Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#42
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level - as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools, teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters. |
#43
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level - as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools, teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters. There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the results justify, certainly. |
#44
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snipped to make some pussies happy, here. Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here. 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared to PI_I. Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a thousand dollars? Double those numbers but, yes. We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last 3 years. What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI? And these numbers are may be skewed. But Below is fact. A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk. As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs? It's only the tax part that's increasing. OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse shape without the home. That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to qualify the situation of the house payments got worse. You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000 increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years. Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup. there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they can carry it over and add to the following year/s. So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours. Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase. Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into, they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately $12,000 per year on top of P&I. And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. |
#45
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, wrote: That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here, the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary by the "needs" of the community. In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with an increased budget. My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate that's "fixed", not the budgets. The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy. Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big difference. |
#46
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snipped to make some pussies happy, here. Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here. 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared to PI_I. Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a thousand dollars? Double those numbers but, yes. We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last 3 years. What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI? And these numbers are may be skewed. But Below is fact. A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk. As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs? It's only the tax part that's increasing. OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse shape without the home. That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to qualify the situation of the house payments got worse. But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off without the house. You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000 increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years. Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a ..5% tax rate. Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup. there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they can carry it over and add to the following year/s. The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original sale on my house was ~$360K. So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours. Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase. But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three years. Not much. Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into, they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately $12,000 per year on top of P&I. What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"? And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. |
#47
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snipped to make some pussies happy, here. Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here. 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared to PI_I. Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a thousand dollars? Double those numbers but, yes. We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last 3 years. What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI? And these numbers are may be skewed. But Below is fact. A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk. As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs? It's only the tax part that's increasing. OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse shape without the home. That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to qualify the situation of the house payments got worse. But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off without the house. They wold be better off in a home that they can afford. You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000 increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years. Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a .5% tax rate. Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the newer neighborhoods. Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup. there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they can carry it over and add to the following year/s. The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original sale on my house was ~$360K. So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours. Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase. But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three years. Not much. It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your pay has not gone up. Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into, they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately $12,000 per year on top of P&I. What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"? Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the same income. And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. |
#48
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snipped to make some pussies happy, here. Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here. 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared to PI_I. Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a thousand dollars? Double those numbers but, yes. We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last 3 years. What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI? And these numbers are may be skewed. But Below is fact. A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk. As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs? It's only the tax part that's increasing. OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse shape without the home. That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to qualify the situation of the house payments got worse. But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off without the house. They wold be better off in a home that they can afford. They might be better of living (and working) elsewhere but that's not the issue. You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000 increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years. Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a .5% tax rate. Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the newer neighborhoods. The tax rate shouldn't have anything to do with the neighborhood. The point isn't the tax rate, or even the taxes paid, rather the _increase_ in the cost of owning the home. I don't see how a 3%/year increase could bankrupt anyone. Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup. there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they can carry it over and add to the following year/s. The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original sale on my house was ~$360K. So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours. Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase. But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three years. Not much. It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your pay has not gone up. Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you ragging on their food budget? Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into, they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately $12,000 per year on top of P&I. What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"? Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the same income. Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the underwriting of those loans. One of those is that the PITI, plus all other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income. If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home. And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s". They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range. There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher but they don't advertise the same way). |
#49
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level - as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools, teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters. There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the results justify, certainly. Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was a pretty good school. In a good area. Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc. |
#50
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrot
SNIPP So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours. Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase. Your taxes are double mine on 3.4 the house value. Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into, they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately $12,000 per year on top of P&I. And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. |
#51
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, wrote: That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here, the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary by the "needs" of the community. In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with an increased budget. My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate that's "fixed", not the budgets. The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy. Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big difference. The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region for the year. |
#52
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level - as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools, teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters. There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the results justify, certainly. Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was a pretty good school. In a good area. The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student and it looks like West Texas isn't any less. http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs. Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc. Less????? $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. |
#53
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:55:06 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, wrote: That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here, the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary by the "needs" of the community. In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with an increased budget. My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate that's "fixed", not the budgets. The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy. Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big difference. The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region for the year. Now you have me confused. If the mil rate changes from year to year, you're more like Vermont. That makes more sense than having budgets controlled by real estate values (as it is here). By "region", do you mean across many taxing entities? Cities pay the same as towns, pay the same as unincorporated areas? Schools aren't localy controlled? Roads, fire, and police aren't locally controlled? |
#54
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
In article cgoq7ch8fu046tln444tpl7fti5hkqim8p@
4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@ 4ax.com, says... On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote: On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote: On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote: Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I **** canned this project. ^º^ https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1 Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany? https://www.machinio.com/listings/15...lohmar-germany I love those videos At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from? What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost? I vote for "not cheap". It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and service when needed. I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money to pay for". "If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man." "If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper." "If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts." Correct Buying and affording are very different animals. Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way. I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I don't have an issue with mortgages. Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it all went to hell in a hand basket. If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money, at the time, ARMs were downright stupid. Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago. What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They didn't do so well, of course. It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to sell in 2008. I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I paid for it). In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap. Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places have a higher rate. Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-) Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason to live where it's more expensive than necessary. Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000 home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services. Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more government services than I. Two years ago I was living on food stamps and half time minimum wage. Today I'm living on a full time quant's salary which means I pay more in income tax than my entire compensation in the last engineering job I had. What's a "quant"? Your last engineering job must have sucked. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_anal yst. Suffice it to say that it pays a _lot_ more than engineering, it's a _much_ better work environment, and if somebody had told me 40 years ago that this kind of work existed I would have never become an engineer. I don't begrudge the services rendered to poor people nor do I feel that taxing them further into poverty serves any purpose. Not to the point. Well actually, since the argument seems to be that they use more services so they should pay more tax, it kind of _is_ the point. I'd rather pay less tax but not if it means imposing taxes on the poor that they do not have the means to pay. Forcing someone to choose between food, shelter, and taxes is rather sadistic IMO. The level of taxation on everyone is sadistic but, again, irrelevant. I don't find it at all sadistic. Not at my level. What's sadistic is--you know those guys who stand in line outside Home Depot hoping for a day job? Well if they're honest about their taxes then they have to pay 15 percent up front in "self employment tax" before they even get started on income tax. That's why they like to get paid cash under the table--there's no paper trail. Nobody should be taxed into poverty and nobody who is already there should be taxed further into it. Doing so isn't addressing any real social problem. Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought. That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here, the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary by the "needs" of the community. The "needs" of the community can include quite a lot of cruft that could be done away with. Sing it, brother! Though saying it doesn't change reality. People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a reasonable expectation. Move to where? Out of where they are living (the mortgage is predicated on working, no?). To? Well, to where there *is* a job, would be a suggestion. I've done it several times, though I won't do chase a job again because there will be no need. Where is the job though? And while the mortgage may be predicated on working, that doesn't mean that it's more than the rent would be if one moved. |
#55
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@
4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I would agree with you. But they are and have been for as long as I can remember. |
#56
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/16/2017 7:41 PM, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:27:06 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/16/2017 6:14 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:19:11 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:50 PM, wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 22:27:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: snipped to make some pussies happy, here. Housing costs? Some of the new'ish homes that people could barely afford to begin with need new roofs, fences and values are probably up 25% from pre crash days. We have a unique situation here. 25%? That's nothing. My house is up almost 100%, if the estimates (and tax assessments) are to be believed. And, yes, my taxes have doubled in that five years. That increase in __T_ is small compared to PI_I. Well 25% is nothing but you said you were paying .5% tax IIRC. So if your home is valued at 200K now , it was 100k your tax went up a thousand dollars? Double those numbers but, yes. We pay 3% and have had an increase of 25% to say only $250k., so 3% of 50K is 50% more, $1500 than your increase and that has been in the last 3 years. What's the tax (T) increase as a percentage of PITI? And these numbers are may be skewed. But Below is fact. A home owner in our neighborhood that has a home valued at $250K pays $7500 per year in property taxes. And many of those homes are $300k plus. A 25 percent vlaue increase on a tax that is 3% is quite a chunk. As a percentage of the Principle + Interest + Tax + Insurance costs? It's only the tax part that's increasing. OK, a 30-year mortgage on 250K, at 4%, is roughly $14K per year (assuming no PMI). Add the tax ($7500), and insurance ($2K) and the total is $23.5K. If the value of the home goes up 25%, the taxes increase to $9375, or a little under $2K. This portion of owning the house has gone up around 8.5%, surely less than a rental during the same time (not only their taxes are going up but their value). If the owner can't absorb this increase, over 3(?) years, they're in way over their heads, even without tax increases. They'd probably be in worse shape without the home. That is what I have been trying to say, in over their heads because of the guaranteed loans and as you mentioned "if" any were on an AGM to qualify the situation of the house payments got worse. But it's only 8.5% over three years. They'd surely be worse off without the house. They wold be better off in a home that they can afford. They might be better of living (and working) elsewhere but that's not the issue. You were hinting $400K on your home and 5 years ago it was half on taxes. If you are paying .5 percent on property taxes, I see a $1000 increase in annual taxes over the past 5 years. Sorry, our current house is about 1%. Our previous house had about a .5% tax rate. Still your tax rate is 1/3 of ours and less than that on some of the newer neighborhoods. The tax rate shouldn't have anything to do with the neighborhood. The point isn't the tax rate, or even the taxes paid, rather the _increase_ in the cost of owning the home. I don't see how a 3%/year increase could bankrupt anyone. Now consider home values here went up a little between 3~6 years ago but. BUT in the last 3 years they have gone up 30% playing catsup. there is a 10% limit per year but if they do not use the full 10% they can carry it over and add to the following year/s. The home values here dropped in half during that time (the original sale on my house was ~$360K. So our house was around $165K 5 years ago and now it is at $217K That increase has changed out tax liability from $4950 to $6510 per year. That is over $1500 on a home about half the value of yours. Homes in your range that are in our neighborhoods are looking in the neighborhood of a $3000 increase in annual taxes, triple your increase. But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three years. Not much. Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you are living on the edge. It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your pay has not gone up. Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you ragging on their food budget? You are preaching to the choir. Given many of these residents were guaranteed a loan and many were way in over their heads and clueless about what they were getting into, they bought the pie in the sky with tax payments of approximately $12,000 per year on top of P&I. What do you mean "guaranteed a loan"? Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the same income. Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the underwriting of those loans. Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and suggesting what to put on the application. One of those is that the PITI, plus all other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income. If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home. I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge. And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s". They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range. There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher but they don't advertise the same way). Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people. Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense. |
#57
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
|
#58
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:12:00 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level - as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools, teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters. There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the results justify, certainly. Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was a pretty good school. In a good area. The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student and it looks like West Texas isn't any less. http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs. Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc. Less????? $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching - passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bull**** from the ministry and board level. |
#59
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:16:37 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:55:06 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:28:17 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:57:23 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:22:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:07:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: On 1/15/2017 10:46 PM, wrote: That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here, the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary by the "needs" of the community. In theory it works that way. Unfortunately, too many people don't understand it. When the come around every 10 years (now 5) I hear people complain that once revalued their tax will go up. The town finance committee seems willing to make that come true. It is a money grab with an increased budget. My point was that it doesn't work like that here. It's the tax rate that's "fixed", not the budgets. The "mil rate" is fixed - which means you pay the same per thousand dollars of "assessed value" as the next guy. Right. It's that way here. In Vermont the mil rate wasn't fixed and changed with the budget. IOW, here property values drive the tax paid, thus the budget (mil rate is fixed). In Vermont, it's the budget that drives the mil rate, thus the taxes paid. It's a big difference. The mil rate changes from year to year, but is fixed for the region for the year. Now you have me confused. If the mil rate changes from year to year, you're more like Vermont. That makes more sense than having budgets controlled by real estate values (as it is here). By "region", do you mean across many taxing entities? Cities pay the same as towns, pay the same as unincorporated areas? Schools aren't localy controlled? Roads, fire, and police aren't locally controlled? Up here we have "regional government" In our region it is two level - in some it is single level. A lot of the costs are shared throughout the region (school, hospitals, water, sewers, transit, main roads, etc) while other services are handled by the local second level - township or city. All the former small towns are now part of a larger entity. There is a regional component to our taxes, as well as a local component. In my case, the City of Waterloo, but there is also the township of Woolwich, the city of Cambridge, the township of Wellesley, the Township of Wilmot, etc. The budget is set by council after much deliberation, balancing the "wish list" against the revenue available from the current assessment without raising the mil rate by an unacceptable level. We've owned this house for 25 years, and our taxes have gone from roughly $800 to $3200 (while the value of the house has gone from $67000 to somewhere around $380,000) The taxes have not increased as fast as the value of the property - for sure. The property prices are going up like a rocket right now as we are only 100km (60 miles) from Toronto - where the average cost of a detatched home has reached about 1.2 million. In the whole region there were only 111 active listings the third week of december - down from a normal 300+, and there are bidding wars on just about anything. Not at all out of the ordinary for a house to go $40,000 over asking price with several Torontonians fighting over it. Making it pretty hard for locals to buy a house.... There is only a limitted amount of development land available as most good farmland is now protected.. There are some half acre lots with nice 1960's bungalows that would have sold 5 years ago for $500,000 or so selling for upwards of $600,000 to be bulldozed for the lot - to build a monster house (McMansion) worth close to $,2,000,000 - or more.. In other cases, the lot is devided and TWO monsters are built. It's called intensification and infilling. |
#60
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:22:50 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Move to where? Out of where they are living (the mortgage is predicated on working, no?). To? Well, to where there *is* a job, would be a suggestion. I've done it several times, though I won't do chase a job again because there will be no need. Where is the job though? And while the mortgage may be predicated on working, that doesn't mean that it's more than the rent would be if one moved. I can tell you I couldn't affoird to sell my house and rent here - If I got $380,000 for my house (definitely on the high side - 3 years ago it was valued at about $328, but things are going crazy) I could, at today's prices, rent a nice apartment (2 bedroom) or half decent half a house for about 18 years. and I'd have my taxes ($3000 a year) left over. |
#61
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On 1/16/17 7:51 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote: snip There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the results justify, certainly. Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was a pretty good school. In a good area. Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc. An interesting comparison is looking at metrics like graduation rate, reading "levels" upon graduation, college bound percentages, etc. and comparing that with money spent per student. Very little correlation. There are differences in students (poverty rates, etc.) but I find it hard to believe that more money == better students. Teachers are the "front line" in this war, pay for performance, not seniority. Someone who commits to excelling in teaching (like with any other profession) should reap the rewards. -BR |
#62
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
|
#63
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:34:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote: On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: satisfying whiners But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three years. Not much. Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you are living on the edge. Sure, I do but I'm not buying your story. If people are losing their homes, there is something else going on besides an 8.5% increase in their monthly housing cost. The utilities are fixed cost, too? It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your pay has not gone up. Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you ragging on their food budget? You are preaching to the choir. No, I don't get into other's business. They're adults. Sink or swim, it's the same to me. ... Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the same income. Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the underwriting of those loans. Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and suggesting what to put on the application. There is no "looking the other way" anymore, if there ever was. A credit report tells just about everything about what's owed. No-doc loans are a thing of the past. One of those is that the PITI, plus all other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income. If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home. I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge. I repeat. There is something else going on that they're not telling you. Check for a boat in the driveway? And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s". They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range. There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher but they don't advertise the same way). Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people. Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense. I don't think this is nearly as common as it was ten years ago. Money is still pretty loose but not *that* loose. |
#64
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:22:50 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article cgoq7ch8fu046tln444tpl7fti5hkqim8p@ 4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:08:44 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article s0go7c1gfgipb6p470ceh0sogdqal82cjj@ 4ax.com, says... On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 23:01:02 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/14/2017 6:28 PM, wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 18:08:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/14/2017 5:23 PM, wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:47:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/14/2017 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-5, Meanie wrote: On 1/14/2017 12:11 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote: On 1/13/2017 9:19 AM, Spalted Walt wrote: Home Depot was all out of Siberian Larch lumber so I **** canned this project. ^º^ https://www.youtube.com/embed/xj4gSMdaaxE?autoplay=1 Shipping cost for a used one from Lohmar, Germany? https://www.machinio.com/listings/15...lohmar-germany I love those videos At 15:35 he makes a zero clearance insert. What do you think that pre-drilled - complete with leveling screws - blank is made from? What do you think spares for different sized zero clearance inserts cost? I vote for "not cheap". It's similar to buying a luxury vehicle such as Mercedes, BMW or a higher end brand. If they can afford it, they can afford the parts and service when needed. I have never subscribed to that argument. It all depends on how you are using the word "afford", which is usually defined as "to have enough money to pay for". "If they can afford a pool, they can afford a pool maintenance man." "If they can afford a house with a huge lawn, they can afford a landscaper." "If they can afford luxury car, they can afford the parts." Correct Buying and affording are very different animals. Many people buy vehicles or homes but mostly on credit because they cannot afford/don't have the cash to buy any other way. I imagine that exceedingly few buy their first house with cash. I don't have an issue with mortgages. Neither do I but during the government guaranteed loans fiasco a very large number of people qualified for homes that they should not have qualified for. They were strapped for every penny and when things happened and there was not enough money to make a mortgage payment it all went to hell in a hand basket. If they had a fixed mortgage, it wouldn't have mattered. If I lost my job, I would have had a problem, too. The issue wasn't mortgages that were too large, rather people were sold ARMs. At the cost of money, at the time, ARMs were downright stupid. Think about the housing mortgage crisis 9 years ago. What about it? I had no issues, even bought an sold a house. If you had good credit, there was no issue. Some fools had ARMs. They didn't do so well, of course. It did not bother or my wife either, but we were not buying or trying to sell in 2008. I did (sold at the end of '07 and bought in August '08). No issues. I did lose $30K in '11/'12 on my house but I'll more than make that up on this one (it was a foreclosure - now "worth" almost twice what I paid for it). In Houston housing prices dipped to what they should be and selling was tough as there were many foreclosures that were dirt cheap. Either way there are many people that were able to keep their homes but are finding that with demand going back up and property values going up it is causing taxes to go way up. They can no longer afford those homes. I pay about 3% in property taxes each year. Many near by places have a higher rate. Then the property taxes should have been going down when the values tanked. I pay about 1%. It was more like .5% on my last house. ;-) Taxes were on the list of the reasons we left Vermont. There was no way I could retire, given that cost of living. I don't see a reason to live where it's more expensive than necessary. Believe me if you pay property taxes and know some one that pays less than you do, you may be paying more than necessary. Why should some one in a million dollar home pay more property tax than some in a $250,000 home. Is the guy in the million dollar home getting 4 times as many services. Probably not. Property taxes should not be based on value of the property. Everyone should pay the same amount for the same services. Why? Because it's "progressive". Why should I pay more income tax than a hamburger flipper? They're almost assuredly getting more government services than I. Two years ago I was living on food stamps and half time minimum wage. Today I'm living on a full time quant's salary which means I pay more in income tax than my entire compensation in the last engineering job I had. What's a "quant"? Your last engineering job must have sucked. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_anal yst. Suffice it to say that it pays a _lot_ more than engineering, it's a _much_ better work environment, and if somebody had told me 40 years ago that this kind of work existed I would have never become an engineer. Dunno, doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. I'm still doing the engineering thing because it pays well and making things is fun. I don't begrudge the services rendered to poor people nor do I feel that taxing them further into poverty serves any purpose. Not to the point. Well actually, since the argument seems to be that they use more services so they should pay more tax, it kind of _is_ the point. No, it's the opposite of my point. However, I do believe that everyone should share some of the pain for government. Highly progressive taxes are counterproductive. I'd rather pay less tax but not if it means imposing taxes on the poor that they do not have the means to pay. Forcing someone to choose between food, shelter, and taxes is rather sadistic IMO. The level of taxation on everyone is sadistic but, again, irrelevant. I don't find it at all sadistic. Not at my level. What's sadistic is--you know those guys who stand in line outside Home Depot hoping for a day job? Well if they're honest about their taxes then they have to pay 15 percent up front in "self employment tax" before they even get started on income tax. That's why they like to get paid cash under the table--there's no paper trail. God only wants 10%. Nobody should be taxed into poverty and nobody who is already there should be taxed further into it. Doing so isn't addressing any real social problem. Save the argument for Hillary. Yes the taxes did go down with property values but remember that the economy tanked also and people lost their jobs. And while these homes did go down in value when the crisis hit they have now rebounded with a vengeance and have sky rocketed way past the values when originally bought. That seems to be one area that Vermont actually did better. They had a "Grand List" of all property in the town. The tax rate was set at the annual budger divided by the "Grand List". If property values tank, the rate goes up. The total tax is the same (in theory). Here, the taxes colllected vary with property taxes. Seems they should vary by the "needs" of the community. The "needs" of the community can include quite a lot of cruft that could be done away with. Sing it, brother! Though saying it doesn't change reality. People always lose jobs. I can't imagine everyone being able to absorb a (long term) job loss without having to move. It's not a reasonable expectation. Move to where? Out of where they are living (the mortgage is predicated on working, no?). To? Well, to where there *is* a job, would be a suggestion. I've done it several times, though I won't do chase a job again because there will be no need. Where is the job though? And while the mortgage may be predicated on working, that doesn't mean that it's more than the rent would be if one moved. If one has no job *here*, it doesn't much matter what the rent is *there*. There is where the job is. |
#65
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:46:00 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:12:00 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:51:57 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:23:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:59:27 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:26:26 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. It should be downsized - both at federal and state/province level - as should the local school boards. Put the money into schools, teachers, books and resources, not Tajma Hall board headquarters. There is already plenty of money in the schools. More than the results justify, certainly. Mabee in some.. Not in the local school where I taught - and it was a pretty good school. In a good area. The US average is $12K. NYC schools cost well over $20K per student and it looks like West Texas isn't any less. http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil-spending-compares-across-us.html You're not going to convince me that the results (by any measure you want to use, besides "participation trophies") justify the costs. Perhaps it is different in the USa - where the results DO appear to be a bit poorer - but the teachers are paid less, etc etc etc. Less????? $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. But there is no difference. They all get paid the same. There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching - passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bull**** from the ministry and board level. So get rid of the slackers, and everyone in the way. Drain the swamp, as it were. |
#66
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@ 4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I would agree with you. But they are and have been for as long as I can remember. It's been since forever that locals have been in control. |
#67
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:02:21 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:34:43 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: On 1/16/2017 8:23 PM, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:52:39 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote: satisfying whiners But, using your previous examples, the diffrence is 8.5% over three years. Not much. Explain that to those that are loosing their homes. Do you understand the concept of living from paycheck to paycheck. Typically means if you are living on the edge. Sure, I do but I'm not buying your story. If people are losing their homes, there is something else going on besides an 8.5% increase in their monthly housing cost. The utilities are fixed cost, too? It is a hell of a lot if 8.5% is a large number to begin with and your pay has not gone up. Deliver pizzas one night a week. Drive an Uber. Why aren't you ragging on their food budget? You are preaching to the choir. No, I don't get into other's business. They're adults. Sink or swim, it's the same to me. ... Fanie May, CountryWide? or something like that. These lenders had government guaranteed money to give out loans to any one. A great number of these people would not qualify for these loans today, with the same income. Oh, I thought you meant that the borrowers were somehow guaranteed a loan. The loans are guaranteed but there are still standards for the underwriting of those loans. Yes but there was tremendous amount of looking the other way and suggesting what to put on the application. There is no "looking the other way" anymore, if there ever was. A credit report tells just about everything about what's owed. No-doc loans are a thing of the past. One of those is that the PITI, plus all other credit, can't be above something like 30% of income. If they're going bankrupt, the problem isn't the taxes on their home. I beg to differ, if you do not have a hundred dollars to spare each month a $1200 tax increase puts you over the edge. I repeat. There is something else going on that they're not telling you. Check for a boat in the driveway? Or a gambling problem, or too many Cigaraettes, or booze, or a mistress,, Lots of "money holes" And then you have to add an increase on insurance as when the value of the house goes so does your insurance premium, a requirement of the lender. And one more little tid bit. Our homes started going up significantly when our neighborhood was built out a few years ago. There is still a lot of wide open spaces near us that is being developed and hardly any of these houses are going for less than $250K for 1600 sq ft. There are still developments here advertising "starting in the $140s". They're all postage stamp lots but they look to be in that size range. There are also many "starting in the $400s" (and, of course, higher but they don't advertise the same way). Well moving from a $300K home to a $150K home is beneath these people. Ultimately I am not saying that there is not a way to prevent all of this but some people will live in a home until their savings runs out and are foreclosed on. They have an image to uphold and no money sense. I don't think this is nearly as common as it was ten years ago. Money is still pretty loose but not *that* loose. |
#68
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
|
#69
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
In article 10os7cdppola5c7a9q07u0kbk4t1ns6r72@
4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@ 4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I would agree with you. But they are and have been for as long as I can remember. It's been since forever that locals have been in control. In what world? |
#70
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, wrote: snip $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. But there is no difference. They all get paid the same. Not everywhere. They do in the US. There ARE a lot of teachers who should be retired (or fired) but there are also quite a few MORE who are there for the love of teaching - passing on knowlege to the kids - who would teach for half their salary if they didn't have to put up with the politics and bull**** from the ministry and board level. So get rid of the slackers, and everyone in the way. Drain the swamp, as it were. |
#71
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:07:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article 10os7cdppola5c7a9q07u0kbk4t1ns6r72@ 4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:24:40 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: In article r3pq7cp4ud0qj5p9fpg5g23bmruthj39tu@ 4ax.com, says... On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:54:51 -0500, wrote: On 16 Jan 2017 19:26:29 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote: wrote in newso2q7c1u4ri4rrbmis7caf38tde1afv5pg@ 4ax.com: Not pointing atg you, Ed - but if YOU were a city worker, a cop, a fireman, or whatever, would YOU want to work for less, just to lower the tax rate for every other resident of your city by fifty cents? Do you want to have to wait an hour for a fire truck to arrive, instead of 7 minutes? Or to wait 20 minutes for a cop to respond to an emergency instead of 3? That's what you are asking for when you ask for reduced taxes (of course a small prtion could be reduced by reducing real waste and corruption at higher levels in some jurisdictions) OTOH, are we really talking about 50 cents? Tax rates don't just go up by the cost of postage stamps, they tend to jump. I'm happy to give the road dept, fire fighters, sheriff what they want (within reason). Those guys make my life better. Education, OTOH, is a huge money sink and I really don't know that we're getting anywhere close to the thousands of dollars they charge in value from them. They waste time with mandatory fun days, shift classes to computers where a textbook and notebook is all they really need, eliminate shop classes because of insurance, and so on. Puckdropper Having been part of the education system "in a previous life" I'll agree a lot of money is wasted - but watching this last election cycle in the USA I'd say not NEARLY enough emphasis is put on "education" "Education" needs to be a priority, and money spent on "education" is never wasted. Money spent on the "education system" is almost by default wasted.\ What needs to be figured out is how to provide an adequate "education" without wasting money on the "education system" Teachers and schools are an investment. School Districts, School Boards, etc, are a large money waster. Oh, good Lord. Education is a *LOCAL* issue. The federal government should have *nothing* to do with it. The Department of Education should be abolished. If the locals weren't totally mucking it up I would agree with you. But they are and have been for as long as I can remember. It's been since forever that locals have been in control. In what world? I live on planet Earth. Which universe do you live in? |
#72
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
writes:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, wrote: snip $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. But there is no difference. They all get paid the same. Not everywhere. They do in the US. No, they don't. |
#73
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:47:51 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote: writes: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, wrote: snip $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. But there is no difference. They all get paid the same. Not everywhere. They do in the US. No, they don't. Bull****. They're paid by senioity, not performance. *EVERYWHERE* in the US. |
#74
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:36:07 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:47:51 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: writes: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, wrote: snip $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. But there is no difference. They all get paid the same. Not everywhere. They do in the US. No, they don't. Bull****. They're paid by senioity, not performance. *EVERYWHERE* in the US. But they are not all paid the same for the same seniority - it varies significantyly from district to district or at least state to state. |
#75
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Shopsmith on steroids --- Felder CF 741
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:47:48 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:36:07 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:47:51 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote: writes: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:33:41 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:12:01 -0500, wrote: snip $100K salary isn't rare, absolute job security, and 100% retirement after 30 years, isn't pocket change. There is _no_corelation between teacher pay and student performance. Of course, administration costs don't help anyone, except administrators. I was talking to a teacher, a policeman, and a firefighter in Flkorida about 15 or so years ago, and they were all paid so poorly they had to work second jobs to make ends meet - less than $40,000 for each of the three. That's what I based my comment on. A good teacher with a lot of experience who really does their job in an inner city school might be worth on the high side of $100,000, but an idler in a decent school? I agree with you - no way. But there is no difference. They all get paid the same. Not everywhere. They do in the US. No, they don't. Bull****. They're paid by senioity, not performance. *EVERYWHERE* in the US. But they are not all paid the same for the same seniority - it varies significantyly from district to district or at least state to state. That's not the point. The incentives are all wrong. The education system is fatally broken. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NAFTA On Steroids And In Stealth Mode | Metalworking | |||
Put Your Business On Steroids !! | Home Ownership | |||
Furnace Filters on Steroids | Home Repair | |||
RE Furnace Filters on Steroids | Home Repair | |||
Felder | Woodworking |