Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6835
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Nov 2017, 9:43 am

http://www.ktvu.com/news/proposal-seeks-to-exempt-californians-with-no-kids-in-public-schools-from-paying-school-taxes

I love this idea. Paying for what you use? Inconceivable! Perhaps it would help the California public school system.

41. California
> Overall grade: C-
> Per pupil spending: $8,694 (6th lowest)
> High school graduation rate: 82.0% (20th lowest)
> Pct. 3 & 4 yr. olds enrolled in preschool: 48.3% (17th highest)


http://247wallst.com/special-report/2017/01/20/states-with-the-best-and-worst-schools-4/10/
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Nov 2017, 11:11 am

Horrible idea. And just another sign of the rampant selfishness that is threatening to pull the country apart at the seams. It just's me, me, me. So no public school system? That's a good thing? We used to have that...and many kids did not get an education. It has no chance of passing here of course. Ah yes, the government is always the problem. College-educated public school teachers are bad.

There are some very good schools in California. You cannot legitimately compare education across states without adjusting for immigrants who are coming who speak English as a second language, poverty, and parents who have limited education. Somehow, public schools in upper-middle class suburbia here are generally good.

My own educational experience was somewhat varied. I went to some private Christian schools that were not particularly good; the Torrance schools were good; and the Los Angeles Unified schools struggled dealing with students who came from poorer homes with parents with limited education (high school or less) and/or immigrant backgrounds. But no matter what school I went to a student could learn if they were reasonably smart and worked hard.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3210
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 16 Nov 2017, 11:31 am

bbauska wrote:http://www.ktvu.com/news/proposal-seeks-to-exempt-californians-with-no-kids-in-public-schools-from-paying-school-taxes

I love this idea. Paying for what you use? Inconceivable! Perhaps it would help the California public school system.



This is a horrible idea for anyone interested in the continuing success of American society. We all benefit from educating our young citizens. An educated society is in the national interest. Actively working toward "opting out" would be so horrible for the long-term health of the nation, I would consider it treasonous, if the person doing it understood the long-term consequences of their actions. It wouldn't shock me if Russia or other enemies of the state were out there trying to spread such a meme.

The issues you bring up regarding performance, are off-topic. Paying for performance, or expecting something for your money is completely reasonable, but deciding that the education of the future citizenry is not everyone's responsibility, that's just unamerican.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10974
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Nov 2017, 7:57 pm

Public schools were introduced because employers in the industrial revolution found that an educated work force was a great benefit to productivity. Rather than each individual industry having to pay to educate a pool of potential employers it was deemed more efficient and effective to educate everyone and pay for it under general taxation.
If education once again something only a family with resources could afford .... we eventually slide back go back to a society where only a privileged elite are educated. Since talent and intelligence is distributed fairly equally through the population base a great deal of human capital will be squandered as it will never have access to the education required to unlock that potential.
A horrible waste.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6835
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Nov 2017, 1:06 pm

Education is something that is VERY important. So important, that families should be paying for their children to attend. The current system of taxing the populace via property taxes takes away the costs from those who rent. You all say that it is important, but certainly not enough to mandate high quality school teacher standards with removal for those who do not qualify. I am all for the education system being paid for.

I think it should be paid for by those who are using it. Do you think that there should be any payment by the student or family (being that it is SOOO important)?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Nov 2017, 2:24 pm

Having publicly funded education is one of the main ways we try to equalize opportunity for all. There are several justifications for public schools

(1) A person should make it on their own merits, not based on whether they have an advantage by being born into a wealthy family. It is simply fair to give everyone a fair shot at making it, irrespective of whether they are born into a rich or poor family family;
(2) As Ricky notes society benefits as a whole when education is available to everyone as talented poor kids can have their talents and contributions fully actualized, which would not happen if everyone had to pay the full costs of education out of of their own pocket;
(3) Education does not lend itself to free market solutions as private schools would not want to educate poor students, students with special needs, and students who don't do well in school (this is a similar issue to health care where insurers only want to insure the best risks). Public schools looking out for the general (as opposed to particular) interest educate everyone;
(4) Public schools are also a way of inculcating American values, history, and principles. They also expose kids to people of other backgrounds, helping to reduce prejudice;
(5) Parents are obviously not equally situated with regard to educating their children, so that would not be a fair solution;
(6) As for property taxes being unfair to homeowners vis-a-vis renters that is more than off-set by the mortgage interest deduction

For those who have the resources, private schools or teaching children at home may be a preferred option. But taking away public education would be a disaster.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3210
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Nov 2017, 5:13 am

bbauska wrote:Education is something that is VERY important. So important, that families should be paying for their children to attend. The current system of taxing the populace via property taxes takes away the costs from those who rent. You all say that it is important, but certainly not enough to mandate high quality school teacher standards with removal for those who do not qualify. I am all for the education system being paid for.

I think it should be paid for by those who are using it. Do you think that there should be any payment by the student or family (being that it is SOOO important)?


We are ALL USING IT! That's what I'm saying. An informed citizenry is essential to American democracy so we all need to pay for it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6835
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Nov 2017, 7:56 am

I understand your point that we all use it. I can see the merits of a government mandated school system. I think you miss mine. Should people not paying property taxes be paying for school?

If it is so important, should it be paid for by all? It would provide needed revenue for education, right?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10974
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Nov 2017, 1:29 pm

bbauska
I think you miss mine.

bbauska
. The current system of taxing the populace via property taxes takes away the costs from those who rent


It actually doesn't. The landlord is paying property taxes. His renters are charged a rent that includes in its calculation the requirement for property taxes.
Renters pay their share of property taxes through their landlord.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3210
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Nov 2017, 9:15 pm

bbauska wrote:I understand your point that we all use it. I can see the merits of a government mandated school system. I think you miss mine. Should people not paying property taxes be paying for school?

If it is so important, should it be paid for by all? It would provide needed revenue for education, right?


Yeah, what Ricky said. Renters pay rent, which unless you're somewhere with rent control, includes the cost of property taxes.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6835
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Nov 2017, 8:29 am

Actually, I get that landlord position. I am a professional landlord.

How about this:

Property taxes
Student fees

Home owners pay, and student families pay the other, I want there to be a direct payment for school to help people see the importance of the wise use of their money.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10974
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Nov 2017, 10:03 am

bbauska
Home owners pay, and student families pay the other, I want there to be a direct payment for school to help people see the importance of the wise use of their money


So if a child is born into a home with parents who don't understand the wise use of money, or who have no money, or who would prefer to home school but don't have the qualifications of ability to properly educate their child ....that child is screwed.

And if that child was talented enough to be a civil engineer, or a doctor, or a scientist .... but was forever burdened with a sub par education ,.. society would lose.
A child with a poor education is also going to be more prone to a life of crime... Again society loses.

I know you're all about personal responsibility Bbauska. How about this? Be responsible enough to pay your damn taxes, and stop worrying about how others might be benefiting from your taxes. And try and remember that when a child benefits, we all benefit.

The best education systems in the world , and the US doesn't have such, pay their teachers extremelly well in order to attract the best. They also treat the teaching profession with enormous respect, again to attract the best into the profession. And they , and provide the education for free. And they treat education as a personal endevour, for each child.

http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovati ... -49859555/

There's a concept discussed in this last article that will certainly blow your mind bbauska.
"Positive discrimination funds" ....
And this...
It’s almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless. Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing. In addition, the state subsidizes parents, paying them around 150 euros per month for every child until he or she turns 17. Ninety-seven percent of 6-year-olds attend public preschool, where children begin some academics. Schools provide food, medical care, counseling and taxi service if needed. Stu­dent health care is free
.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovatio ... uccessful-
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3210
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Nov 2017, 11:31 am

bbauska wrote:Actually, I get that landlord position. I am a professional landlord.

How about this:

Property taxes
Student fees

Home owners pay, and student families pay the other, I want there to be a direct payment for school to help people see the importance of the wise use of their money.


This is essentially how NYC public schools are run. The DOE provides a school and teachers, and the parents have to provide everything else. Paper, afterschool programs, computers, smart boards, copy machines, air conditioners in the old schools that were built without them. etc.. Here's the tax return for our kid's school:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2016/133/838/2016-133838598-0d7566f3-9.pdf

Yep, that's $1,000,000 a year from the parents to keep that public elementary school going.

It means that we're all really invested in it, which is good. The bad side is that there are lots of schools where the parents are unable to pony up anything, let alone build the organization necessary to manage it. So over most of the City, parents have a place to send their kids, who have a teacher, but almost nothing else to help them learn. It results in a massively unequal system that is highly segregated by race and income.

I see what you're saying about getting people vested, and for some schools that's what your method does, but what would happen to the schools where the parents can't pay anything?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3210
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Nov 2017, 12:11 pm

geojanes wrote:This is essentially how NYC public schools are run. The DOE provides a school and teachers, and the parents have to provide everything else. Paper, afterschool programs, computers, smart boards, copy machines, air conditioners in the old schools that were built without them. etc.. Here's the tax return for our kid's school:


A few years ago we had to purchase new lunchroom tables for the school. Since the cafeteria and the gym are in the same multipurpose room the tables have to be set up and broken down multiple times a day, which wears them out. That was $25,000. I think our old broken tables were shipped to another school where they had no tables at all.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6835
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Nov 2017, 9:54 am

RickyP,
Your comment about minding my own personal responsibility would hold even a smidge of weight with me if you would apply that to others. Do you feel that other people should worry about themselves?

Don't make me write the list of how you want people to worry about the "oppressed". Yes, I put them in quotes for a reason. People in the US are not oppressed. Take a look at Haiti, Panama, Venezuela and North Korea. Having been in 3/4 of those countries, let me say the oppression is there.

So, until you are willing to say that other people should worry about personal responsibility, your words mean even less than little to me.