$250,000 a year isn't rich!

[All Along The Watchtower]

Someone on $250,000 a year is certainly rich. Median household income in the U.S is about $50,000. Just for context, you know.

But....I thought we were supposed to all feel bad for those poor six-figure income earners!

@Torie: The only areas I can conceive of where $250k a year is not considered "rich" are a handful of ultra-exclusive areas.

In other words, not normal areas. If you make more money than 98% of the population, you're rich. Get over it.   

[All Along The Watchtower]

The reason they cannot read Torie, is because of the privilege of the rich.

The rich have some plot to saddle the kids with union protected un-cannable incompetent teachers who got a C average in third rate former teaching colleges and worse?

I was actually thinking that educational level was closely tied to socioeconomic status of the community, that kids who are poor and have poorly educated parents are far more likely to be low-performing in public schools than kids from stable, middle-or-upper class families in more affluent neighborhoods , and that solving this problem would result in a more equitable distribution of wealth, which the rich don't want, obviously....

But your theory sounds much more plausible.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ya, ya, ya, but what you really need are very good and talented teachers. There is a huge data base supporting what I am saying. The rest is noise - including class size. Yes, it would be nice if we could transform these lower class families or broken families, and make them whole with middle class values, but we have been trying for decades, and throwing trillions of dollars at it, and mostly what we have managed to do, is make successful working class families move up a notch or two, and so on. But lifting the bottom is tough. This one fix is the laser beam approach that will get you by far the most bang for the buck. Trust me. This issue was a major hobby of mine for about a decade, and I read almost everything there was to read on the topic, and gave speeches on it.

There is an art to excellent teaching by the way (beyond knowing the material, which is of course a given, and all too often absent). I can elaborate on that a bit if you would like. I would make a very good teacher these days btw. Yes I would. 

What kind of "Database" would this be? People who have created foundations and careers for themselves based on the idea that public education is inherently evil, that "the market" can "fix" the schools, and that making schools more "competitive" is the best way to educate chidlren?

The rest is not "noise." Class size is a crucial concern, as is the general problem of school districts in general always having to do more with less when budget cuts come because those geniuses in the private sector got a bit too drunk on speculation and crashed the economy yet again.

But the heart of the problem is that school districts are a reflection of the communities they come from. Change the communities, and you will change the school districts.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Of course one way of making sure that there is absolutely no chance of the best possible teachers joining the profession is to denigrate the profession, its practices and institutions (such as they are). As has been done in many countries for the bulk of the past thirty years, often in the guise of... er... attempting to raise educational standards. Bit of a paradox there.

If far too many teachers suck, one might as well own up to it. Sparing their feelings won't help the kids. The only thing one can ask is to be factual. That is the only way to begin to mitigate, and maybe someday move a fair amount closer to solving, the problem. We should find out what the Finnish are doing too.

Public education is far better in America than its given credit for.

There, I said it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't understand the notion that, because you're spending a huge amount of money from your much-larger-than-average income, that suddenly means you're no longer rich.

Don't forget that you're part of the group that pays "80 percent of the taxes."

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think Americans generally don't realise how low their costs of living are, when compared to comparable nations.

Yes, but unless one owns a mansion, several yachts, at least three second homes, and has a luxury car (and trust funds!) for every member of their family, then one cannot seriously considered to be rich. One would merely be... an ordinary American living an ordinary American life.

Probably sarcasm on your part, but you are largely correct.

There are a number of factors when you look at that income, including how long the earner has been in his profession and what his profession is.

A 25 year old getting $250,000/year from grandmama's trust fund is probably rich.

A 50 year old attorney who started practicing 25 years ago, has an office and a secretary that he pays for, and works 40 hours a week to gross $250,000 probably isn't "rich."

Just assigning a money cutoff really doesn't define rich.

You're missing his point (and the point of many in this thread).

There is no real "cutoff", but $250,000/year is absolutely rich by..well, almost anyone's relative standard of living.

The median income for a family in America is around $40k-$50k...1/5 your supposedly middle-class attorney.'s income.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'd like to raise an issue which I'm not sure has been discussed since I have not looked through the whole thread.  The tax on dividends and capital gains is a paltry 15%.  And I think that is where a lot of wealthy folks are getting off easier than they should -- the low tax rates on investment income disproportionately favors them.

It seems fundamentally wrong to me that making money for doing work is taxed at a higher rate than doing nothing and accumulating money.

Investments is not "doing nothing", for people who actually work in the field.

And what about people who don't work in the field? They still accumulate money.

Investing money isn't doing nothing. It's alright that people thought this back in pre-enlightenment days but it hurts my head that people still think that.

They're providing capital to productive enterprises at the risk of losing that capital. Thus, they get a return on it which is dependent on the level of risk.

That it is taxed so low is largely because capital is more mobile than labour.

Where did they get that capital?