Politics Serious question for democrats

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
That's not my link.

You babble. Or confuse easily.
 
Anyhow, why should a small town in rural Mississippi pay a teacher California wages, or pay California rents?

The cost structure differs based upon place.

The obvious reason why central planning fails miserably everywhere it's tried.
 
Yes, that link was Magnifier's. Way back when, this was a pretty dumb thread. So I posted this. The first phrase is, of course, sarcasm.

jlprk said:
Despite all the intelligence shown in this thread so far, it won't change a hill of beans till this country reallocates its priorities. The billions going to education should be diverted into tax breaks for core industries like message boards. We can't keep putting this nation's creativity into message boards without new incentives for our sacred partnership to ensure future value-added innovation on the horizon.
Click to expand...

The rest is, of course, serious.
 
More babbling. Not very funny, witty, or whatever you're trying to be.

Private companies typically have 25% overhead. Overall, education has 50%, and unlike business, they don't have to try to profit.

Priorities indeed.
 
More babbling. Private companies don't have to maintain capital assets unused for half the year, and half the daylight hours. And their cheap labor force isn't laden down with college degrees.

You can thank me for keeping this lousy thread going.
 
jlprk said:
More babbling. Private companies don't have to maintain capital assets unused for half the year, and half the daylight hours. And their cheap labor force isn't laden down with college degrees.

You can thank me for keeping this lousy thread going.
Click to expand...

Corporations don't get eminent domain rights, nor do they collect taxes, nor can they borrow on the strength of the state's guaranteed revenues.

It isn't even close.

And pensions aren't factored in.
 
Denny Crane said:
Corporations don't get eminent domain rights, nor do they collect taxes, nor can they borrow on the strength of the state's guaranteed revenues.
Click to expand...

Companies can move, if they don't like that expense environment. Schools can't.

Denny Crane said:
It isn't even close. And pensions aren't factored in.
Click to expand...

Saying that hurts your argument. Pensions aren't overhead. If they were, the 50% would reduce for schools more than the 25% would reduce for private companies. Assuming your guesses of 50 and 25 are accurate. Which all depends upon how one defines overhead. There are gray areas.
 
l,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
jlprk said:
Companies can move, if they don't like that expense environment. Schools can't.



Saying that hurts your argument. Pensions aren't overhead. If they were, the 50% would reduce for schools more than the 25% would reduce for private companies. Assuming your guesses of 50 and 25 are accurate. Which all depends upon how one defines overhead. There are gray areas.
Click to expand...

They close schools all the time and move the kids to other ones.

No, pensions aren't overhead, but they are real cost that is hidden from the discussion about the cost.

I don't guess when it comes to these numbers.

Average revenue per student is ~$12K, average spent per student on actual education (including teacher salary) is ~$6K.

Average overhead for US companies is 25%. I looked it up. Maybe you can find something to mouse over if you do the same.
 
Schools close, but don't move out of the expense environment. Companies can move to another city, state, or country.

Pensions are in balance sheets, just not on tax returns. But in current dollars, they reduce to negligible amounts, the further out they are.

Exactly 25%. Well, that round number is a helpful coincidence. Did your source say the 50% number too?
 
jlprk said:
Schools close, but don't move out of the expense environment. Companies can move to another city, state, or country.

Pensions are in balance sheets, just not on tax returns. But in current dollars, they reduce to negligible amounts, the further out they are.

Exactly 25%. Well, that round number is a helpful coincidence. Did your source say the 50% number too?
Click to expand...

I posted the links in the other thread.

Don't mistake them for Mags'.

upload_2015-4-8_16-19-6.png

~$6400/~$12400 = ~50%
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-4-8_16-19-6.png
    upload_2015-4-8_16-19-6.png
    70.6 KB · Views: 27
Financial-analysis-Overhead-All_Private_Companies.jpg
 
magnifier661 said:
Thank you for the link! It's very informative and it paints a pretty good picture. They break down the federal, state and private revenue; which you can use in conjunction with the state's annual revenue. And crunching the numbers further, the top Democrat states receive more private and federal funding than the state's budget funding.

For example....

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-tax-revenue-data.html

California's annual tax revenue for 2012 was 112 billion. Although the site you linked shows 2014's revenue, I will try and guess that they are somewhat similar. I will try to find a current revenue site later. Your link shows they give $36,413,273 towards schools K-12. That would mean they allocate 0.325% of their total revenue to the school systems.

Now I grabbed a State that was very close to California in "per student fund". Georgia, which is a GOP heavy state.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-tax-revenue-data.html

$16,576,903,000 revenue, $7,455,147 state allocated revenue to each student.

That's .42% of total state revenue allocated to each student.

Now I grabbed a top Democrat state and their fund per student and the top GOP state per student. NY vs. Alaska

Alaska's state revenue is 7 billion, New York's revenue is 71.5 billion. Alaska gives 1.7 million of their state money to the students, New York gives 23 million of their revenue to the students. New York gives 0.03% of their state revenue to the students, Alaska gives 0.024% of their state revenue to education.

So I do agree with your statement that it's very misleading. The top GOP giving states, actually give less of their revenue to students, while the lower GOP funded states give more, While the top DEM states equal the amount of their revenue % as the lower ones.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from now. Its an interesting trend but I would have to look at the number much more closely to determine if there is anything to them or just coincidence and also to see if the numbers hold true on all red vs blue. A few things off the top of my head that are not being accounted for .....

1) the rest of the state budget, where does all their money go and what priorities does each state have with their funds
2) how the education system of each state is funded
3) I know we said per capita but actual numbers of students do make a difference, for instance New York has a lot more people than Alaska and so NY has much more logistics, safety, and other considerations to make that Alaska does not.
4) comparing % of budget is tough also because NY and Alaska (sticking with these examples) have a much different income and expense allocation, also they have different numbers of students needing education.
 
% of budget makes no sense. Consider:

The US spends 3-6% of its budget on defense and dwarfs nations that spend 50% on theirs.
 
jlprk said:
Following your red arrows, I'm seeing overhead expense of 570 divided by 6424, and profit of 12,410 minus 6424. Your source makes no sense.
Click to expand...

You aren't following the red arrows.

$12K in, $6K spent on the actual service for which the taxpayer is footing the bill.

The rest is overhead.
 
Denny Crane said:
You aren't following the red arrows.

$12K in, $6K spent on the actual service for which the taxpayer is footing the bill.

The rest is overhead.
Click to expand...

Your red arrow line says that this service industry's equivalent of cost of goods sold was 6424, and overhead was 199 + 570. The same line says that total revenue was 12,410. This yields an enormous profit. Is your mystery source hiding some missing number, or is education an enormously profitable enterprise to the taxpayers?
 
donkiez said:
I see where you are coming from now. Its an interesting trend but I would have to look at the number much more closely to determine if there is anything to them or just coincidence and also to see if the numbers hold true on all red vs blue. A few things off the top of my head that are not being accounted for .....

1) the rest of the state budget, where does all their money go and what priorities does each state have with their funds
2) how the education system of each state is funded
3) I know we said per capita but actual numbers of students do make a difference, for instance New York has a lot more people than Alaska and so NY has much more logistics, safety, and other considerations to make that Alaska does not.
4) comparing % of budget is tough also because NY and Alaska (sticking with these examples) have a much different income and expense allocation, also they have different numbers of students needing education.
Click to expand...
Good point... Maybe one day when I'm bored I will research this for a project
 
jlprk said:
Your red arrow line says that this service industry's equivalent of cost of goods sold was 6424, and overhead was 199 + 570. The same line says that total revenue was 12,410. This yields an enormous profit. Is your mystery source hiding some missing number, or is education an enormously profitable enterprise to the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

I think you are ignoring the arrows. They point at 12400 and 6400, not at 199 or 570.

The 199+570 is part of the 50% overhead, not "the" overhead.
 
Where does the source give that excuse for its giant discrepancy? Or did you conveniently make it up to cover the blooper.
 
The private sector companies also generate PROFIT. They're even that much more efficient.
 
I rarely have the patience to spend 5 minutes to look at your links. I only did it this time because Magnifier directed me to another thread, to excuse the nonsense of this thread's opening post.

But when I do spend a couple of minutes looking at one of your links, I always find very fallible numbers that you haven't examined, and that you still won't, after my prodding.

So this time, your excuse is that your source leaves out half the expenses, so that must be overhead, even though it already lists all expenses anyone can think of, and there can't be any more. Okay.
 
jlprk said:
I rarely have the patience to spend 5 minutes to look at your links. I only did it this time because Magnifier directed me to another thread, to excuse the nonsense of this thread's opening post.

But when I do spend a couple of minutes looking at one of your links, I always find very fallible numbers that you haven't examined, and that you still won't, after my prodding.

So this time, your excuse is that your source leaves out half the expenses, so that must be overhead, even though it already lists all expenses anyone can think of, and there can't be any more. Okay.
Click to expand...

My source is the US Census. If you can find the Census says otherwise, I'll stand corrected. But you can't, so you blather about my sources.

If they take in $12000 and spend $6000 on actual education, the rest of the money is isn't being spent on actual education. You can't get around the facts.
 
So to review, Democrats hate unborn children and Republicans hate poor children.

Neither party feels it's important to educate children.
 
Okay, we're making progress. The Koch site's page does not have the word "overhead" anywhere, so it's your interpretation. It lists 3 expenses: Instruction Spending, General Administration, and School Administration. You say there is a 4th cost, Overhead. Can you list some components of that Overhead not already included in the 3 expenses they list?

For example, capital building projects, interest expense on those loans, transfers to noneducation government components, and saving for future pensions. Private companies have to give pensions to degreed employees they keep for decades, just like schools. They also have to borrow to build buildings. What is your analysis of what is costing too much? Do you have anything to say, other than Republican whining that Democrats should figure it all out? Conservatives want to manage, but they don't know how, so they get others to do the work while they sit there and criticize everyone for not working hard enough.
 
jlprk said:
Okay, we're making progress. The Koch site's page does not have the word "overhead" anywhere, so it's your interpretation. It lists 3 expenses: Instruction Spending, General Administration, and School Administration. You say there is a 4th cost, Overhead. Can you list some components of that Overhead not already included in the 3 expenses they list?

For example, capital building projects, interest expense on those loans, transfers to noneducation government components, and saving for future pensions. Private companies have to give pensions to degreed employees they keep for decades, just like schools. They also have to borrow to build buildings. What is your analysis of what is costing too much? Do you have anything to say, other than Republican whining that Democrats should figure it all out? Conservatives want to manage, but they don't know how, so they get others to do the work while they sit there and criticize everyone for not working hard enough.
Click to expand...

You lose even more credibility when you call it "the Koch site."

upload_2015-4-8_18-51-19.png

Benefits (pension) are included in the $6400 figure.

They don't itemize "support services" overhead that's above and beyond paying the janitors and principals and board of education members. It's money not being spent on teaching the kids.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-4-8_18-51-19.png
    upload_2015-4-8_18-51-19.png
    50.4 KB · Views: 20
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top