Florida Teachers Salaries 47th in the Nation but Scott Wants More Cuts to Schools.

[KissMy]

Police Chief made $813,000 on retirement year.

- Richard Miranda. The ex-Tucson police chief is now the city's deputy city manager, whose responsibilities include overseeing the police department. He got $511,570 from DROP in June 2008. Salary: $166,941. Pension: $134,054.

- Jesse Locksa. The ex-Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputy chief is now a dispatch commander. He received $576,463 from DROP in January 2007. Salary: $70,969. Pension: $97,890.

- Timothy Overton. The ex-Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputy chief is now a forensics commander. He got $445,518 from DROP in August 2007. Salary: $70,969. Pension: $75,186.

- Gerard Sheridan. The ex-Maricopa County Sheriff's Office executive chief is now acting chief deputy. He got $440,441 from DROP in November 2008. Salary: $143,000. Pension: $77,239.

- Lawrence Black. The ex-Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputy chief is now an administrator on paid leave amid an internal investigation. He received $386,955 from DROP in July 2007. Salary: $79,996. Pension: $64,089.

- Steven Werner. The ex-Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputy chief is now an intelligence analyst. He received $365,272 from DROP in January 2008. Salary: $62,940. Pension: $62,261.

- Rollie Seebert. The ex-Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputy chief is now a detention academy commander. He received $270,405 from DROP in November 2006. Salary: $82,894. Pension: $61,983.

 

[Toro]

Sure...but why do I need more? You pretended that we don't rely on tourism...but we most certainly do...hotels, restaurants, charter boats, time shares, etc............................heck the friggin South Americans come here just to shop at our malls.

The government is actively involved in trying to lure other businesses besides tourism to the state. And that includes our new governor.

Yep...it has been for years, hence the tax cut bennies for business.

That doesn't mean that our primary business isn't and hasn't been tourism for decades.

Sure. And it will be for decades more.

But the government wants to create a "Knowledge Economy" by attracting high tech venture capital, a la Silicon Valley or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. To do that, we need a strong education system. Cutting education spending completely obviates cutting taxes for businesses to come up here.

 

[rdean]

Republicans hate government and they hate education. Notice they keep saying, "We want "good" education not that liberal stuff".

Most of their Bible colleges are tier four or less. They teach "natural science" instead of "science". And yet, they believe they have the answer.

Let's ask Republican scientists for their opinion. All 6%.

 

[asterism]

Sure...but why do I need more? You pretended that we don't rely on tourism...but we most certainly do...hotels, restaurants, charter boats, time shares, etc............................heck the friggin South Americans come here just to shop at our malls.

The government is actively involved in trying to lure other businesses besides tourism to the state. And that includes our new governor.

Yep...it has been for years, hence the tax cut bennies for business.

That doesn't mean that our primary business isn't and hasn't been tourism for decades.

Actually that's not true:

http://www.eflorida.com/uploadedFil...wledge_Center/Floridas_Economy/FEGDec2009.pdf

State of Florida.com - Florida Quick Facts

Florida Economy 2010, Current Florida Economy, Florida Economic Growth, Global Economy Statistics, International Economics News, Florida Economy vs USA Economy.

Tourism is around $50 Billion out of about $700 Billion - less than 8%.

 

[asterism]

The government is actively involved in trying to lure other businesses besides tourism to the state. And that includes our new governor.

Yep...it has been for years, hence the tax cut bennies for business.

That doesn't mean that our primary business isn't and hasn't been tourism for decades.

Sure. And it will be for decades more.

But the government wants to create a "Knowledge Economy" by attracting high tech venture capital, a la Silicon Valley or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. To do that, we need a strong education system. Cutting education spending completely obviates cutting taxes for businesses to come up here.

It's not as simple as that and more money doesn't necessarily make any educational system stronger. A favorable business climate will attract the companies and they will either enact needed changes in the education system for their workforce needs or they will train their own.

In specialized industries Florida already has first rate colleges with first rate departments in them. Money isn't the problem, it's the way college acceptances are allocated. UF for example has a myriad of special programs for this or that special group but a standard high school student with a 3.9 GPA is not likely to be included. However, a 2.5 GPA and some special county award for public service with a non-binding commitment to major in social work will get in. The student is then free to change their major and completely disregard this program.

That said, UF isn't the best place for everyone and most students there today would probably benefit from doing their first two years at a regional college.

 

[Toro]

It's not as simple as that and more money doesn't necessarily make any educational system stronger. A favorable business climate will attract the companies and they will either enact needed changes in the education system for their workforce needs or they will train their own.

Yeah, I know, but ...

... I am part of a group that is allocating capital within the state to attract new high tech industries into Florida. The government has mandated a certain portion of capital from the state's pension be invested in high tech and knowledge industries in an effort to develop a knowledge-based infrastructure and ecosystem. The single most important factor in the development of this infrastructure is not the tax structure or business climate but the ability to develop research and development, which requires a critical mass of knowledge and human capital. And this centers around the education system, particularly the universities. The two major centers of venture capital in this country are Silicon Valley and the Boston area, both high tax states but with excellent universities and deep reservoirs of human and academic capital. Taxes and business climate are not unimportant, of course, but Florida already has one of the lower tax schemes and pro-business regulatory environments. I applaud the governor's efforts to bring businesses to Florida, but the state is generally not seen as a serious place to do business, and it is generally not thought of as an intellectual powerhouse. And though I don't necessarily believe that throwing money at the education system solves all problems in the schools, being one of the worst-paid states does nothing to enhance this reputation. Lowering the corporate tax rate by 2% as Scott is proposing isn't going to change the structural problems we have.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

You know those big buildings that line the coasts? They are called hotels. Each person that works in them is designed to interact solely with tourism...be it local tourists, business tourists, or other tourists.

One example...think of any others?

Sure...but why do I need more? You pretended that we don't rely on tourism...but we most certainly do...hotels, restaurants, charter boats, time shares, etc............................heck the friggin South Americans come here just to shop at our malls.

You're strawmanning here. I said we don't rely on tourism-but that it does play a big part of our economy.

I used the word "solely". Are you suggesting that restaurants here don't cater to us Floridians? Or malls aren't built here for us? Yeah malls are just for those tourists alright!

We rely on tourism for tax revenue-not for job creation.

edit: and I'm not saying blindly throwing money to the education system is the answer-but our education system here in Florida is awful. And there's no excuse for it.

 

[asterism]

It's not as simple as that and more money doesn't necessarily make any educational system stronger. A favorable business climate will attract the companies and they will either enact needed changes in the education system for their workforce needs or they will train their own.

Yeah, I know, but ...

... I am part of a group that is allocating capital within the state to attract new high tech industries into Florida. The government has mandated a certain portion of capital from the state's pension be invested in high tech and knowledge industries in an effort to develop a knowledge-based infrastructure and ecosystem. The single most important factor in the development of this infrastructure is not the tax structure or business climate but the ability to develop research and development, which requires a critical mass of knowledge and human capital. And this centers around the education system, particularly the universities. The two major centers of venture capital in this country are Silicon Valley and the Boston area, both high tax states but with excellent universities and deep reservoirs of human and academic capital. Taxes and business climate are not unimportant, of course, but Florida already has one of the lower tax schemes and pro-business regulatory environments. I applaud the governor's efforts to bring businesses to Florida, but the state is generally not seen as a serious place to do business, and it is generally not thought of as an intellectual powerhouse. And though I don't necessarily believe that throwing money at the education system solves all problems in the schools, being one of the worst-paid states does nothing to enhance this reputation. Lowering the corporate tax rate by 2% as Scott is proposing isn't going to change the structural problems we have.

Yes, that is true. Regardless, a "reputation" is something that is crafted and managed by both the advocates and the detractors. Boston has Harvard and MIT. Silicon Valley has Stanford. Florida has nothing comparable in terms of reputation and network of deep pockets and there will not be any time soon. This is similar to the early 1990s when UF made a huge effort to partner with the Big Six. They were successful until the Management Consulting model completely blew up in 2000, especially Anderson.

The dynamic being pursued here cannot be forced. I'm smack dab in the middle of the "High Tech Corridor" and I own a company that is relatively high tech. None of the incubators, data centers, or innovation initiatives here can do anything for me. They are all focused on buzzwords and control via-bureaucracy. I run a wholesale operation in a very low-tech industry so I'm immediately dismissed as "old economy." It doesn't matter that the process automation and advanced logic used in hyper-efficiency is ahead of the curve for even most hi-tech companies, it's not what some public-private partnership director thinks is useful. It's clear that the agenda isn't to seed profitable businesses, it's to attract more funding for the group. That means buzzword spin instead of solid new enterprises. Ok, no problem. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and keep sending all my hi-tech business elsewhere.

The issue of Florida not being particularly noteworthy as a place for business is a problem of nobody in charge of fixing that knowing much about business. Our own Mayor was surprised to know that outside of growing up here, 3 key factors got me to choose Florida:

1. No personal income tax (that's an instant 6% raise for an S-Corp relocating from Georgia)
2. Right to work state.
3. Favorable asset protection laws, specifically that one's primary residence cannot be seized through judgments. That's an outgrowth of a long history of probate and estate planning due to the high number of retirees who come here to die.

A discussion ensued on how much that could mean to an MSA of less than 500,000 people and I produced some preliminary research showing that there were literally thousands of small companies quite similar to mine in approach, resources needed, profitability and portability. Literally, "you don't need to do anything for them just let them know what it's like here and they'll bring their money." For the most part it turned into a situation where it wasn't something the city wanted if they didn't need anything from the city then the city wouldn't get any benefit.

Idiots.

They aren't looking to build the local economy, they are looking to lure businesses into consuming city fee-based services that can add to the city budget. Then of course the fees go up regardless of the quality or effectiveness or even market conditions. This happened before, the water system was bought by one city. Another city owns an electric utility. More government intrusion to expand government. UGH.