Discussion: Kamala Harris' First Big Campaign Proposal: Raise Teacher Pay By $13.5K

Bingo!

The teacher strikes, particularly in very red states, is a foretelling of a big change happening on the ground. In a bigger picture, its largely a repudiation of the groundswell in the late 70s/early 80s to lock in low taxes that foretold the Reagan Revolution.

As a party, we would be remiss to ignore it.

4 Likes

I don’t know the plan details, so it’s not clear whether most of the tax burden is on the wealthy, no matter where they are.

However, what is clear (to me) is that most red states have lousy education - and improved education will eventually make them a little less red. Who knows, better educated young people might be more likely to leave for nicer places.

1 Like

I do love her and teachers are underpaid. But how is this a matter for the federal government?

3 Likes

Educated populus, minimum standards for education.

2 Likes

Those are decent justifications for federal action. I have a hard time though imagining this getting implemented without going through the courts, however.

I can think of some states that would squawk. Texas, most likely, would be one.

2 Likes

Not income taxes but estate taxes is the funding source.

From https://kamalaharris.org/teachers/

"We estimate this plan’s cost to the federal government will be in the range of $315 billion over ten years. It will be paid for by strengthening the estate tax and cracking down on loopholes that let the very wealthiest, with estates worth multiple millions or billions of dollars, avoid paying their fair share.”

1 Like

As noted before, Texas keeps its taxes (relatively) low by mooching off the federal government. In what direction would Texans squawk if the net subsidies they get from the feds were conditioned on their paying their teachers more? Would they squawk to reject the subsidies or squawk to reject paying their teachers more?

(Also as noted before, Texas is not the worst moocher; not by a long shot.)

Real question: To what extent does that actually happen? I don’t know.

2 Likes

Perhaps the following addresses your question.

In direct subsidy of teacher pay. I have a general idea of how it works overall.

An estate tax as she is proposing would be collected in all states.

1 Like

Uh, she wasn’t in Dallas. She was in Houston — you know, in HARRIS County.

Thanks for the link. I’ve just looked at it. It’s pretty amazing. Not only is the plan loony (yes, just take a look at how she plans for it to “work”), it also only uses the estate tax (of unstated but assumed increase) for 10% of the promised increase in teacher salaries. The other 90% will come from the states. Really? What planet is she on? What does she think the Republicans will do with that? I can see it now: “Democratic candidate Harris not only wants to raise your federal taxes, she wants to force your state to raise its taxes, too.” Gee, I wonder why she didn’t put that little factual tidbit in her speech. We are cruzin for a bruzin if we follow that path.

1 Like

Number 1: The estate tax comes primarily from Blue States, and their money will subsidize Red states. Number 2: she has enormously low balled the amount necessary to reach her goal. I have discussed that below.

1 Like

I have come to the point of not really worrying about whether the numbers in democrats’ policy proposals “work”. Republicans have spent generations lying not only about the magnitude but the direction of the changes they’re proposing. Even when they’re in office. Passing appropriations and other bills. Maybe in another generation or two the public discourse may be cleaned up enough that we can worry about the details in a nonpartisan fashion. Maybe.

1 Like

It happens to a great extent. Approximately 10 states are net donors to the federal government, i.e.: they pay more in federal taxes than their citizens receive in the form of federal spending and benefits. If one were to look at the two extremes, New Jersey gets $0.74 in federal spending for every $1.00 it pays in federal tax whereas Mississippi gets $2.13. AP Fact Check

The greatest recipients of federal spending are about who you would think, high-poverty, low-tax states such as New Mexico, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, etc.

Thanks but for the second time, to make it clear, I’m asking about any form of federal subsidy of teacher pay. That was the OP’s original complaint but if there is such and to what extent it exists I can’t say and can’t be bothered to investigate. :smile:

1 Like

Aha, I lost the nuance of the discussion. AFAIK - it’s nil or close to it. The Dept. of Education’s budget is about $70B and 85% of it goes to higher ed. What local spending there is is focused on programs for low-income students and special needs. There may be some competitive grant programs that indirectly support teacher salaries.

1 Like

Thanks, that’s what I’d have guessed. I used to be peripherally involved with education in a couple different jobs and never heard of federal money for teachers. Now, I vaguely recall that New Jersey had a program called “equalization” that was meant to narrow teacher pay gaps from district to district—the result of some court order if memory continues to serve. Don’t know if that’s still true or ever was, just a thing I think I remember.

“improved education will eventually make them a little less red.” That seems to be quite a stretch. And if you phrase that way, they will turn the money down.

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available