Wake GOP accuses Democrats of trying to "buy" school board elections

Fair Enough.

But once again, you miss the point. Judging whether or not elected officials have made egregious errors is subjective. Your insistence that our current board has made errors is nothing more than your opinion.

I think that our currently elected school board has made many good decisions, and very little errors. As evidence, I point to all the discussion in our communities about the academic achievement of at-risk children. NEVER, in the past 10 years, have we talked about individual student achievement -- we've always looked at achivement at the school level, the so-called "healthy schools."

We've finally addressed discrimination in 8th grade algebra assignment. We've finally addressed long term suspensions and the school to prison pipeline. We've finally put some programs in place (e.g. Renaissance Schools) that address student performance. We've finally put in place signing bonuses and performance bonuses for teachers who teach in these Renaissance Schools.

And we're finally listening to parents and looking out for families.

Check out the table here:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/

I don't think anybody's saying that the federal government should extract a bunch of tax money out of the 47% (or whatever) that aren't paying taxes now.  The problem is that the federal income tax system basically doesn't affect them -- if everybody's rates doubled, they'd still pay nothing.  It's a really bad thing for nearly half of the US population to suffer no ill effect when taxes are raised, espescially when they're often the beneficiaries of so much federal largesse.  Remember Thomas Jefferson's warning about what happens when people finding out they can vote funds for themselves out of the public treasury.

What's the right thing?  First of all, some high earners on the chart manage to get by without paying any federal taxes -- they're the ones who have successfully lobbied for their own special provisions in the tax code.  According to that table, there were 3,000 people who made more than $2M who paid no income tax.  That practice has to end -- those, and many other, targeted tax breaks have to end.**  But, at the bottom, there were lots of people who paid none and, in many cases, got a lot of money back thanks to the EITC.  That's a problem, too.  And those people should have to pay *something* -- $5/year minimum tax, perhaps.  They need to feel the pain of complying with the tax code, and join with the other 1/2 of the country who hurt when the government raises taxes.

(**However, I think it'd also be horrible policy to futz with the tax code to try to punish the bogeyman du jour.  Tax treatment of carried interest (other than the double-deduction) and unpatriated foreign earnings make good policy sense and should not be changed just because somebody wants to punish hedge fund managers or GE.  On the other end, tax breaks for domestic Ethanol? It's a really bad policy for the gov't to pick winners and losers.)

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. My data is from 2004,  and comes from the Tax Foundation, a non partisan educational organization. I admit that 2010 figures are likely slightly higher.

While household income is a common measure, it includes not only all wages and salaries, but such items as unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely. The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income. Therefore, it is a distorted measure to use when talking about those that do not pay income tax.