Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 14, 2013 at 3:38 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767887November 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767881
CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]But would anyone really object if it were taught elsewhere, or is it simply not explicitly a part of policy?[/quote]
Why don’t you take a poll on somewhere other than piggington and find out.
I’m pretty sure if Johnny comes hope and tells daddy/mommy that racking up $20k in credit card debt is a terrible/stupid thing is probably not going to go so well for Johnny’s daddy/mommy swimming in $20k in credit card debt…
Heck, you even got these jokers who think they shouldn’t make certain STEMS required if their kid isn’t going to study STEMS.
“The author of the post below wrote that an official at his son’s Maryland high school told him that chemistry was a required course in the state, and as a result, his son took chemistry. Bill Reinhard, spokesman for the Maryland State Department of Education, says there is no specific chemistry mandate, though high school students must take three credits of science to graduate, one of which must be biology. The author, David Bernstein, says the post is less about chemistry and more about the notion of mandating specific courses.”
November 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767879CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]Regardless, it is taught in some US places and political correctness doesn’t come into it.[/quote]
As long as it’s NOT a mandatory requirement as part of a broad sweeping federal education program, and as long as it is elective per state/district/county, it IS about political correctness.
The only way you FIX people who have money management problems is if you FORCE people to take a course on it across the country, no different than ensuring any any sort of minimum level of education about any other sort of topic in a public school.
November 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767878CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]Regardless, it is taught in some US places and political correctness doesn’t come into it.[/quote]
14 states.
November 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767876CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]I’d say that probably 80-90% of students went on to take at least pre-calc (derivatives) if not Calculus (integration).
Our of curiosity, is your 6 out of (50?) states a real number or is it an attempt at humor? I’d actually be interested in seeing stats as to what is required reading in which state.[/quote]
The majority of high school students ARENT taking calculus or for that matter pre-calc. And again, teaching 1-2 weeks of compound interest and amortization the last year before college is hardly an effective way to instill any sort of money management skills for someone that has none. Especially the way it is taught in school being a theory of exercises, and very rarely even touch reality of “real world money management problems”….
You’re taking this for granted because you were either raised with money management skills or you had significant exposure to it from someone else.
WRTO the 6 states…It was the number out of one of the included articles, though it was dated back to 2005/6… I think there was another article floating around dating back to 2010 that indicated it getting worse, especially with the education cuts. Correction the number is higher. most offer some sort of basic economics, but few offer personal finance as a curriculum.
“Meanwhile, states that require a personal finance class fell to 14 from 15.”
November 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767874CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]My point was that such things ARE taught in (at least some) schools. Political correctness in the sense of not teaching “family values” is not at issue here.[/quote]
It’s taught in 6 states… NJ and NY happen to be one of them..And even as you admit, it’s only taught in the upper honors classes, which means it’s not taught to most people. Most people in high school aren’t necessarily taking calculus.
There is no federal standard. And some distance back one district I remember attempted that in CA and it was shot down.
November 14, 2013 at 11:30 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767872CoronitaParticipant[quote=spdrun]
“If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn’t borrow any more money from it and there is no interest charges?”
Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn’t be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline “family values” that shouldn’t be taught in a public school math class…
I can’t speak to the People’s Republic of CA, but when I went to HS in small-town NJ in the 90s, we had interest-amortization and things like that in high school calculus. Or maybe it was our economics class, can’t remember, but no one objected…
We also had shop, home-ec, and basic electronic theory classes, the latter taught by a retired radio engineer from Bell Labs.[/quote]
Um, I’m not even really worried about Calculus or amortization, or heck even compound interest.
How just about a very simple lesson that if you Borrow $X to buy crap that doesn’t generate income, and make $X/1000 payments each month, you become a debt slave bitch-boy for Y years until it’s paid off….
Simple elementary school math, that could be taught to just about any elementary school kid, from honors level to remedial and might actually help out when Joe is old enough to use his credit card….
Again, I’m all gay rights, adoptions, etc,etc. And that’s all fine and dandy. But look at the way a lot of people in this country handle their finances. Heck, look at how our government handles its finances.. You think *maybe* our educators would get a clue on what sort education crisis we have in this country? Or is the truth, they aren’t qualified to teach it because they suck at managing their own finances as well?
November 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767870CoronitaParticipantNovember 14, 2013 at 11:15 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767868CoronitaParticipant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=flu]Meh, it doesn’t bother me…
But I would rather have preferred our educators to have have created math assignments that read something like:
If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn’t borrow any more money from it?
Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn’t be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline “family values” that shouldn’t be taught in a public school math class…[/quote]
Post of the month nominee ![/quote]
The irony of it, isn’t it???
On one hand, some have stated “how are the uninformed/uneducated suppose to understand/learn better money management skills and teach their kids those skills if they didn’t learn themselves?”…. But on the other hand, who is going to teach those money management skills, if money management skills can’t be taught in a public school?
Oh well, not my problem and not my kid’s problem I guess.
November 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #767866CoronitaParticipantMeh, it doesn’t bother me…
But I would rather have preferred our educators to have have created math assignments that read something like:
“If Joe maxes out and borrows $20000 on a credit card, and makes $20 a payment each month, how many months will it take Joe to pay off his credit card debt, assuming he doesn’t borrow any more money from it and there is no interest charges?”
Of course, I have a feeling that sort of math question wouldn’t be allowed, because it would be flagged as borderline “family values” that shouldn’t be taught in a public school math class…
CoronitaParticipant[quote=SK in CV] It has become “conventional wisdom” among conservatives and Democrats have been, for the most part, not much better. Either accepting it or fighting weakly against it. It would be ironic if there was any significant movement to tax the rich. There just hasn’t been.[/quote]
SK… That was exactly my point….
I thought all the hand waving recently about “tax the rich more” and “rich people should pay more” and all the tax changes was really suppose to do that.
Then I see this gem of new tax lax for capital gains, and it seems like it’s once again favoring rich(er) people who derive most of their AGI from capital gains versus people who earn salary at the same AGI.
In other words, I think it’s ironic that despite all the calls and hand-waving our politicians have been saying about “tax the rich more”, they really aren’t doing anything to change much.
Where they are taxing people are not necessary “rich”, but upper income people that are just below the rich who derive most of their larger income from wages (IE doctors, lawyers,etc)…..
It’s actually quite comical imho….
Not that I mind the favorable treatments on capital gains. But it does strike me as odd that we would go through tax changes, and fundamentally it’s new bosses doing old bosses same things..
CoronitaParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]No I was referring to the convoluted way the 20% cap gain rate is determined[/quote]
That’s not a tax on the rich. It applies to everyone.[/quote]
20% tax rate applies only to MAGI folks above $400k/450k. The rest still are at 15% level.
How is this not a tax on the wealthier..
Fine by me. Again, my point was the irony in the rules for how the 20% cap gain tax rate kicks in…[/quote]
I’m not sure how that’s ironic. Higher income, higher tax.[/quote]
$500k AGI in which most of it is from wages versus
$500k AGI in which most of it is from capital gains, and in both scenarios, they are taxed differently where the former ends up being more than than the laterDon’t you think that is kinda ironic, considering the entire purpose is to tax the rich more where as wealth accumulation by rich(er) people have been more rampant via capital gains versus “wage” income?
CoronitaParticipant[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]No I was referring to the convoluted way the 20% cap gain rate is determined[/quote]
That’s not a tax on the rich. It applies to everyone.[/quote]
20% tax rate applies only to MAGI folks above $400k/450k. The rest still are at 15% level.
How is this not a tax on the wealthier..
[quote]
Capital gains tax preferences should be repealed in their entirety. Given the current economic conditions, there’s no good reason to tax profit from capital at a lower rate than income from working.
[/quote]Fine by me. Again, my point was the irony in the rules for how the 20% cap gain tax rate kicks in…
CoronitaParticipantNo I was referring to the convoluted way the 20% cap gain rate is determined
CoronitaParticipant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]So…you’d finally agree with me that the fairest sort of tax system would tax ALL income at the same progressive rates?[/quote]
No the fairest tax system would tax all income like dividends. A flat rate.
Make $10,000, pay 15%, or $1500.
Make $100,000 pay 15%, or $15000.
Make $1,000,000 pay 15% or $150,000.Then just provide a back credit to poverty level.[/quote]
Meh, I just want to know what the tax laws are so I can work around them and ensure I get screwed the least….
Personally, I’m fine with lower cap gain tax rates, simply because it’s one of the ways people can stop being a wage slave when they get to a point that they can no longer physically work.
But I just thought it was amusing that the tax on the “rich” was defined as such to mean income earned as wages would be taxed more than capital gains, considering that really rich people I think derive most of their wealth from capital gains….
Lol….
-
AuthorPosts
