House Republicans have a little-known plan to raise taxes on teachers by $2 billion

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

We've already learned that the GOP plans to increase taxes for graduate students by almost 400%. We also know that Trumps advisors can't even guarantee the middle class won't see tax increases.. The evidence is piling up that the lower classes are going to be screwed. This is just another revelation.

How is this "tuition forgiveness" labeled to be seen as income? How can they label it in the future to not pay taxes on it? Chicken little anyone?

The House GOP tax bill would scrap that educator deduction entirely.

The Senate GOP tax plan would double it to $500.

Somewhere in the middle will be the truth I would think...not sure why the OP is triggered right now on this...

The rap on teachers is just pure bs.

I’ve worked with teachers for years in some rough schools and many nice schools.

Their very hard working people.

I see them spending their own money for the children and working after hours for nothing.

They are just under attack because the republicans started slandering them because they have government jobs.

a reply to: Willtell

And NOT as plentiful anymore at ALL.

As I said, my friend has a lame 401k. He LOVES teaching his students. Hates the pay. Hates the benefits.

He does it because he wants to, not because it pays well.

ME? I think it's certified crazy. No WAY would I put up with someone else's kids for peanuts in pay and benefits.

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Edumakated

Really? Where are YOU from?

Please do give some examples...?

Yeah..teachers suck!!!

I do taxes for quite a few teachers and retired teachers. I've yet to meet a poor retired teacher. I have one client who makes more in retirement than they did working. Teachers for the most part have excellent retirement packages.

My friend is a public teacher.

Has 401k, NO PENSION.

So, your argument is invalid.

This is the typical democrat response - Some group of people no matter how small is hurt by this policy - therefore the whole plan is bad.

The world is not black and white it is shades of gray.

Let me ask you this tons of peoples health insurance more than doubled with obamacare - including mine - but I bet you are still in favor of that right? If we use your logic some people suffered so it should be scrapped.

You have to look at the overall effect of the law, and unquestionably by anyone's analysis the majority of the middle and lower class will have their taxes lowered, the tax process simplified - less tax accountant fees needed, and everyone agrees it will stimulate the economy to at least some degree.

Trying to argue against the tax cut for any other reason than it will add to our national debt is a totally invalid argument on the whole, and the Democrats know it. But they don't want this to pass because they also know it will improve the economy and strengthen the Republican party.

In other words the democrats don't give a crap about the middle class - all they care about is getting elected and their opposition to the plan at all costs proves it.

This is obviously anecdotal, but I live in one of the better areas of my poor city. We have unusally large homes compared to the rest of the homes in our city. In addition, we live in a village which is somewhat separated to the city by a single drive in or out. It is known as an uppity part of the town and a desirable place to work towards owning a home.


We have just under 400 people living in our village. Nearly half are retired teachers. Not joking.

a reply to: proximo

Some group of people no matter how small is hurt by this policy - therefore the whole plan is bad.

This is a common, almost default, reaction from conservatives on many issues...

Sadly, it goes against the whole ideal of Government working for the benefit of every citizen.
Their demographic percentage shouldn’t even be considered.


Basically you’re argument is “well only a small percent will be affected, so who cares”...
But that is antithetical to catering to the needs of everyone.
Which is what the Government should be doing.

originally posted by: DanteGaland

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Edumakated

Really? Where are YOU from?

Please do give some examples...?

Yeah..teachers suck!!!

I do taxes for quite a few teachers and retired teachers. I've yet to meet a poor retired teacher. I have one client who makes more in retirement than they did working. Teachers for the most part have excellent retirement packages.

My friend is a public teacher.

Has 401k, NO PENSION.

So, your argument is invalid.

So my argument is invalid due to your one personal story? Did I say Pension? I said "retirement packages". Please ask your friend to help you read.

Btw it's not a 401k he has if he is a public school teacher.

Some teachers do indeed have pension plans as well as other retirement plans.

teacher pension plans

Have a Good Thankgiving

wat gud r techer them dnt learn me nuuthin.

MAGA MAGA

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: proximo


Basically you’re argument is “well only a small percent will be affected, so who cares”...
But that is antithetical to catering to the needs of everyone.
Which is what the Government should be doing.

So a benefit that only affects 2.5% of the workforce is catering to the needs of everyone? Just trying to follow along.

originally posted by: olaru12
wat gud r techer them dnt learn me nuuthin.

MAGA MAGA

Remember, Teachers are Lower Class.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: pavil

Why single out a single occupation for it?
Less then 2.5% of the workforce is teachers.

I fully understand your point, pavil.

But alongside military and emergency services...
Can you name a more important workforce in the civilised world?

I’m hard pressed to think of one.

Then pay them accordingly. I don't have a problem with paying great teachers very well.

Teachers on average make more than those two other professions. Those other two don't get any special tax breaks Federally except in regards to pay in a Warzone.


People think this is a huge tax benefit,
it's less than $70 for most.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Edumakated

Really? Where are YOU from?

Please do give some examples...?

Yeah..teachers suck!!!

I do taxes for quite a few teachers and retired teachers. I've yet to meet a poor retired teacher. I have one client who makes more in retirement than they did working. Teachers for the most part have excellent retirement packages.

That is if you work 30 years

Also, those packages are being attacked by GOP governors

Yes one of the largest expenses Education has is funding retiree programs. Take a guess how much of an average School District's budget is retirement related.

I fail to see what your 30 year comment has to do with the discussion. Many teaches make it a career. I have a Physical Ed High School Teacher who makes $57,000 a year and has a great benefits package. It's a great career. That kind of pay and Summers off, not a bad deal

a reply to: pavil

Those other two don't get any special tax breaks...

They also don’t have to pay out of their own pocket for equipment needed to do their jobs.

So a benefit that only affects 2.5% of the workforce is catering to the needs of everyone? Just trying to follow along.

That’s a loaded question.
Especially considering other professions that make up the rest of society aren’t usually paying out of their own pocket.
It’s highly likely a large fraction of the other 97.5% do not need this sort of deduction.

& if this passes, there will be no “benefit” to speak of...
But considering it’s there now so teachers who pay out of their own pocket can deduct, I don’t see how that can be a bad thing.

Unless you think teachers should be buying supplies and textbooks etc.
But to me that seems like a ridiculous proposition.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's USUALLY the uneducated who dont' value teachers.

They're not intelligent enough to understand the value, they don't see the "point".

Nice. That's always a great debate comment.

No one here is claiming that which you state. It's just odd that teachers are expected to provide some of their salary to supply things schools used to. Everyone seems fine with that, strange isn't it?

Are you for tax breaks for 2.5 % groups of our economy? If so, then there are other worthy professions in need of similar breaks.

If teachers worked in any other industry and suffered the routine major failure rates we're seeing from American students, they'd lose their jobs en masse... but no, the answer to this problem is to give them raises!?!?! Yeah, that's logical and sustainable.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's USUALLY the uneducated who dont' value teachers.

They're not intelligent enough to understand the value, they don't see the "point".

Wanna have a degree swinging contest and see?

When they started talking about a tax plan that would simplify the tax code by getting rid of loopholes and deductions and make filing taxes as simple as filling out a postcard, I wonder what some thought that would mean?

I guess they thought it would mean everyone else would lose their loopholes and deductions, but not them.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: pavil

Those other two don't get any special tax breaks...

They also don’t have to pay out of their own pocket for equipment needed to do their jobs.

So a benefit that only affects 2.5% of the workforce is catering to the needs of everyone? Just trying to follow along.

That’s a loaded question.
Especially considering other professions that make up the rest of society aren’t usually paying out of their own pocket.
It’s highly likely a large fraction of the other 97.5% do not need this sort of deduction.

& if this passes, there will be no “benefit” to speak of...
But considering it’s there now so teachers who pay out of their own pocket can deduct, I don’t see how that can be a bad thing.

Unless you think teachers should be buying supplies and textbooks etc.
But to me that seems like a ridiculous proposition.

That we expect teachers and to a lesser extent, parents to contribute supplies for classes is insane to me. Teachers shouldn't have to pony up money to do that.

Lots of other professions have out of pocket expenses they don't get to deduct on their taxes.

Again we are talking about less than a $100 of tax benefit.

Teachers should not have to pay out of pocket for supplies to run an effective class. That's the real problem. That's a School District issue that we all should be bringing up.

a reply to: pavil

At well over $10K/year/student in most districts, there should be no excuse for any teacher to expect to have to buy most basic items. Parents shouldn't have to either for that matter.

We paid much less than that for the private school tuition and the supplies were taken care of.

originally posted by: pavil
Teachers should not have to pay out of pocket for supplies to run an effective class.

They don't. If they were running "effective" classes, then we'd not be ranked so low in comparative education results to the rest of the developed world. I've seen the inner workings... the things teachers pay out of pocket for are neither necessary nor do they generally contribute to a more effective classroom. A chalkboard, chalk, text books, pencils, and paper are necessary for a classroom.