One was a mistake if I could have seen into the future. The others? Well, worked out better to be just hang in with the current employer. If only benefits weren't tied to your specific employer. Wouldn't that be something.
|
|