Public School Teachers and Public Sector Workers have Secret Millionaire Retirements

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 6th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama stood firm during the fiscal cliff debate to raise taxes on the millionaires and billionaires.  To get those who can afford it to pay a little more.  The visible millionaires.  To help pay for the secret millionaires.  Public school teachers.  And public sector employees (see Millionaires, Billionaires, and Teachers by Randall Hoven posted 12/10/2012 on American Thinker).

Our President likes to use the phrase “millionaires and billionaires.” A person whose net worth is $1 million or more is a “millionaire.”

Most of us working stiffs have trouble thinking in terms of net worth; we are more used to the concept of annual salary. How does net worth translate into annual income, or vice versa? In round numbers, the annual income equivalent is 4% of an investment nest egg. So if you have $1 million socked away, consider that to be equal to $40,000 income every year…

That relationship can be turned around: if you have an annual pension of $40,000, you are effectively a millionaire, especially if that pension is adjusted for cost of living…

Now let’s look at public school teachers. In Illinois, where I live, the Illinois State Board of Education puts out a report on teachers’ salaries. The table below is a pretty good summary of that 110-page report. A beginning teacher with a Bachelor’s degree in a median school district might make about $40,000 per year. But by the time a teacher retires, she could be making $55,000 to $120,000, depending on how much graduate education she got and her school district.

And when that teacher does retire, what is her pension? If most school districts are like Chicago’s, the teacher will make about 50% of her final salary if she retires at age 55, or 75%, the maximum, if she waits until age 59…

In short, a lot of retired Illinois teachers are millionaires.

But that’s not all. Teachers who retired from the Chicago school district get 60% of their health insurance premiums subsidized. In round numbers, let’s call that a value of $8,000 per year.

Also, the above values do not include any other savings or investments made over the teachers’ careers, including home values. If they have their own 401k’s in addition to their pensions, those were not included. Social Security was not included either.

Wait, there’s more. These pensions are for life. Many or most of them are also adjusted for cost of living. Every month, for the rest of their lives, retired teachers get checks or automatic deposits of a reliable amount, indexed for inflation and guaranteed by the government. They don’t have to worry about investment risks…

The situation of the retired public school teacher is also not that much different from fire fighters, policemen, postal workers and other public employees. Nor is it that much different from a lot of other retired workers, especially union members such as General Motors retirees. If such people are getting pensions and benefits of $40,000 per year or more, not an exceptional amount, they are millionaires…

The main reason the US Post Office, the federal government and many state and local governments face unsustainable debt, bankruptcy and default is due to the costs of public employee pensions. GM went bankrupt largely due to the costs of its retirees’ pensions and benefits.

Businesses go bankrupt, governments face default and economic growth slows to a near standstill. Meanwhile, retired public school teachers, who had to work 9 months of the year during their careers, now pull in checks 12 months a year, indexed for inflation and guaranteed by the government, in amounts that often make them millionaires, maybe twice over.

So public school teachers, fire fighters, police officers, postal workers and other public employees are not the same as people who work in the private sector.  For when people retire from middle class jobs in the private sector they don’t live a long retirement like a millionaire.  They live a shorter life in retirement worrying that they may outlive their retirement savings.  Or that some illness may wipe out their retirement savings.  Forcing them to return to work in the last remaining years of their life.  Something school teachers, fire fighters, police officers, postal workers and other public employees don’t have to worry about.  As long as they can maintain a privileged class in America.  An American aristocracy, if you will.  The thing we fought the Revolutionary War to put an end to in the New World.  Old World aristocracy.

Not everyone can live like this.  For there just isn’t enough taxpayer income to tax away to pay for everyone.  Which is why the aristocracy is a privileged class.  In a ‘classless’ America.  A class that attacks rich people to pay their fair share.  So they can enjoy their millionaire retirements.  Without having the talent or ability of an entrepreneur.  The investment savvy of a Mitt Romney.  Or simply not having been lucky enough to be born into an aristocratic family.  Like a Kennedy.

And if you think these millionaire retirees have earned their good life like an entrepreneur, consider how hard they have to work for their Masters Degree.

You might notice from the table of teacher salaries that a Masters Degree with extra graduate hours can add $20,000 or more to a teacher’s annual salary. Just for fun I want to show you two course descriptions. The first one happens to describe an engineering course I teach which is for undergraduates, required of all engineering students and generally taken in a student’s 2nd or 3rd year of college.

 Engineering Mathematics: The Laplace transform and applications; series solutions of differential equations, Bessel´s equation, Legendre´s equation, special functions; matrices, eigenvalues, and eigenfunctions; vector analysis and applications; boundary value problems and spectral representations; Fourier series and Fourier integrals; solution of partial differential equations of mathematical physics.

This second course description is taken from the University of Missouri St. Louis bulletin. It describes a graduate level course in the Education school.

 The Educational Role of Play: Emphasizes play as a constructive process with applications to cognitive and social development. Special attention to facilitating play in early childhood classrooms.

Note that the first course description (the one with all of that math) was an undergraduate course.  While the second course description (all about having fun) is a graduate course in the school of education.  The person learning about fun in the classroom will live like a millionaire in their retirement.  While the odds are that the one that worked so hard to learn all of that math to help create the wonderful things in our high-tech economy will not.  Why?  Because brilliant engineers have to earn their retirement.  While the privilege class makes the engineers and other hard working Americans pay for their millionaire retirement.  Is that fair?  According to the Left, yes.

Worse, these are the people teaching our children.  This privileged class that exploits the taxpayer so they can live a longer and more comfortable retirement are teaching our kids the evils of capitalism.  To turn them into Democrat voters.  So they vote for the party that attacks those who earn their wealth.  To make them pay their fair share.  So these teachers and public sector workers can continue to live their millionaire retirements.  While most of their student’s parents struggle in their own lives because they’re paying so much in taxes to support the better lives of their children’s teachers.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Taxing the Rich in America, Taxing Everyone as Rich in Europe

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 24th, 2011

Spending is so Great the Only Way to get Serious Deficit Reduction is with Spending Cuts

Dan Greenhaus with BTIG looked at Obama‘s proposed Buffet Tax.  Crunched the numbers from the 2009 U.S. tax returns.  And found that the Buffet Tax is more politics than deficit reduction (see A Little Bit Of Math On The ‘Buffett Tax’ by Joe Weisenthal posted 9/19/2011 on Business Insider Politix).

Nonetheless, if we add up the $1,000,000 and above categories, we get taxable income of $623.6 billion that resulted in $177.5 billion in income tax paid, a rate of less than 28.5%. If we were able to somehow change that tax rate to say 35%, an increase of more than 7 percentage points, the income tax paid in 2009 would have been over $218 billion or an increase of a bit less than $41 billion. If we were able to do this over ten years, the U.S. would have extra income of $410 billion. All from raising taxes by seven full percentage points on those making income over $1,000,000.

Unfortunately, $410 billion is “only” about 7% of the deficit we expect to incur over the next ten years. That is not an inconsequential portion but considering the debate surrounding hiking tax rates by any amount, let alone generating an increase sufficient see a seven percentage point increase in taxes paid, as well as the negative consequences such a sharp adjustment would engender, this hardly seems to be the “only” place to go to achieve debt reduction.

The magnitude of the deficit is too great to pay with new taxes.  As it is now, the 2011 deficit will come in at $1.65 trillion.  A 7% tax rate hike would net an additional $41 billion.  Or $410 billion over ten years.  This would reduce the 2011 deficit from $1.65 trillion to $1.61 trillion.  Not impressive.  Remember, Standard and Poor’s wanted to see $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade.  And $410 billion is a long way from $4 trillion.

Take a close look at these numbers.  A $1.65 trillion dollar deficit.  And taxable income as reported to the IRS of $623.6 billion.  The deficit is 2.6 times the total taxable income from those making $1 million or more.  In other words, you could tax away all of their money and the government would still run a deficit.

The spending is so great that the only way you’re going to get serious deficit reduction is with spending cuts.  Because spending is big enough to cut to make a difference.  Unlike taxing the Warren Buffets.  Whose incomes aren’t big enough to make a difference.

So when Keynesian tax and spend liberal Democrats talk about serious deficit reduction it’s just misdirection.  They know they can’t reduce the deficit.  But that’s okay with them.  For that isn’t their goal.  They want to raise taxes for a different reason.  They like to spend.  It’s how they get power.  And votes.  But when you run such massive deficits it’s hard to spend more.  Unless you raise taxes.  And that’s why they want to raise taxes.  Not to reduce the deficit.  Which is impossible to do with tax hikes.  They’ve just run out of money.  And they want more to spend.

Left of Center Welfare States are Always Good for Vote-Getting

And if you think it’s bad on this side of the Atlantic, you should see what they’re doing on the other side.  The Europeans have a lot of social democracies.  Left-of-center governments.  With huge welfare states.  Which is always good for vote-getting.  But it comes at a price.  High taxes.  And lots of debt.

To keep spending at their levels of spending they have raised tax rates on the ‘rich’.  And lowered the threshold for being ‘rich’.  The Business Insider crunched the numbers and put together a little slideshow showing the tax rates.  And what it means to be rich in these countries.  We pulled the data from the slide show and put them into tabular form below (see These Are The Toughest Taxes For Europe’s High Earners by Nick Jardine posted 9/24/2011 on Business Insider Europe).

We calculated the numbers above based on the threshold salary that puts these taxpayers into the top tax rate.  And the tax rate.  All numbers are in U.S. dollars.  The numbers very a little from the Business Insider slideshow possibly due to rounding error.  Or other tax considerations.  But the numbers were close enough to fill in the blanks where needed.  Though it may not be completely accurate, the numbers should be close enough in magnitude for the purpose of discussion.

When they couldn’t Tax the Rich Anymore, they Taxed the Middle Class.  By Redefining them as Rich.

Depending on your political persuasion, you no doubt will draw different conclusions from these numbers.  A Keynesian liberal Democrat will say Germany isn’t taxing their rich enough.  That they are the richest of the rich.  And that they should probably tax everyone earning over, say, $100,000 at the highest rate.  Like in Greece.  A non-Keynesian will see it differently.  They will note that only the German economy is rich enough to bailout the poorer nations of the Eurozone.  Particularly Greece.  Meaning that the more rich people you let be rich the more tax revenue you will have.

A non-Keynesian will think it’s not fair that a rich German only gets to keep $3,581 from the $6,511 he or she earns every week.  The Keynesian will have no problem with that.  Of course, they may not think it’s fair that a Belgian only gets to keep $446 of the $892 he or she earns every week.  They’ll think it’s fair to take about half of what the rich make.  But they don’t think it’s fair calling someone rich who makes only $46,349.  Or calling someone rich who only makes $20,613.  Especially if they earn more than they do.  And currently pay no income taxes.

None of these countries started out at these income thresholds or tax rates.  They’ve lowered income thresholds through the years.  And they’ve raised tax rates.  Whenever their governments spent more money than they had.  Employing class warfare they vilified the rich.  Raised their tax rates.  And when they couldn’t raise tax rates on the rich anymore, they raised taxes on the middle class.  By redefining them as rich.  And they then paid the higher tax rates.  It’s gotten so bad in some countries that people who pay no income tax in America would be paying the highest tax rate in some European countries.  But it all starts with taxing the rich.

With Keynesians in Power you’ll never see Spending Cuts because that’s how Democrats Buy Votes

We have to be careful of what we ask for.  Such as taxing the rich.  Because we may be rich ourselves one day.  As the threshold for being rich shrinks over time.  First it was the billionaires.  Then the millionaires.  Then those earning $200,000 or more.  Then those earning $100,000 or more.  Down to as low as $20,000.

Fair is fair they’ll say.  So you’ll agree to make the rich pay their fair share.  And then those earning less than you will also agree to make the rich pay their fair share.  And by rich they’ll mean you.  Until all earners will be taxed at the highest rate.  To support those non-earners who vote Democrat.

But no matter how much they’ll take it will never be enough.  Because you can’t reduce the deficit/debt by raising taxes.  They’re just too big.  The only way you can reduce these is by reducing the thing that made them so big.  Spending.  But that’s not likely to happen.  As long as Keynesians are in power.  Because that’s how Keynesian tax and spend liberal Democrats buy votes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First the Obama Misery Tour, then on to Martha’s Vineyard with the other Millionaires and Billionaires

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 15th, 2011

Raising Taxes on the ‘Rich’ to Close the Deficit will put the Country into a Depression

Roll up, roll up for the misery tour.  Roll up, roll up for the misery tour.  The Obama Misery Tour is waiting to take you away.  Waiting to take you away (see Obama kicks off Midwest bus tour with harsh words on the economy by Zachary A. Goldfarb posted 8/15/2011 on The Washington Post).

Obama, who kicked off a three-day Midwest bus tour Monday focused on the economy, cited comments made by Republican presidential hopefuls at a GOP debate last week.

“I know it’s not election season yet, but I just have to mention the debate,” where Republicans said they would not increase taxes under virtually any circumstance, Obama said at a town hall. “Think about that. That’s just not common sense.”

Neither did raising the deficit from $455 billion to $1.65 trillion, Mr. President.  In fact this spending was downright irresponsible.  Your administration spent an additional $1.195 trillion we didn’t have.  And you’re planning to spend more.  We have a deficit problem because we have a spending problem.  Not because people aren’t paying enough taxes.

“You’ve got to send a message to Washington that it’s time for the games to stop. It’s time to put country first,” Obama said, his voice rising. “Some folks in Congress … would rather see their opponents lose, than America win.”

Mr. President, you increased the deficit by 263%.  That is not good for the country.  In fact, one could say that you are the ‘some folks’ you refer to who would rather see their opponents lose than America win.

He called on Congress to pass measures to hire construction workers, a trio of trade bills, an overhaul of patent laws and new tax credits to spur new jobs for veterans.

You had supermajorities during your first two years in office.  You could have passed any legislation you wanted to spur new jobs.  Instead, you made your priority the passing of Obamacare.  Something that did not spur any jobs.  And only will increase the deficit. 

And hire construction workers?  Wasn’t your Keynesian stimulus bill supposed to do that?  Create some $800 billion in shovel-ready projects?  Of course that’s hard to do when 88% of that bill was pork and earmarks.  Sort of a Democrat wish list to satisfy some 40 years of wants and desires. 

Speaking about the national debt, Obama called for an overhaul of the tax code that would force the wealthy to pay more taxes and an overhaul of entitlement programs…

“I’d like to see the ultra-rich pay their fair share,” said…a nurse from Rochester. “He’s got to be a politician, but I’d like to see a bit more push.”

“I think he’s doing a good job. He inherited a very big deficit,” said…a financial planner from Rochester. “He and Michelle are the first residents of the White House to be familiar with both organic food and leftovers.”

The wealthy just aren’t wealthy enough to pay down the deficit.  If you crunch the numbers, and define anyone who earns $159,619 or more as wealthy, you’ll have to raise the federal income tax to an effective rate of 87.6% (see You can’t Reduce the Debt $4 Trillion by Raising Taxes, at least not Mathematically).  That means the government would have to take 87.6% of everything they earn.  That includes the billionaires and the millionaires.  And everyone earning $159,619 or more. 

Is this possible?  Well, if you earn $159,619 annually, that’s $13,301.58 gross pay each month.  After your federal income taxes are withheld, that leaves a whopping $1,649.40 to pay your state taxes, your mortgage, your car payment, your groceries, health insurance, car insurance, gasoline for your car, etc.  Of course, they won’t be able to have these things at this high tax rate.  In fact, they won’t have any money left to spend.  Consumer spending over all would nosedive us into a full blown depression.  Making things even worse than they are now. 

So what is Obama going to do next?

Obama is scheduled to go on a 10-day family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday after completing the economic tour.

While many Americans can no longer afford to take the family on a vacation, he will be spending 10 days in the very swanky Martha’s Vineyards.  Where billionaires and millionaires like to vacation.  And get away from the rabble.  Us.

Politicians are Whores who sell themselves to the Highest Bidder 

The johns threaten to withhold their money from the prostitutes in Washington (see Starbucks CEO urges halt to U.S. political donations by Lisa Baertlein posted 8/15/2011 on Reuters).

In his letter on Monday, Schultz [Starbucks Corp. CEO] invited executives to join him in a “pledge to withhold any further campaign contributions to the President and all members of Congress until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”

Men are interested in one thing.  According to all the stereotypes.  And when women want something, they can simply withhold this one thing.  Again, according to the stereotypes.  Eventually the man caves because he can’t live without that one thing.  What a great analogy.  Because all politicians are whores who sell themselves to the highest bidder.  And those buying political favors can simply withhold their money to get what they want.  Which is how government works.  Sadly.

Schultz also urged fellow CEOs to invest in projects or new products that will perk up the economy at a time when fear and uncertainty have made businesses unwilling to invest, consumers unwilling to spend and banks unwilling to lend.

Expand supply in the face of a shrinking demand?  Not a good idea.  Austrian economists call this malinvestment.  This kind of thinking didn’t help ward off the Great Depression.  And it won’t work here.  You create real demand by cutting taxes.  Giving people more money to spend now.  Next week.  Next month.  And next year.  This creates confidence.  Not a one-time stimulus that provides consumers with money to spend one time.  A tax cut will increase demand.  And once consumers are demanding more business will start hiring more. 

I guess a guy who has convinced people to buy over-priced coffee just assumes businesses can make consumers do anything.  But would he open a new Starbucks next to an existing one?  No.  Why?  Because what would probably happen is that each store will have half the business of the first store.  While doubling the overall costs for that business.  So that would be a malinvestment.  So he wouldn’t do it.  Yet he is asking his fellow CEOs to do just that.

Obamanomics has Failed so let’s Return to the Successful Policies of Reaganomics

It’s been about three years.  Record government spending hasn’t done anything but increased the deficit.  And get U.S. credit downgraded.  You can make all the excuses you want.  But eventually you have to answer for your policies.  Obama’s policies have failed.  And left us worse off than we were.

The Keynesian way has once again failed.  Perhaps we should give the Austrian way another try.  Because when Reagan did, those policies worked. 

We tried Obamanomics.  It failed.  So let’s go back to Reaganomics.  At least it has a track record of success.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,