Scott Brown talked to the Lowell Sun’s editorial board yesterday. He’ll no doubt get the Sun’s endorsement, but that was a given anyway, and the interview may well have done him more harm than good. Just check this out.
Brown also took on President Barack Obama for proposing tax hikes on families who earn more than $250,000 per year, saying that would hurt “teachers, firefighters, policemen, folks who work two jobs.”
Asked which public servants earn that much money, Brown said it is common for police officers to earn well over $100,000 annually when overtime is factored into their pay.
“You throw in a teacher who’s working, plus a summer job, it adds up pretty quickly,” he said. “There’s quite a few of them.”
Whoa! That’s a head-snapper right there. Apparently, the 1% is populated with teachers and cops – who knew? But, of course, this is hogwash. TPM explains why:
It doesn’t sound like there’s an epidemic of high-income public servants based on the available data for the area. According to Salary.com, which tracks average pay across various professions, 90% of Boston police patrol officers made a base salary below $75,307 last year and 90% of Lowell patrol officers made a base salary below $70,857. 90% of firefighters in Boston make under $68,793, and below $64,729 in Lowell. The average teacher in Lowell makes about $80,841 a year, according to the Massachusetts Department of Education, higher than the statewide average of $68,781.
It is, of course, possible that there’s a handful of teacher/cop couples whose combined income exceeds $250,000 – as TPM notes, “a couple hundred turnpike cops were found to be making $100k+ salaries in 2009 thanks to prodigious overtime numbers, for example, and in theory some of them have a spouse in a similar position.” But we’re talking a trivial number of people. One might also ask whether, if a two-cop family is indeed making over $250,000, there’s some good reason that they should nonetheless pay less tax than other high-income earners.
Brown was also asked about his own salary.
“No one has ever really asked, but if they want to see what Gail and I pay, then whatever. I don’t care,” said Brown, referring to his wife, former Boston television reporter Gail Huff. “It’s not a heck of a lot. I mean, you know, I don’t make a heck of a lot, so I’m paying what I should be paying. Trust me.”
Brown, who earns $174,000 as a senator and received a $700,000 advance to pen his autobiography, was asked to clarify his comment.
“I mean, aside from the book deal that I got, which is really a once-in-a-lifetime thing, I get paid what every member of Congress is paid,” he said.
Wow. So we need to worry about all those cops and teachers who are raking it in, but Scott Brown, who earns nearly $200,000 all by himself, never mind what his TV personality wife makes, plus all those book advances and the rest of it, “do[es]n’t make a heck of a lot.” I can think of a lot of people who wouldn’t mind not making “a heck of a lot” the way Brown does.
Nobody is claiming that Scott Brown’s wealth is anything like, say, Mitt Romney’s – obviously, it is not. But when Brown starts getting worried about the teachers and cops who are in danger of climbing into the 1%, while also thinking that he and his wife don’t make “a heck of a lot” even though they are almost surely in the top 5% of income earners nationally … well, let’s just say it makes one wonder whether Scott Brown really has any clue about this stuff.
lynne says
I posted a linky from LiL. Way too awesome. How does he keep handing this stuff to us?
Touché though finding a nugget in that crappy paper right under my nose. ^_^ Easy enough, since I almost never read it…no joke.
johnk says
when he’s unscripted. It was initially reported that it was a conversation at a function/bar, which I thought maybe he was debating taxes a really reached to make a point. But this was an editorial board meeting? That’s just bizarre. Does he have any clue about the real world?
kbusch says
Isn’t the standard description of a mistake like this “out of touch”, as in Senator Scott Brown is out of touch?
Mark L. Bail says
knows exactly what he’s doing. I don’t. I really think the guy is a congenial (not congenital) idiot.
oceandreams says
You need $188K household income to be in the top 5%. Even if his wife is earning just $50K he’s in the top 4%. And that’s without any investment income.
goldsteingonewild says
How many Boston teachers earn 100k?
I’d guess a non-trivial number. As of a couple years ago, average salary is 85k. BPS payroll has risen by 5% since then, while enrollment fell a bit. So let’s say average salary is about 89k.
If you add in 18 or so personal/sick days on a contract that is 180 days, that’s another 10% of salary (usually people cash these out at retirement).
So, not counting summer, isn’t it fair to estimate that average BPS teacher salary is 100k or so?
Mark L. Bail says
bills with an estimated average.
oceandreams says
Even if it’s true that some teachers earn $100K and some police officers earn $100K and they’re married to each other, how does slightly raising the tax rate on income above $250K hurt them? They’d still be well below the threshhold.
Mark L. Bail says
What if the couple had to pay more in taxes? It’s not the end of the world. Increased taxes aren’t the end of the world. People making $250,000 a year aren’t going to suddenly be making $50,000 a year. And no one is asking them to.
sabutai says
So…you shouldn’t ask rich people to pay their fair share because some of them might be cops or teachers? Then he can write an exemption. Nice to know he’s on the side of the people he’s spent the past year attacking.
lynne says
But I think it;’s time to revive the Romney-blimp!!
Gingrich totally crushes…
jimcaralis says
the one percent is 340k+ not 250k. Addressing other comments those making 250k are paying more in taxes already (33% or 35%) than the middle income (25%). That seems fair to me.
Now the 15% tax on long term capital gains does seem unfair.
oceandreams says
paying anywhere close to that, once you factor in deductions and loopholes.
The highest marginal tax rate under Clinton was 39.6% and the economy did just fine. We had job growth and we balanced the budget. Nobody’s asking to go back the the maximum rates when Reagan took office, of 69%. History has shown that a slight increase will not harm economic growth in any way, while the current levels are inadequate for funding the government. It’s not only Bush’s war that took us from Clinton’s budget surplus to massive deficit; it was his ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthy.
jimcaralis says
I think 35% is fair – at 40% tax rate with an additional state tax rate brings it into the mid 40’s and in some places close to 50. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
Mark L. Bail says
back on BMG, Jim!
jimcaralis says
🙂
tony-schinella says
As someone who has studied municipal salaries for many years in both Mass. and NH, I thought I would chime in with a few quick points of what Sen. Brown seems to be saying which, depending on how you look at the data, is relevant.
When I was editor of the Belmont Citizen-Herald, we looked at a bunch of salary issues facing the small town a couple of different times.
Here’s a link to one story put together about 18 months ago which showed some pretty high police pay, based on salaries, detail pay, and OT: http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/newsnow/x767631545/Fewer-top-earners-but-big-increases-in-Belmonts-general-government#axzz1kDZjkUV2
Here is the companion story, looking at teacher pay in Belmont: http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/newsnow/x293543726/Belmont-school-officials-defend-pay-structure
Let’s say, for example, you’re a top earning police officer in Belmont two years ago – earning $170K – and your husband is a teacher with a doctorate with 14 years in the Belmont system two years ago – $93K – well, you’re in the $250K range, not including anything the teacher is doing on the side during the summer.
Firefighters in Belmont – and many other cities and towns – have a schedule that allows them to perform the firefighter job and then another full-time job, since firefighters sleep a lot during their shifts. If you combined a top earning firefighter, with another part- to full-time job, along with a decent paid teacher, you into the $200K range too.
This is one town out of 351 in Massachusetts. There are potentially hundreds and hundreds of families that could have a household income at this level. As well, when looking at just Belmont’s earnings – and these aren’t scales, they are actual take home pays two years ago – it’s important to remember that people who are richer than us are real human beings. They also could have high mortgages, high tuition bills they are paying, the need to save for their own kids’ colleges, etc. To immediately penalize them because they are in the higher levels of income doesn’t seem fair, does it?
Lastly, at my household, we don’t earn anywhere near these figures. But that doesn’t mean I think we should take money from these people to make my life easier. The exact opposite, actually.
sabutai says
If two exceptionally qualified people work exceptionally hard and are fortunate enough to work for a town that’s willing to pay people what they’re worth, they’ll make money. This is reminiscent of those infomercials where they show the one guy who made money using the huckster’s system, and we are all supposed to pretend it’s typical.
Basing tax policy an a situation astonishingly rare but mathematically plausible makes about as much sense as valuing all land as if it has gold mixed into the soil.
tony-schinella says
That’s it was and is possible and a lot better odds than finding gold.
And, if you look at some of those Belmont gross payments and multiple it by 351 cities and towns, you would have many hundreds of hypothetical cops, teachers, and firefighters, and their families and households, in that tax bracket. The point is that Sen. Brown, no matter what anyone may think of him, isn’t all that far off.
As well, I would add, a pretty compelling chart from the NYT today, showing the occupations of the Top 1% of households:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html
There are a lot of educators, administrators, and yeah, journalists, in that group, along with bankers, CEOs, etc.
nopolitician says
Did you even bother to read the note about educators?
Teachers are in the group due to marriage, not the salaries they are paid.
What will you be arguing next? That the unemployed are in the 1% because of stay-at-home-moms?
Trickle up says
I do not believe, actually, in your taxable-income-over-250K scenario. The sources you cite are about gross income, not taxable income.
Those “high mortgages” are tax deductible, and wealthy people have many options to minimize their taxable income.
But if someone has income in excess of $250K after deductions, then that income–the part in excess of the $250k–should be taxed at a higher rate regardless of what they do for a living.
It’s only fair.
Example: If the Belmont family makes $260k after deductions, then the rate on that last $10k should be higher. They’d have to pay a couple of hundred bucks more, for goodness sakes.
SomervilleTom says
For the record, the household income needed to break into the bottom of the 1% is a bit over $500K/yr.
If a family earns more than $250K/yr, they can afford to pay a higher rate on the amount over that threshold. It doesn’t matter whether they are firefighters, teachers, cops, doctors, nurses, engineers, or janitors.
Scott Brown would love to get us focused on a meaningless “dispute” while the real travesty goes un-mentioned. Mitt Romney paid fifteen percent on taxable income “between $9.8 M and $38.8 M.
Shouldn’t we be asking Senator Brown to publish his position on taxing “carried interest” at the same rate as “regular” income?
We’re allowing ourselves to be fooled into chasing a red herring, folks.
hesterprynne says
If he’s concerned about two-income families making more than $250K, then would he be OK raising taxes on those making more than $300K? $350K?
Almost certainly not. He’s taken Grover’s pledge. Most recently, he voted to filibuster a bill imposing a small tax increase on millionaires to pay for a payroll tax cut for those making less. It’s not about finding the right balance for him – he won’t vote for any tax increase.
But since he’s suggested that he especially wants to protect people below SOME income level, maybe somebody will press him about what that level is.
merrimackguy says
Denaro, Alan R. $190,976.98 Police Department
Scully, James F. $176,615.42 School Department
Wrenn, Michael J $147,162.21 Police Department
Barbieri, John D $139,858.34 Police Department
Leeman, William A $137,691.48 Police Department
Thompson, Donald E $130,982.18 Police Department
Burrill, Dana W $126,384.84 Police Department
Florent, Joseph A $125,691.31 Police Department
Haugh, Anthony L $124,753.93 Police Department
Moriarty, Brian F $124,409.31 Fire Department
Pellot, Victor M $123,877.00 Police Department
Iannalfo, Stephen $123,471.89 Police Department
Ratte, Alan J $123,011.25 Police Department
Spero, John M $121,607.56 Police Department
Parolisi, Kim J $121,528.57 Police Department
Laliberty, William F $119,474.70 Fire Department
Pistone, Robert P Jr $118,639.16 Police Department
Accardi, Ricci A $117,026.89 Fire Department
Moriarty, Dennis J $116,024.92 Police Department
Sullivan, Michael J $115,633.79 Fire Department
Borden, Richard B $114,551.24 Fire Department
Pearl, Jason E $114,286.90 Police Department
Arahovites, John P $113,685.37 Police Department
Davoli, Donald F $113,656.78 School Department
Smith Todd J $112,923.11 School Department
Proulx, Brian M $112,734.44 Police Department
Sullivan, Timothy W $112,147.85 Fire Department
Butt, David J $111,812.17 Fire Department
Stankovich, Michael I $111,453.31 Highway
Rogers, Francis Jr $111,106.19 Police Department
Covino, Maurice M $110,115.26 Sch. Department
Surette, Jeffrey R $108,324.93 Police Department
Robinson, Raymond $107,641.96 Fire Department
Rosario, John J $107,534.27 Police Department
Doherty, Stephen J J $107,255.39 Police Department
Kosmes, Kara M $107,068.73 School Department
Dorr, Kevin J $106,593.85 Police Department
Little, John D $105,824.24 Police Department
Kitsos, Elizabeth $105,551.78 School Department
Stronach, Jon P $105,457.96 Fire Department
SomervilleTom says
So there are 40 employees of the Town of Haverhill who earn more than $100 K/year. So what?
According to sites like this, there were 1,391 employees in 2007. The average wage, then, was $60,091. In addition, there were 301 part-time employees and a part-time payroll of $414,254 — an average of $1,376.26 per part-time employee per year.
Of your list, 7 full-time employees exceeded the $125 K threshold for a single taxpayer. That puts them in the top 0.5% of full-time wage-earners for the town of Haverhill.
So what’s your point? Some of these 40 may pay more if marginal rates increase for incomes above $125/250 (individual/family).
Meanwhile, what is your position on treating capital gains as ordinary income, especially when those capital gains are earned as “carried interest”?
theloquaciousliberal says
That two people make over $150,000 in gross salary? The two people being the Police Chief and the School Superintendent? And then your Fire Chief and a bunch of police/fire Captains and top Lieutenants also make between $100K and $150K gross salary every year? What’s your point?
merrimackguy says
So a teacher married to a cop could make $250K, and definitely could make over $200K.
Are they rich? Yes, because they can retire early, collect a pension, and work another job.
They don’t have to worry about market returns because their payments are certain.
They have low contribution amounts for health care and pensions.
So in my world, they’re rich.
SomervilleTom says
Your list was the “top 40”. The last salary on the list was $105,457.96. There are 9 between 105K and 110K. Even if there are another twenty (a stretch!) between 100K and 105K, that’s still insignificant in comparison to the total number of employees.
I see the following salaries for “school department” employees:
The lowest paid of that group is Elizabeth Kitsos, Principal, Walnut Square School — hardly a “teacher”. I strongly suspect the other four school department employees are also administrative.
I’m not sure why you’re stretching here. There simply are not “lots of public employees in Haverhill” who make over $100K, in fact they are much less than 1% of the number of employees. A principal married to the Police Chief (Alan Denaro) would together earn $296,498.76. Are you arguing that it is unreasonable to ask this hypothetical family to pay an increased income tax on the $46,498.76 that they earn about the $250K threshold?
They wouldn’t be “rich” because of anything about retirement, pension, or other job (presumably they would have even higher family income if either worked another paid job). They wouldn’t be “rich” at all by the standards of Mitt Romney and Scott Brown. They should pay higher taxes on the amount they earn in excess of $250K because at that family income level they are affluent enough to pay a higher share of the costs of living in 21st century America.
Even if higher threshold levels are chosen, the fact remains that those whose income exceeds that threshold are very affluent, and are far more able to pay more of the costs of our shared society than those under the threshold. Their occupations or employers are irrelevant.
merrimackguy says
The original theory was that the corporation was taxed on profits and then the shareholders were taxed on their gains in share prices as well, so that was double taxation.
The other thinking was that reducing the tax rates for capital gains encouraged productive investment instead of other kinds (art or real estate or whatver).
I don’t know whether it has encouraged investment, but I am guessing no. The actual amount of money in the stock market is declining I believe, at least the money of individual investors. I am on board with the idea that it is double taxation though, so that needs investigation.
As far as carried interest, yes the taxation rate on that needs to be looked at. Note that big clients of hedge funds include college endowments and state pension funds, so they are okay with giving these managers giant fees (on which they pay a low tax) so that’s a problem as well.