Teachers spend nearly $500 a year on supplies. Under the GOP tax bill, they will no longer get a tax

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Those who believe teaching is so easy should quit their jobs and give up a decent wage and accept a pittance and teach. Otherwise they should simply shut up.

Good advice if there was a need for teachers. If you're a teacher, it's hard getting a job.

If you are just starting out, it is a piece of cake to get a job.

Try getting a district to hire you after you cost them twice what a new teacher makes.

About 18 months ago, my contract was not renewed and another teacher retired. We were replaced by two teachers straight out of college with no experience.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Maybe instead of the unions giving millions to politicians they can help these teachers supply the kids with what they need.

that's a good point, the unions should be kicking in to make up the difference, not the teachers they are claiming to represent

Does the Teamster's union pay for air-cushioned shocks for the trailers their driver's haul so as to not damage the freight?

You are proposing basically the same thing for teachers by having the unions supplying kids with school supplies. That is not what unions are for!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Does the Teamster's union pay for air-cushioned shocks for the trailers their driver's haul so as to not damage the freight?

You are proposing basically the same thing for teachers by having the unions supplying kids with school supplies. That is not what unions are for!

false equivalency
if the drivers were voluntarily paying for those shocks then I would be saying the union should pay for them,...and I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that unions are not there to provide for the students needs, that's why I felt it needed to be...I am though pro-education, and pro-teacher/educator...they deserve our support, the problem they face with funding is an inherent one with universal/socialized funding which is why so many oppose it

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Does the Teamster's union pay for air-cushioned shocks for the trailers their driver's haul so as to not damage the freight?

You are proposing basically the same thing for teachers by having the unions supplying kids with school supplies. That is not what unions are for!

false equivalency
if the drivers were voluntarily paying for those shocks then I would be saying the union should pay for them,...and I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that unions are not there to provide for the students needs, that's why I felt it needed to be...I am though pro-education, and pro-teacher/educator...they deserve our support, the problem they face with funding is an inherent one with universal/socialized funding which is why so many oppose it

Unions do not provide school supplies to students. My examples still stands.

You are not understanding the purpose of a union.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Unions do not provide school supplies to students. My examples still stands.

You are not understanding the purpose of a union.

k

 

[80zephyr]

Its funny. I have been hearing for years now about how the poor teachers spend their own money to help out their classrooms, and now I find out they could deduct it from their taxes. Some hardship.

Mark

That a K-12 teacher earning an "average" income gets to deduct a few hundred dollars on a Schedule A and thereby reduce their potentially taxable income by some small sum is but the tax corollary to the platitudinous lip service paid them. To deny such teachers the tiny bit of recompense shown by the educator expense deduction is little but reprehensible. Quite simply, nobody "gets rich" due to their allowed tax deductions, least of all people who don't earn a "get rich" gross income.

According teachers the educator expense deduction won't purge any hardship they may face, however, denying it to them most certainly can exacerbate the nature and extent of hardship they face, nevermind the increased challenge(s) their students may face as a consequence of the teachers not making expenditures on behalf of their charges because the tax code no longer offers the educator expense deduction. How many teachers might that be? I don't, but I know if it were my kid benefitting from the teacher's largesse, I'd just as soon not see my child lose whatever "edge" the teacher's generosity bestows.

Not the point. It was always pushed that the teachers did this out of the goodness of their heart. Nobody ever mentioned they could deduct it.

Mark

 

[usmbguest5318]

The deduction to which the article refers is the "educator expense deduction." That deduction is a "carve out" made in explicit recognition of the fact that teachers typically do take money out of their pockets to buy stuff for their students.

To take the deduction, teachers must itemize their deductions. An alternative, if the educator expense deduction is indeed eliminated, is for teachers to record the expenses as unreimbursed business expenses, which also is an itemized deduction, which, insofar as it's classed as a miscellaneous deduction, it is subject to a 2% floor. That may not as good as the educator expense deduction -- I don't know if that deduction also is classed as miscellaneous -- but it's the best I can think of to suggest at this time.

Indeed, I didn't know about the educator expense deduction, but I (my accountant, really) routinely avail myself of the unreimbursed business expense deduction, most especially when I have reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses in the final two weeks of the year and have not yet been reimbursed for them. After all, individual tax returns are filed on a cash basis, so while it's not generally a lot of money, it some money, and I'm not about to pretend that I don't take every deduction and credit for which I'm legitimately eligible, though I'm not much of a "rule stretcher." That is, I'm unwilling to knowingly put myself in debatable position against the IRS whereby to defend an assertion in my tax return, I must take the matter to tax court.

So if a teacher earns $40,000 a year, that 2% floor is not met until the teacher spends $800 out of pocket

That may be completely correct, but thematically is correct. The reason for my uncertainty is that I don't know whether the floor amount is calculated with gross income or with AGI as the multiplicand.

Certainly, if one's gross and adjusted gross incomes be the same, your presentation is spot on. If the teacher were to spend $500, s/he'd be eligible for no deduction, whereas were s/he to spend $1000, s/he can take a $200.

One thing to note is that the unreimbursed business expenses I deduct are Schedule E deductions, not Schedule A deductions. That difference is important because Schedule A deductions all have either a floor or a ceiling of some sort whereas Schedule E and other "before AGI" ("above the line") deductions have no such limits.

Make of that what you will, but as goes the matter of tax equity, the difference in the "usefulness" of before versus after AGI deductions is yet another manifestation of how everything about the tax code is designed in a way that favors business owners over employees. Mind you, business owners are, first and foremost, financially benefitted most by their business endeavors; the tax code merely amplifies their benefit, relative to their employee peers. (I suppose one can also put it as the tax code minimizing business owners' burden to fund the government, relative to their employee peers.)

So if a teacher earns $40,000 a year, that 2% floor is not met until the teacher spends $800 out of pocket

That may be completely correct, but thematically is correct. The reason for my uncertainty is that I don't know whether the floor amount is calculated with gross income or with AGI as the multiplicand.

FWIW, I looking at some provisional 1040s my accountant sent me and saw the line (23) for the educator expense deduction. It is a before-AGI itemized deduction. It has some limits, but basically it's a straight-up $250 deduction. The unreimbursed business expense deduction (Schedule A; post-AGI) by comparison is calculated using the floor-ceiling model discussed earlier.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Its funny. I have been hearing for years now about how the poor teachers spend their own money to help out their classrooms, and now I find out they could deduct it from their taxes. Some hardship.

Mark

That a K-12 teacher earning an "average" income gets to deduct a few hundred dollars on a Schedule A and thereby reduce their potentially taxable income by some small sum is but the tax corollary to the platitudinous lip service paid them. To deny such teachers the tiny bit of recompense shown by the educator expense deduction is little but reprehensible. Quite simply, nobody "gets rich" due to their allowed tax deductions, least of all people who don't earn a "get rich" gross income.

According teachers the educator expense deduction won't purge any hardship they may face, however, denying it to them most certainly can exacerbate the nature and extent of hardship they face, nevermind the increased challenge(s) their students may face as a consequence of the teachers not making expenditures on behalf of their charges because the tax code no longer offers the educator expense deduction. How many teachers might that be? I don't, but I know if it were my kid benefitting from the teacher's largesse, I'd just as soon not see my child lose whatever "edge" the teacher's generosity bestows.

Not the point. It was always pushed that the teachers did this out of the goodness of their heart. Nobody ever mentioned they could deduct it.

Mark

What?

• By whom and to whom was it "always pushed that the teachers did this out of the goodness of their heart?"
• By what contrivance do you contend that a teacher's spending their own money, rather than that of the school system, to purchase qualifying items [1] for their students' benefit somehow not a "goodness of their heart" expenditure?
• Nobody needed to mention that the expenditures are deductible. The tax code is published and there for all to see.

Unlike vastly more complicated deductions and situations, the educator expense deduction does not create NOLs and it is not a deduction that arises from one's spending money on an money-making instrument/investment that, by dint of one's having done so, one both makes money and gets tax liability deferrals or offsets. Neither is it a tax credit that directly reduces one's tax liability.

Note:

1. Qualifying items/expenditures are those incurred for "professional development courses, books, supplies, computer equipment (including related software and services), other equipment, and supplementary materials [the teacher uses] in the classroom. For courses in health or physical education, the expenses for supplies must be for athletic supplies."

 

[Unkotare]

Some of the non-teachers posting here really don’t get it.

 

[Flash]

This is a great example of the failure of American schools. Of course this is in a Democrat controlled area,which is typical. Teachers union members get a ton of money as payoff to support Democrats and the children get screwed.


13 Baltimore high schools, no students proficient in math, report says

13 Baltimore high schools, no students proficient in math, report say

One-third of high schools in Baltimore, last year, had zero students proficient in math, Fox 45 reported Wednesday, citing new state testing data.

Based on 2017 state test scores, 13 out of 39 high school had zero students proficient in math, the report said. Another six schools had only one percent of their students who tested proficient in math.

The city reportedly starting a new math curriculum this year aimed at closing the achievement gap in addition to enhanced teacher training and partnerships that would serve students.

 

[Unkotare]

Teachers at our school are having a fundraising event this weekend to raise money (unrelated to any union or administration) for several students who graduated last year to help them pay for another semester of college.

No one is calculating a tax deduction, they are just trying to help some kids who need it and deserve it. THAT is how a teacher thinks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is a great example of the failure of American schools. Of course this is in a Democrat controlled area,which is typical. Teachers union members get a ton of money as payoff to support Democrats and the children get screwed.


13 Baltimore high schools, no students proficient in math, report says

13 Baltimore high schools, no students proficient in math, report say

One-third of high schools in Baltimore, last year, had zero students proficient in math, Fox 45 reported Wednesday, citing new state testing data.

Based on 2017 state test scores, 13 out of 39 high school had zero students proficient in math, the report said. Another six schools had only one percent of their students who tested proficient in math.

The city reportedly starting a new math curriculum this year aimed at closing the achievement gap in addition to enhanced teacher training and partnerships that would serve students.

That's all over the country. But the question remains, is that the fault of the teachers or the fault of their home life? If the parent won't take the slightest interest in a troubled kids education, the best teachers in the world can't help him.