[Winona Online Democracy]
Reply to Paul Double:
I'm disappointed that Paul seems to have ignored the majority of my last
fairly lengthy post on this subject, and instead scrolled down to one
questionable sentence near the end.
I see that I didn't express myself very well: I do in fact realize that
increases in benefits do translate into financial gain. I was just trying
to ask that apples be compared with apples.
In the article being discussed, teacher salary increases are compared with
"a 42.94 percent average growth in wages for all Minnesota wage earners"
over the past decade. I don't know whether that 43% includes increases in
the cost of health insurance, and I bet Paul doesn't either. If it does,
then it looks like teachers are doing relatively well. If it doesn't, then
Paul's numbers don't offer a fair comparison. At least, that's how it looks
to me.
I for one would like to know how this actually shakes out. Is it possible
to separate the statistics from the various axes people always like to
grind on the wheel of public education? Could someone shed some politically
neutral light on this?
>
>Increased benefits do in fact result in a lowering of everyone's paycheck.
>Years ago many employers both public and private required the employee to
>pay half of the cost of medical insurance and today depending on the
>employer that can be from 0 to 100 %. Those that offer zero, in many cases
>put the matching dollars in the paycheck. The reason is that because many
>couples both work and both have the ability to procure insurance. Small
>companies have also found the people can buy individual policies cheaper
>and with better coverage than they can put together as a group plan. Also
>it enables people to have the own cafeteria plan to match their needs and
>exposure not those of a committee. Thus small companies can offer
>significantly higher pay rates with no benefits and that appeals to may
>people. Also singles receive a much higher real paycheck benefit because
>they are not "subsidizing" family medical insurance costs.
>
>In the case of the schools the benefit package is costed in the available
>dollars at the table. What is left after those benefits are costed out is
>what is distributed on the grid. The negotiating is establishing the
>priorities on the distribution. To say that "An increase is insurance
>premiums or change in TRA certainly doesn't put money in my pocket" is to
>not understand the process. "Every benefit" or "reduction of benefit" does
>add or subtract from the dollars in the paycheck.
>
>As the saying goes "There is no such thing as a free ride"
>
>Paul Double
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>From: Scott Lowery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Sharon,
>>Thanks. I was really just using stats from Education Minnesota,
>>specifically from the April 13 issue of the Minnesota Educator in an
>>editorial by Co-President Judy Schaubach. As Mr. Powell guessed, I was
>>repeating the data in the belief that they were true, and so far I haven't
>>seen any evidence that they're not! I imagine Education Minnesota could
>>provide more extensive statistics. Here's what Schaubach included in her
>>piece entitled "Don't Blame Teachers for Budget Woes":
>> * Over the past 10 years, the average Minnesota teacher salary has
>>increased by 22.77 percent, compared to an increase of 28.03 percent in the
>>Consumer Price Index.
>> * The 22.77 percent increase for teachers compares with a 42.94
>>percent average growth in wages for all Minnesota wage earners.
>> * From 1991 to 1999 the average teacher salary increased by 20.69
>>percent, while per capita income grew by 43.22 percent in Minnesota.
>>
>>As for the thread of online conversation on this topic, it seems like an
>>example of how people from opposing viewpoints can look at the same data
>>and draw very different conclusions. I'm still hoping that someone
>>relatively objective with an economics background will interpret the
>>information for the rest of us.
>>
>>As I understand the argument presented by Paul Double and alluded to by Mr.
>>Powell, Ed MN's numbers may be misleading because "average Minnesota
>>teacher salary" increase may not factor in progress on the salary schedule.
>>First, someone would have to check with Ed MN to see if, in fact, steps on
>>the schedule were or were not included in calculating the increase in
>>average salary. If they weren't, then I'd think they should be, for
>>purposes of comparison with average salary increases in other employment
>>areas. Obviously, the same would have to hold true in the comparison
>>groups--you'd want to look at "increase for an average individual over a
>>ten year span" rather than "average increase in yearly contractual salary".
>>
>>However, the numbers that Paul has come up with from the WAPS business
>>office seem to also include increases in benefits, such as increases in the
>>cost of insurance coverage. Of course, including that makes the overall
>>increase in compensation look huge. I don't understand where that fits
>>in--I don't think benefits would be part of the 43% per capita income
>>increase statewide cited by Schaubach. An increase in insurance premiums or
>>change in TRA certainly doesn't put money in my pocket, so what is the
>>point of comparing the overall 56% increase against the Consumer Price
>>Index?
>>
>>In other words, aren't there two separate questions that are getting mixed
>>up with each other? The questions are, I think, as follows:
>>Over the last decade--
>> (1) how has the increase in salary experienced by the average
>>teacher compared to other measures, such as earnings increases in the
>>general population, inflation, etc.?
>> (2) how have teacher payroll expenses for school districts
>>increased compared to average payroll expense increases in the general
>>economy?
>>
>>All interested parties would benefit from answers to both questions that
>>are fair and objective, if that's possible.
>>
>>>Scott,
>>> Loved the response to SOS & your stat quotes on the teacher salary
>>>increases over a decade. I have read similar comparatives. Do you have a
>>>source for them? I'd like to use salary data on "Myth Busters!" for board
>>>meeting sometime, and I always intend to reference fact sources, so people
>>>can check objective data and know it is not rhetoric or subjective
>>>thought....
>>>Sharon
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Scott Lowery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 12:24 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [Winona] Minnesota SOS (Same Old Song)
>>>
>>>
>>>> [Winona Online Democracy]
>>>>
>>>> As a small business owner turned teacher, I am interested in Paul Double's
>>>> comments on the question of exempting business owners from sales tax on
>>>new
>>>> equipment. Is this something new? It seems to me that when I was
>>>> self-employed, the only exemption on sales tax for my business was on
>>>items
>>>> intended for resale. If an exemption on sales tax is a recent incentive
>>>for
>>>> business investment, then this is already a gain, what's the big deal
>>>about
>>>> paying up front and waiting for a rebate. If you want to compare to the
>>>> personal income tax, it sounds like this would be analagous to payroll
>>>> withholding, which is a pretty well accepted concept for most of us.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine there's more to this, and maybe it's a fine piece of
>>>legislation,
>>>> I'd need to know more about it. I agree with Paul that it seems odd to
>>>> blame lack of school funding on a particular piece of pro-business
>>>> legislation.
>>>>
>>>> However Paul loses me when he starts railing about the MEA soaking up our
>>>> tax dollars, in a redistribution of wealth no yet! Over the past 10
>>>years,
>>>> there's been a 43% average growth in wages for all Minnesota wage earners.
>>>> During the same period, the average MN teacher salary increased by 23%. If
>>>> there is redistribution of wealth going on, it is flowing away from
>>>> teachers, not toward them.
>>>> Scott Lowery
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >I know of no business that buys equipment for the fun of it or to get a
>>>> >rebate. Most small businesses have enough trouble funding expansion and
>>>> >growth without the hassle of having to wait a year to get back the money
>>>> >they had to borrow to buy the equipment in the first place. The
>>>> >justification for equipment is to create jobs by offering more products,
>>>> >becoming more efficient, to retain jobs and to improve product quality.
>>>> >Front loading the cost of equipment promotes leasing which only imposes
>>>the
>>>> >tax on the lease payment not the initial purchase. The idea that this
>>>> >takes money from schools is in my opinion without logic since the author
>>>> >is not rejecting the idea of exempting new plant equipment from Sales Tax
>>>> >only the idea the someone may cheat. Why should the state have use of the
>>>> >money interest free for a year until a rebate form is submitted causing
>>>the
>>>> >purchaser to have to borrow more money to make the purchase. That's as
>>>bad
>>>> >as asking everyone to pay their income taxes for the year in January just
>>>> >in case they make to enough money and might to pay something on April
>>>15th.
>>>> >
>>>> >Let's target educational money into the 10-20 percent of almost every
>>>> >school district budget that includes everything but the "Local Negotiated
>>>> >Contract" and would provide relief for new text books, class room
>>>supplies
>>>> >and building maintenance and get off the redistribution of taxpayers
>>>income
>>>> >into the new MEA contracts for the next biennium which will start after
>>>the
>>>> >session is over.
>>>> >
>>>> >Paul Double
>>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Minnesota SOS
>>>> >>
>>>> >>It is sad that the average taxpayer has no idea what is going on at the
>>>> >>capital spending our money. The House Tax bill, and the Senate likely
>>>will
>>>> >>as well when theirs is released, has large benefits for businesses.
>>>This
>>>> >>money should be allocated to the taxpayers, for what the majority of the
>>>> >>taxpayers want. I am aware of a bill in the omnibus bill which is
>>>estimated
>>>> >>to cost Minnesotans $35-40 million dollars annually. This could easily
>>>be
>>>> >>given to some other purpose, like schools. The bill relates to a refund
>>>> >>program currently in place for the sales tax on the purchase of
>>>equipment
>>>> >>used in manufacturing. Currently businesses must pay the tax and file
>>>for
>>>> >>refunds by submitting a spreadsheet or report documenting the eligible
>>>> >>purchases. If the bill passes, the businesses can get the purchases
>>>exempt
>>>> >>from tax upfront. This new method will not allow for any type of audit
>>>to
>>>> >>verify the businesses are not abusing or misusing the exemption. Much
>>>of
>>>> >>the
>>>> >>$35-40 million is because the business will misuse the exemption,
>>>cheating
>>>> >>the other taxpayers. If all Minnesota citizens were aware of this and
>>>> >>likely
>>>> >>other bills which will be put in place and abused at our expense; at our
>>>> >>schools expense; at our children's expense!!!
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Is there any way to communicate that this bill and others like it should
>>>not
>>>> >>be included in the Omnibus tax bill and actually get these types of
>>>bills
>>>> >>removed?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Let the message be heard!
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Dan Affeldt
>>>> >>Father of Four, Two Special Needs
>>>> >>Zimmerman, MN
>>>> >>Elk River School District
>>>> >>763-856-4910
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Scott Lowery
>>>> 461 Sunnyview Drive, Rollingstone MN 55969
>>>> home phone: (507)689-4532
>>>> school phone: (507)453-3888
>>>> home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> school email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be
>>>> counted counts." Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>> "You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." James Thurber
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------
>>>> This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>>>> Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or
>>>unsubscribe.
>>>> Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>>>> Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>>>> Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>Scott Lowery
>>461 Sunnyview Drive, Rollingstone MN 55969
>>home phone: (507)689-4532
>>school phone: (507)453-3888
>>home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>school email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be
>>counted counts." Albert Einstein
>>
>>"You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." James Thurber
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------
>>This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>>Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>>Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>>Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>>Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>----------------
>This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott Lowery
461 Sunnyview Drive, Rollingstone MN 55969
home phone: (507)689-4532
school phone: (507)453-3888
home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
school email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be
counted counts." Albert Einstein
"You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." James Thurber
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
