I don't think you have to privatize it. But get rid of unions. What's your motivation to excel if you're a teacher for example and you can only make $XXX based on your degree(s) and years of service. Do what Michelle Rhee did in Wash DC. Offer teachers a chance to make 6 figures if they excel and have the ability to fire incompetent teachers at the same time. And think outside the box -- more charter schools, longer school days, more days/year. No wonder we're 23rd and 25th in the world in reading and math. Having volunteered 10 years now in schools, from homework help to math tutoring, I've seen pretty much everything and it's pathetic what's going on in public schools.
I'm semi-retired, have traded the past 15 years. Why? I lived BELOW my means all my working (corporate) life so I had choices. My wife is the same. Speaking of cars ... I just "stole" one. I mean a car is a depreciating asset. Why spend $40K or more on a SUV, Mercedes, etc.? I found a new 2010 Chevy Cobalt for just under $19K. With rebates, GM Mastercard credit, etc. I walked out paying $10K for it and that excluded my trade in. I do think some people are FINALLY getting it that MORE is not necessarily better. There's a ton of people living high on the hog that'll be eating peanut & butter sandwiches in retirement, if they ever can afford to retire. So I hope they're enjoying their steak and lobster and 7500 sq. ft. house now.
Agree on $1 million or maybe even $2 million. No one can tell me that Lebron James and/or any pro athletes will miss a few $$$ in higher taxes. Same with CEO's and Wall Street types raking in big bonuses. I bet Goldman and all the other banks are adding up how many billions they'll award in bonuses the next couple years with the tax cuts extended.
What you think and what is reality can be totally different. There was no possible way, without a compromise, to continue the Bush tax rates. Everyone's taxes would have increased. Again, during a major recession there should not be a tax increase. When, and if, the economy improves would be the time to look at the tax code and make sure everyone is paying a fair share. Of course, that means something different to each person as most people thinks they are paying too much and the other guy not enough.
And it's reprehensible that union members can get PAID to sleep. In my former life I worked in the auto industry and seeing plant workers sleeping on the job I found astonishing. I was told a grievance could be filed but there would be no consequence. Same with teachers unions. The "rubber room' in New York, full of teachers who were out of their respective classrooms for various reasons (from incompetence charges to child endangerment to many more) was costing taxpayers $100 million per year.
Whoa, let's not go crazy. If we are going to discuss a range, I would think something between $500k and $1M. People still earning that kind of money are probably not hurting quite as much as those in the lower snack brackets, if at all. Of course, the numbers I'm throwing out are just ballpark and for discussion purposes. But, realistically speaking, people still earning a million have probably not had to scrimp too excessively to get by. And let us not forget that the rationale for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, in the face of a burgeoning deficit, is to give people some leeway to get by in difficult times. Is the guy still earning $1M really going to curtail his spending? And would a tax cut really cause him to spend appreciably more? I doubt it. And at times like these, you have to look for the utility.
i have not researched the topic enough to provide you what you're seeking. the reason i have not is because i see no need to go beyond the logical argument of "if i have more money from the government, i spend more money on discretionary things."