U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2008, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,131,477 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostInTheShell View Post
I agree that we all benefit from education; however, nowhere has anyone offered evidence to suggest that we benefit from universal public education more so than fully privatized education. The quality of fully privatized education could be less than, equal to, or greater than the quality of public education depending on its execution, delivery and content. Since privatization encourages innovation, I'm more likely to believe that the quality of the education would be better in a fully privatized education system given time. The benefit to society, however, would extend beyond the quality of the education. It would encourage parents and grandparents to take more responsibility for the education of their children and grandchildren. It would encourage them to play a more active role in their education as opposed to shipping them off to subsidized daycare every morning. Since the content might differ among schools, it might encourage the parents to learn more themselves, enabling them to make informed decisions on behalf of their children.'

Actually.. if you read the studies I linked to which, in their sampling of public and private schools covering different socio economic lines, you'll see that having children in private school did not make a difference in overall participation of the parents.. particularly with the lower income students. That problem is not that parents do not care for their children, neccesarily.. but the conclusion can be drawn that in such household both parents are working and are not able to give us much time to their children or attention to their school work as they would like.

I sincerely believe that fully privatized education would work. Some people would take more responsibility for themselves and the welfare of their children. Others would continue to assist those in need. Innovation in the new, private education industry would reduce costs. People would have more motivation and encouragement to be productive.

Innovation in the private healthcare industry has not proven to reduce cost.... actually costs are now astronomical. Again.. the problem is NOT in peoples motivations, but more in their ability to spend time concentrating on childrens education. No matter what system you have, unless and until the dynamics of the home life change, the results will be no better than they are now.

I also do not trust a purely profit system .. I believe there is a conflict of interest of sorts. For example.. how do we know that a school, in order to attract more students and thereby make more of a profit, will not skew their test results.. similar to many companies cooking the books etc.?

Here's an analogy. A couple of children decided to go fishing during salmon spawning season. They loved it because they could pull fish out of the water all day long. A wildlife officer caught them fishing, explained that it was illegal for them to fish during that time of year, escorted them home and spoke with their parents. A couple of days later they did the same thing. This time the officer told the parents that they'd face a hefty fine if it happened again. The children never again fished during that time of year. What happened? What was the difference between day one and day two? The difference was this: On the first day, the parents were annoyed and upset, but couldn't really be bothered to do much about it besides a brief "talking to". On the second day, reality sunk-in and the parents were faced with a financial wallop, which was encouragement enough for them to leave a lasting impression on their children. The results were instant.
Your anology is nice on paper.. but actually this has been tried in society.. to hold the parents accountable for the children's actions. it does not neccesarily work.... those kids could just as well have ignored the parents jsut as they had done the first time and then the only person who suffers any consequence is the parents..not the child.. for breaking the law.

What needs to be done is motivation of the STUDENT.. NOT the parents. Does public education need a little shake up.. absolutely. Read the international study I linked to .... a great place to start is by attracting a higher quality of teachers to teach.. add in the family dynamics..

And there was another article I linked to a few posts back about the method in which the U.S teachers.. a memorization method, as opposed to the logistical method (or something along those lines) which perhaps needes to be changed in order for oru students to retain and remember information..

None of the things that needs adjusting has anything to do with wether a school is private or public...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2008, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,172,274 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Moderator cut: Removed quote Here's my question: before you had your daughterS (plural), did you have the financial resources to maintain every aspect of their upbringing, including education?



I hate it when people with kids insist that everybody should be taxed to raise & educate their kids. I have news for you and the many others who seem to feel this way: public education isn't a right. In fact, procreation isn't a right either. I'm really fed up with the mentality that everybody owes them a living just because of a CHOICE they made. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have kids, but if they do, they should be able (and willing) to flip the bill for their education & general welfare themselves.

Doctors and all other well respected professions come out of BOTH public and private school. However, private schools actually produce a higher percentage of those college grads who eventually have those types of careers. On the flip side of your argument, public schools also generate a percentage of derelicts, alcoholics, druggies, welfare moms, and even murderers ... not a huge percentage, but even a small amount of those types is too much.
Education is free, so yes. If I had to pay the price of a private school then no, I wouldn't have the money.

I propose you cannot use any services provided by a publicly educated kid. If you don't want to help pay for it, you don't get to use it.

Provide a source for your claims.

Why do you want an even larger surplus of idiots running around? What good could possibly come from it?

Last edited by Jammie; 09-23-2008 at 11:14 PM.. Reason: removed "Boo Hoo Hoo" from the quote
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,465,944 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Education is free, so yes.
Actually, education is NOT free
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 08:56 PM
Status: "Done with the 90s (hopefully)?" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,427 posts, read 8,343,396 times
Reputation: 5798
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
And please..in keeping with the higher standards that are supposed to be practice on this board.. please show me where you get this information from to make such a statement bolded above.. PROVE what you say.. which have repeatedly NOT DONE at all through this thread.
I provided the information earlier by way of a website which compared public & private schools. Here it is again in case you missed it:
Public School vs. Private School - Public School Review

You can reference some of the findings, including the following piece of information from the site which I posted previously ... only to have it dismissed as opinionated toward the promotion of private school:

Quote:
Private school students are more likely than public school students to complete a bachelorís or advanced degree by their mid-20s. Data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, "Fourth Follow-up" (NELS: 1988/2000) show that students who had attended private school in 8th grade were twice as likely as those who had attended public school to have completed a bachelorís or higher degree by their mid-20s (52 versus 26 percent) and far less likely to not complete a post-secondary education.
Here is another site I found, which you're free to read if you so choose:
Inexpensive Private Schools Better than Public Schools: The Fraser Institute*|*Catholic Exchange

You might be interested in the following statement from this site in reference to your continuous response about how you're unable to afford the cost of private schooling:

Quote:
The study found that the average cost of tuition at inexpensive private schools was $4,398 per year
And this statement about the quality of academics & stricter behavior standards:

Quote:
The families with children in private schools reported that their childrenís academic performance improved and behavioural problems decreased, while a large proportion of families with children at public schools reported that the childís academic performance, social skills and behaviour had worsened.
Now, to answer your accusation of how I'm not following the higher standards of the forum: I have actually provided an alternative to you a few pages back when I suggested to keep the schools public on a local level, but only the people with kids attending the public schools should pay the taxes ... and others without children in the public system could have the OPTION of paying into the system. Your emphatic reply was that it wouldn't work, schools would be underfunded, it would be too hard financially on families, etc. However, I saw no data to back that up.

What it all comes down to is CHOICE. This is America where we have the freedom of choice. However, choices also come with responsibility and/or consequences. You made the choice to have a child, which is fine ... but you believe in shirking the responsibility of paying for education onto the public. That's not freedom of choice ... it's socialism, pure & simple. You made the choice to live in New York where the property taxes are obviously high. On that note, I actually feel sorry for you that you have to pay so much into the system, and I really think you're getting ripped off. However, your inability to afford private school isn't anybody's problem except for your own. By looking at some of the data I provided, there ARE inexpensive private schools, and there are states/regions that are much less expensive than where you are. The choice is up to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2008, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,131,477 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
I provided the information earlier by way of a website which compared public & private schools. Here it is again in case you missed it:
Public School vs. Private School - Public School Review

You can reference some of the findings, including the following piece of information from the site which I posted previously ... only to have it dismissed as opinionated toward the promotion of private school:



Here is another site I found, which you're free to read if you so choose:
Inexpensive Private Schools Better than Public Schools: The Fraser Institute*|*Catholic Exchange

You might be interested in the following statement from this site in reference to your continuous response about how you're unable to afford the cost of private schooling:



And this statement about the quality of academics & stricter behavior standards:



Now, to answer your accusation of how I'm not following the higher standards of the forum: I have actually provided an alternative to you a few pages back when I suggested to keep the schools public on a local level, but only the people with kids attending the public schools should pay the taxes ... and others without children in the public system could have the OPTION of paying into the system. Your emphatic reply was that it wouldn't work, schools would be underfunded, it would be too hard financially on families, etc. However, I saw no data to back that up.

What it all comes down to is CHOICE. This is America where we have the freedom of choice. However, choices also come with responsibility and/or consequences. You made the choice to have a child, which is fine ... but you believe in shirking the responsibility of paying for education onto the public. That's not freedom of choice ... it's socialism, pure & simple. You made the choice to live in New York where the property taxes are obviously high. On that note, I actually feel sorry for you that you have to pay so much into the system, and I really think you're getting ripped off. However, your inability to afford private school isn't anybody's problem except for your own. By looking at some of the data I provided, there ARE inexpensive private schools, and there are states/regions that are much less expensive than where you are. The choice is up to you.
The first link you provided is weak.. It doesn't provide ANY data supporting it ..or studies comparing actual schools to one another and their performance in comparison. It only highlights some of the "items of concern" that parents take into consideration when choosing between a public school in their area or private schools.. the ONLY information or stats it gives is how many schools are private vs. public in the U.S and what percentage of teh students in the U.S are in public schooling vs. Private institutions.

It talks about school programs being a factor in where parents decide to send their children. Are there some public schools that do not offer AP classes (which is college acredit H.S classes, which are offered in MANY a public schools).. yes.. and that would depend on the area and socio economics of the school district to offer such programs. in those cases a parent that wants their child to have AP classes will elect to send them to a private instituation taht does have AP classes. And if the public schools in their area offers AP and college prep classes, than there is no difference between the private and public other than the ideology or religous studies that the private would offer that the public would not.
The below is taken from your article:

Quote:
A factor that plays a large role in parents deciding whether to send their children to public or private school is whether or not they want religious and or moral instruction to play a part of their children’s academic setting. Overall, religious and moral instruction does not play a part of public schooling
Nowhere in that article does it offer anectodal evidence to the fact that one is better than the other. For example in one paragraph it talks about how private schools have more students completing a bachelor degree in college than that of public schools but what it conveniently leaves out in that particular paragraph is the stats that private school students are mostly white and from good socio-economic backgrounds and in the studies I linked to, when you broke down the information comparing students from private vs public that came from the same socio economic background there was no difference.

For example.. it talks about class size comparison between a public school and a private school.. that private school class sizes are smaller.. however it does not state that it has been proven that class size makes a difference. AND if you read the international study I linked to on the top performing schools around the world it discusses how each of those countries made changes to try to improve their schools performances. It noted that in almost all of those countries they hired more educators , and spent more money on hiring said educators and reduced class sizes. The effects, as reported in the study, showed that lowering the class size did not improve the system .. in addition it cost the school more money for no different a result than they had previously with larger classrooms which clearly demostrates that smaller class size does not make the schools any better or the teacher any more affectiv. Your link only talked about the class sizes and NOT any anectodal evidence that because they have smaller class sizes the school performs better.

It also touts public education as "free" however it is FAR FROM FREE.. as we all pay taxes toward public education. A misleading and well false statement all together.

Quote:
Private schools can terminate the terms of their teachers abruptly. Schools are free to deal with personnel matters.
The above statement was proven false in the studies that I pointed to because in the study it found that private school proccess of firing a teacher was just as cumbersum as that of a public school. It's a few posts back in the article "Can Public Schools Learn from Private Schools"
As for your second link it is not completey unbiased and reliable source. IT comes from private catholic institution with the agenda to promote their private catholic education. However, the links to studies I provided.. and particularly the international study.. was not interested in finding favor with either the public or private system and it was there so purpose to gather to data and make a conclusion with no interest in which way that data went. As you said yourself in an earlier post.. or atleast someone else did.. results can be skewed.. especially if the outcome is of special interest to one side of the debate.

Quote:
The parents surveyed reported lower incidences of bullying, fighting, drug use, and racism in inexpensive private schools compared to public schools.
I will not argue with that statement because I do know that to be true.. However, you must look at the reason that this statement is true. And that goes back to the demographics of a public school vs a private school. Yes.. you will have a much better behaved and orderly population of people where almost all the students are white and from good socio-economic backgrounds. Yes, you will have more conflict when there is a more diverse population.. that is true in any situation be it in schools or just outside your house in a neighborhood. Privatizing schools will potentially lock lower socio-economic.. and yes, a lot of minorities out of affording to be able to go to school... so of course you will have schools that are mostly white with higher socio-economic status and thereby will have less conflict.

however.. if you open up those privatized schools to those of lower socioeconomic status through government assistance in tuition, what makes you think that those privatized schools would be any better than public schools?

Quote:
We were astounded to see that small independent schools make such a difference for disadvantaged children, particularly considering that these schools cost, on average, 45 per cent less than public schools,” Hepburn said
The key to the statement above is that the schools are "small" and small requires less cost to maintain.. less administrative staff, less teachers to teach the smaller population of students. Now, lets say all schools were converted to private institutions and in a perfect world all parents could afford to send their kids to these now privatized schools. Well the "small" goes right out the window and costs will increase because it will have to be bigger to accomodate a greater portion of the population. I refer also back to the class size issue.. and that if you want to keep class sizes down (which makes no difference in performance anyway) you will have to hire more staff which costs more money... Private instituations would become as expensive or even more so because now you have to factor in that the "private" institution is operating at a profit.


Now as far as proving about "opting out" option.. you got me on that one..however that is hard to gather data on because I do not know how many households do not actually have children vs how many households have children..etc. However, if you look at the capital raised in my district vs. the spending you'll see there is a small difference of maybe a few dollars and cents between what they raised and what they spend.. meaning that they needed every penny they got.

Let's put it this way. You already feel that your property tax bill is pretty high, correct. So imagine for a minute that you are a family that has a child and now school property taxes will only apply to those families with children. As a result, let's just say that 50% of those paying taxes in your community don't have children or are elderly and therefore they opt out of paying the taxes. Now you're taxes will go up 50% to compensate for your neighbor no longer paying that tax. n what would that do to your budget?

Yes.. I live in NY.. and yes our taxes are a little out of hand. The reason for that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a public school system. It has to do with teh negotiated contracts between the teachers union and the district which includes teachers pensions , health benefits etc. While we pay a lot more than your area of the woods, we also have a higher salary .. so lets say an executive secretary here may make $50k a year, but one where you llve may make $40K a year. Also there are higher costs for things like car insurance etc. etc... It cost more tolive here.. so our teachers salaries also have to be more than the teachers that get paid in AZ...etc.

yes.. we all choose to have children.. You continually ignore the numbers I have put out there.. Do you honestly feel that only "rich" people then deserve to procreate and have children. Too bad,.. you can't have children becaues you can't afford $40k a year to educate them. How do you expect the population to grow and not dwindle if everyone who couldn't afford to pay for a private education NOT have children?

It is a known fact and has been for over 100 years that you buy a home, you pay taxes and part of those taxes go to educate the children of this country. This is NOT something new. So .. you CHOSE to purchase your home knowing that you had a tax bill that would come with that home. If you are so opposed to paying property taxes toward your local education.. then you have a choice.. not to buy a home. If you feel you want to get your "money's worth" because you feel you currently are not... then you have a choice.. have a child! (well.. please don't have one for that purpose.. I meant it as a joke and to illustrate a point).

And.. we don't have to take the cost of private education (however, we do take into consideration the cost of property taxes when purchasing a home, as that is where are education costs are) into consideration because fortunately back in the 1800's when a vast majority of the population was uneducated and undereducated.. the educated people and politicians realized that there was a strong need for a publicly funded education system within the U.S to lift our people up to compete with other nations, to make this country more innovative and which has brought our country to the position it is in today. Do you honestly think if a publicly funded edcuation system didn't exist that we would have the status that we have today.. 90% of students are educated through a public system... are you willing to throw out that 90% and perhaps have only 50% of the population educated? Because privitization would make schools way out of reach for a vast majority of the population.. and then who will be educated enough to fill jobs in this country if we found so many people unedcuatd as a result of removing publicly funded education.

Last edited by TristansMommy; 09-23-2008 at 10:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 02:47 PM
Status: "Done with the 90s (hopefully)?" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,427 posts, read 8,343,396 times
Reputation: 5798
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Let's put it this way. You already feel that your property tax bill is pretty high, correct. So imagine for a minute that you are a family that has a child and now school property taxes will only apply to those families with children. As a result, let's just say that 50% of those paying taxes in your community don't have children or are elderly and therefore they opt out of paying the taxes. Now you're taxes will go up 50% to compensate for your neighbor no longer paying that tax. n what would that do to your budget?
When you refer to 50% of the taxpayers in my "community", do you mean the entire city where I live, or just my neighborhood? I live in a city of over 1.5 million residents ... and our public school districts are fragmented into many small districts. Now, my immediate neighborhood doesn't contain many school age children as far as I know. However, the nearest public school from my house is well over ten blocks away, and largely separated by major thorughfares & a large business area. So I'm not sure if 50% of the people in my DISTRICT are childless, but I would say that's a stretch. Even so, your speculation about my taxes going up 50% (assuming I have children) to compensate for my childless neighbors would be an exaggeration. As I mentioned before, there are many childless people who are willing to pay taxes to support schools. I've come across quite a few just in these forums. Elderly people with no kids in the system also tend to be quite generous this way too.

Yes, there will be a few (like me) who choose not to pay the tax under my alternative proposal of keeping the schools public & only making the ones with kids in the system pay. However, it won't be enough for a crisis situation. Heck, the public schools are in bad enough shape even with EVERYBODY throwing in money. That's what I can't understand: more people than not complain about the poor quality of the overall public school system, and how there's not enough money. As it stands now, with everybody paying a high amount of property taxes, sales taxes, and federal taxes to support the schools, why AREN'T they in better quality? Even you & the others who favor public schools admit there are serious flaws. Therefore, that's all the more reason to CHANGE the system. Privatization works well in many other fields ... even health care. No, the system won't be "perfect" under privatization, but at least it will give taxpayers (especially those without children) some major relief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
yes.. we all choose to have children.. You continually ignore the numbers I have put out there.. Do you honestly feel that only "rich" people then deserve to procreate and have children. Too bad,.. you can't have children becaues you can't afford $40k a year to educate them. How do you expect the population to grow and not dwindle if everyone who couldn't afford to pay for a private education NOT have children?
I'll answer that by saying that anybody can have as many kids as they want, and I wouldn't care. After all, it's a personal choice. However, don't you think people should be more RESPONSIBLE and plan ahead financially before taking such a serious step? You have to consider how it affects other people too, and their finances. When money is taken from the general public to help support other people's reproductive choice, that's where the line has to be drawn. Remember: nobody has a "right" to reproduce. It's not in the Constitution. While I certainly don't favor copying China's practices, I will admit that perhaps our population has grown a little too much. In just the past 30 years, the world has grown from 4 billion to over 6 billion, and keeps multiplying. I wouldn't mind a little bit of a slow down as far as that goes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,131,477 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
When you refer to 50% of the taxpayers in my "community", do you mean the entire city where I live, or just my neighborhood? I live in a city of over 1.5 million residents ... and our public school districts are fragmented into many small districts. Now, my immediate neighborhood doesn't contain many school age children as far as I know. However, the nearest public school from my house is well over ten blocks away, and largely separated by major thorughfares & a large business area. So I'm not sure if 50% of the people in my DISTRICT are childless, but I would say that's a stretch. Even so, your speculation about my taxes going up 50% (assuming I have children) to compensate for my childless neighbors would be an exaggeration. As I mentioned before, there are many childless people who are willing to pay taxes to support schools. I've come across quite a few just in these forums. Elderly people with no kids in the system also tend to be quite generous this way too.

Yes, there will be a few (like me) who choose not to pay the tax under my alternative proposal of keeping the schools public & only making the ones with kids in the system pay. However, it won't be enough for a crisis situation. Heck, the public schools are in bad enough shape even with EVERYBODY throwing in money. That's what I can't understand: more people than not complain about the poor quality of the overall public school system, and how there's not enough money. As it stands now, with everybody paying a high amount of property taxes, sales taxes, and federal taxes to support the schools, why AREN'T they in better quality? Even you & the others who favor public schools admit there are serious flaws. Therefore, that's all the more reason to CHANGE the system. Privatization works well in many other fields ... even health care. No, the system won't be "perfect" under privatization, but at least it will give taxpayers (especially those without children) some major relief.


First.. I was giving an example.. a stretch maybe.. but actually nobody knows what the consequence would be of having peope elect out of paying taxes. My point to you was simply this.. if you look at my district alone what they took in is what they spent.. with maybe a few dollar and sense difference. Which means they needed every penny that they took in. Should the school have suddenly lost a portion of it's tax payers than it could be dire.

Also, a lot of school taxes are brought in by commercial property.. they dont' have children so what happens if they 'elect' not to pay their school portion of the taxes..if they should be allowed to do so? Again.. it could have dire consequences on the finances of the school system and the finances it takes to run them.

You continually say that the public school system is a failure, yet where are your numbers to prove that. Maybe your particular school district is having it's issues. We have atleast 1 in my county that had to be taken over by the state as a result of poor performance.. which , btw, had nothing to do with the fact that it's public and all to do with the fact that it is in a poor socio-economic neighborhood. Traditionally , poor performing schools reflect on those that are actually within the district.

Flaws.. of course there are flaws.. there are flaws within every system.. a flaw does not an entire make over and shift make. Privitizing schools will set the school system back over 100 years! The reason public schooling was created was because private schooling did not allow for all of the population to have an opportunity to be educated. As I've said, Jefferson first thought of the idea and one of the backers of that idea was Washington. Publicly schools didn't catch on, however, till the 19th Century when it became apparent that in order for our country to thrive the population all needed access to an education, something that private schools did not offer.

I've also pointed to studies that show where the flaws in public schools lie, which have NOTHING whatsoever to do with wether they are privitized or public.. The countries around the world with the top schools around the world, even ranking higher than what you think is the better private schools in the U.S, are all publicly funded and run ..some on the national level and some like ours on state and local government levels. The way that they improved their schools programs was through the methods of teaching and by hiring better instructors or holding them to a higher standard.. NOT by making the schools privitized. NONE of the top schools in the world are privately run.. they are all publicly funded and run.

As far as privitization working for health care, you continually ignore the stats and numbers.. Are you denying the fact that the cost of health care is out of control? Are you ignoring the fact that having the health insurance "privatized" has done little for actually keeping it affordable? Next time you go into work ask your employer how much it cost him monthly for the premium you are covered by. Look at the premium, also, to see the quality of what it is. Do some research and shop around for insurance to see how much it would be to insure yourself, should you lose your job, start a small business on your own or your employer decides the benefits are too expensive to carry on his books any longer... which is happening across the country. I agree.. the numbers are not staggering, but the pace that the uninsured are growing is quite fast.

You ignored my comment that even the Republicans acknowledge that privitized health insurance is not working out very well.. the difference in how to fix it is what they differ on.. not that there is a problem.


I'll answer that by saying that anybody can have as many kids as they want, and I wouldn't care. After all, it's a personal choice. However, don't you think people should be more RESPONSIBLE and plan ahead financially before taking such a serious step? You have to consider how it affects other people too, and their finances. When money is taken from the general public to help support other people's reproductive choice, that's where the line has to be drawn. Remember: nobody has a "right" to reproduce. It's not in the Constitution. While I certainly don't favor copying China's practices, I will admit that perhaps our population has grown a little too much. In just the past 30 years, the world has grown from 4 billion to over 6 billion, and keeps multiplying. I wouldn't mind a little bit of a slow down as far as that goes.
Our population has not grown too much, our life expectancy has. The average size of the famiy has actually decreased to 2.5 children. Back in the day families used to have 13 kids.. hey my grandpa was one of 13 of which I believe 10 survived. Besides publicly funded schools through property taxes, do you see parents getting anything to help raise their kids? The $1,000 tax credit is not money we recieve from the government, but a deduction no different than a business deduction or a deduction someone takes on the interest on their mortgage payments. That does not take money from the public and hand it to parents. Yes, there are people on welfare that can't even provide the basics for their children and I admit that perhaps they should have thought twice if they can't put food on the table for themselves.

Do you pay taxes to fund familes diapers, groceries, formulas, clothing etc etc etc. No.. and just a little aside. ARe you aware that parents of children drive the economy.... that our children drive the economy.... We spend much more on alot of things that you don't spend on .. so we pay a lot more in taxes than you do... SALES TAX.. that go to the state that go to fund lots of things you benefit from and some you don't.

One thing you can't seem to grasp is that humans are meant to procreate.. it is a choice for some NOT to , but it is a biological funciton to procreate. Even those without intending to have children slip up on their birth control and end up having children. You can't say that if you can't pay for private education for your children you just shouldn't have them. That is just, well a ridiculous sentiment. Yes.. if you can't put food on the table, yes if you can't afford the roof over your head, then having kids is not a good idea. But to say that your child should go without an education simply because the parents can't afford to pay for a private one is quite ridiculous. Again.. 90% of the population attends public schools.. and parents do have a choice to send their kids to a private school if they so choose. Private schools are then only deemed "better" or are affordable to the remaining 10%.

You have a choice.. if you don't want your money to go toward public education then it's simple.. do not buy a house with a property tax bill that includes education.. because its not like this proposition is brand new here and we are trying to get public schools funded suddenly. It's been in place for over 100 years. Our early leaders recognized the need for publicly funded schools.. and so did many , if not most, of the nations across the world.

You constantly argue about "quality" of public school education vs. private.. you have yet to prove to me with any clear and concise study as I have shown , that the quality is any better in a private school vs. public.. There is only a percieved difference in quality, but when put to the test it turned out that they are equal... period.

If quality was the true issue for you, I've clearly proven that it's not any different. I believe you are hiding behind the "quality" issue simply because you are angry that your taxes on your property are going to fund school that you do not have a child using.

But guess what.. all of our taxes go for something we may not directly use, but indirectly benefit from .. .. and having education available for the entire population is indirectly benefiting you, wether you want to see it or not. I'm just grateful that the politicians in office and the majority of the population recognize that publicly funded educaiton is important, is crucial in how we became the country we are and is important for keeping us on top of the world.

If you are so opposed to paying school taxes on your local property tax and to your local school district.. then take it up with your local municipalities.. start a movement in your local area to get it going.

But.. while we are a republic.. we are one founded on democracy and in democracy majority rules. In this case you are outnumbered by many parents and even non parents who recognize the benefits of having a publicly funded school system vs. one that is privitized. They also recognize the financial and economic needs required to provide that.. and are wise enough to know that wether or not you directly benefit from private education, everyone indirectly benefits and therefore everyone should contribute for that benefit.


To prove that families have actually shrunk in size as opposed to your statement here is an excerpt;
Quote:
Newly released Census Bureau figures emphasize that over the last decades of the 20th century, the size of US families has shrunk - dare we say it? - incredibly fast. Since 1970 the percentage of households containing five or more people has fallen by half.
That was taken from http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/incredible_shrinking_US_family.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,131,477 times
Reputation: 908
The bottom line is this..

There are people who are childless and people who no longer have children that are extremely resentful of the fact that they have to pay property taxes in their community that go to fund public schools.

Let's flip the script here for a second. Public schools in the United States is NOT something new that everyone is trying to get passed. It's an idea that has been around for quite some time in the U.S and in some of the digging I've done, public schools actually go back centuries. We're not asking for something we don't already have. It's a known and accepted policy in the U.S

I think that we can all agree that in order to have a thriving nation full of innovative thinkers and full of knowledge you need education. Knowledge is power, knowledge is key. Don't believe me, look at countries that have a vast population of uneducated or undereducated individuals. They are considered third world and/or underdeveloped. THey do not even come close to competing on a national scale.

To insure and guarantee the growth of the nation public schools were implemented and have been implemented around the world. It has worked for every nation out there that has it. And, despite individual districts problems or issues, overall our school system works.

Any decline does not have to do with the fact that the school is publicly funded. It does have to do with a culteral shift in our nation and the dynamics of family life that has changed. If those things are not addressed, then no system public or private will improve.

Those parents of children say they want "choice" but choice already exists. Send your child to a private, charter or magnest school or home school your child if that is your choice. But, as a member of society and as someone that benefits indirectly from the population being educated, you are just as responsible for the funding of that school as is any parent that has a child in the public schools. And this goes for those that are childless too.

You think parents of children are only recieving and not giving anything back. To all the childless people out there that are upset about paying a property tax bill to fund your schools I say this.

We help drive the economy by supporting our families and buying more groceries, diapers, formulas, toys for our kids, school supplies and clothing for our kids. Without the dollars we spend on raising our children our GDP would be much lower. Taxes, btw are paid on a lot of those things we buy and so while we may contribute equal amount as you for school taxes and seemingly benefit more, over our lifetime we pay more in taxes than you ever will that may or may not directly or indirectly benefit you.
OUr children go on to become Dr's, lawyers, hairdressers...every person you meet in your life is someone's child.. and most likely they were publicly educated.

Think having a child is not contribution to society.. without our children the race would die out?

And.. we give our children to fight in wars that help protect this country and keep you and all of us safe!

I don't think it's too much to ask to have all those children that will later become adults and that contribute to society from the day they are born be provided an edcuation is too big a thing to ask in exchange..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:57 PM
Status: "Done with the 90s (hopefully)?" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,427 posts, read 8,343,396 times
Reputation: 5798
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Also, a lot of school taxes are brought in by commercial property.. they dont' have children so what happens if they 'elect' not to pay their school portion of the taxes..if they should be allowed to do so? Again.. it could have dire consequences on the finances of the school system and the finances it takes to run them.
Good point ... but I would say the businesses that "opt out" of paying the property taxes would have more of their own money to improve their own business. Also, with that extra money, they could start their own donation drives to school charities for the purpose of helping out the less fortunate kids. But again, that would be at their discretion. It is, after all, THEIR money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
As far as privitization working for health care, you continually ignore the stats and numbers.. Are you denying the fact that the cost of health care is out of control? Are you ignoring the fact that having the health insurance "privatized" has done little for actually keeping it affordable? Next time you go into work ask your employer how much it cost him monthly for the premium you are covered by. Look at the premium, also, to see the quality of what it is. Do some research and shop around for insurance to see how much it would be to insure yourself, should you lose your job, start a small business on your own or your employer decides the benefits are too expensive to carry on his books any longer... which is happening across the country. I agree.. the numbers are not staggering, but the pace that the uninsured are growing is quite fast.
Do you know the reasons why health care is costly? One is all the frivolous malpractice suits. I'm not saying ALL are frivolous ... and I'm not suggesting that's the main reason, but it’s a contributor. Another factor is all the baby boomers who are becoming senior citizens & are having more extensive health care needs. Like it or not, that huge population surge is driving up health insurance costs as that sector ages. Another factor: the lazy people who smoke heavily, dont exercise, and thrive on junk food. Their habits create more health problems, which translate to higher insurance rates for everyone.

Most employers are quite generous when it comes to medical benefits these days. Of course, I work for a large corporation, so that helps in my case. Keep in mind that it's still not a free ride. Employees have to pay a cost out of each paycheck to cover their benefits, and the company pays the rest. This is still a MUCH better method than having taxpayers flip the bill to cover everybody. I was once in the situation many years ago where I was between jobs, and had to insure myself. It certainly wasn't easy, but I managed to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
You ignored my comment that even the Republicans acknowledge that privitized health insurance is not working out very well.. the difference in how to fix it is what they differ on.. not that there is a problem.
I purposely ignored it because those kinds of political statements don't really belong in this forum. My only response is that both Democrats & Republicans favor more government in our lives, and both will say anything to try to get elected!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
The $1,000 tax credit is not money we recieve from the government, but a deduction no different than a business deduction or a deduction someone takes on the interest on their mortgage payments. That does not take money from the public and hand it to parents. Yes, there are people on welfare that can't even provide the basics for their children and I admit that perhaps they should have thought twice if they can't put food on the table for themselves.
The tax credit IS government money handed to those who qualify for it. Admittedly, those who OWE the government money won't see that $1,000 in the form of a refund, but it does reduce the amount of taxes owed. Basically, the more children you have, the more of a credit you receive. Think about how much of a credit a family of ten children can receive! This can translate to an enormous refund. So where do you think this extra money comes from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Do you pay taxes to fund familes diapers, groceries, formulas, clothing etc etc etc.
I do for those families on public assistance who keep popping out babies they can't afford!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
ARe you aware that parents of children drive the economy.... that our children drive the economy.... We spend much more on alot of things that you don't spend on .. so we pay a lot more in taxes than you do... SALES TAX.. that go to the state that go to fund lots of things you benefit from and some you don't.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. We all pay sales taxes. Here in metro Phoenix, every time we buy something taxable, some of that sales tax money goes to public schools (in addition to the property taxes). I bought a car several years ago for roughly $20,000, and at a rate of 8.3%, there went $1,660 in taxes alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
One thing you can't seem to grasp is that humans are meant to procreate.. it is a choice for some NOT to , but it is a biological funciton to procreate.
That's nothing but a generalization, and a blanket statement. Not everybody CAN procreate for different reasons. Do you realize how many gay people there are who are unable to procreate (for obvious reasons)? Yet, they still have to pay taxes for other people’s kids. That can be considered a form of discrimination if you want to get technical. Same goes for the straight couples who have medical conditions which don't allow them to reproduce. Then there are those (like me) who simply want to be left alone and not be bothered with raising kids. Like it or not, there is a growing population of childless, and/or single people in this country. Everybody is different ... and not everbody has (nor wants) a house in the suburbs with a spouse and 2.5 kids.

Regardless of what Jefferson supposedly said centuries ago, the idea of everybody being FORCED to contribute to the upbringing of other people's children (including education) is a form of socialism ... which is NOT one of the founding principles of America. Socialism may be OK in other countries, but why do we have to copy them? America became a prosperous nation due to hard work, freedom, patriotism, and because we DIDN’T practice socialism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2008, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,131,477 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native View Post
Good point ... but I would say the businesses that "opt out" of paying the property taxes would have more of their own money to improve their own business. Also, with that extra money, they could start their own donation drives to school charities for the purpose of helping out the less fortunate kids. But again, that would be at their discretion. It is, after all, THEIR money.




Do you know the reasons why health care is costly? One is all the frivolous malpractice suits. I'm not saying ALL are frivolous ... and I'm not suggesting that's the main reason, but itís a contributor. Another factor is all the baby boomers who are becoming senior citizens & are having more extensive health care needs. Like it or not, that huge population surge is driving up health insurance costs as that sector ages. Another factor: the lazy people who smoke heavily, dont exercise, and thrive on junk food. Their habits create more health problems, which translate to higher insurance rates for everyone.

Most employers are quite generous when it comes to medical benefits these days. Of course, I work for a large corporation, so that helps in my case. Keep in mind that it's still not a free ride. Employees have to pay a cost out of each paycheck to cover their benefits, and the company pays the rest. This is still a MUCH better method than having taxpayers flip the bill to cover everybody. I was once in the situation many years ago where I was between jobs, and had to insure myself. It certainly wasn't easy, but I managed to do it.



I purposely ignored it because those kinds of political statements don't really belong in this forum. My only response is that both Democrats & Republicans favor more government in our lives, and both will say anything to try to get elected!



The tax credit IS government money handed to those who qualify for it. Admittedly, those who OWE the government money won't see that $1,000 in the form of a refund, but it does reduce the amount of taxes owed. Basically, the more children you have, the more of a credit you receive. Think about how much of a credit a family of ten children can receive! This can translate to an enormous refund. So where do you think this extra money comes from?



I do for those families on public assistance who keep popping out babies they can't afford!



Yes, I'm fully aware of that. We all pay sales taxes. Here in metro Phoenix, every time we buy something taxable, some of that sales tax money goes to public schools (in addition to the property taxes). I bought a car several years ago for roughly $20,000, and at a rate of 8.3%, there went $1,660 in taxes alone.



That's nothing but a generalization, and a blanket statement. Not everybody CAN procreate for different reasons. Do you realize how many gay people there are who are unable to procreate (for obvious reasons)? Yet, they still have to pay taxes for other peopleís kids. That can be considered a form of discrimination if you want to get technical. Same goes for the straight couples who have medical conditions which don't allow them to reproduce. Then there are those (like me) who simply want to be left alone and not be bothered with raising kids. Like it or not, there is a growing population of childless, and/or single people in this country. Everybody is different ... and not everbody has (nor wants) a house in the suburbs with a spouse and 2.5 kids.

Regardless of what Jefferson supposedly said centuries ago, the idea of everybody being FORCED to contribute to the upbringing of other people's children (including education) is a form of socialism ... which is NOT one of the founding principles of America. Socialism may be OK in other countries, but why do we have to copy them? America became a prosperous nation due to hard work, freedom, patriotism, and because we DIDNíT practice socialism.
Rather than answer your post line by line.. again of which you still provide no supporting evidence for what you say I'll break your school by charity idea down and show you how ridiculous that concept is and exactly why it woudn't work.


There are , according to the census burea
53.3 million children between the ages of 5-17 in the country,
$12,000 /year to educate one child (some more, some less in certian parts .. this is the middle number)
Total cost to educate America's children a year $639.6 TRILLION dollars.

Now.. let's say you keep everyone in the district their in taxes the same.. after all this is what the family can afford. We'll take my high taxes as an example.. although yours is $1100.. We'll take $4,000 as the tax number.

If there are an average of 2.5 children in an American household family and each household is paying $4,000/year (divide 53.3 million by 2.5 to get the total number of U.S households with children) toward education in property taxes, that has raised approx $85.280Trillion Dollars.

639.6 Trillion needed to educate children
85.280 Trillion raised through property taxes of families in the U.S
That leaves $554.320 Trillion dollars that would need to be raised through "charitable" donations.

In 2006 the total amount donated to charitable donations in the United States was approx $295 Billion.

Plain and simple.. educating children by affordable tax to the middle income family (and $4000/ year in taxes might be harder for people in other parts of the country than it is in my part) plus charitable donations falls WAY short of what is needed to educate children in this country. And remember that 295 billion is divided by many charities that are out there.. the American Red cross in 2006 - one of the biggest U.S charities raised 5.86Billion.

Want an insufficient underfunded school system that churns out undereducated children.. and leaves many out. Go privatize school districts and set this country back to the 1800's!!!

Charitable donations are NOT enough to educate children in this country. Anything else knocks the affordability of schools for children right out of the water.

Somethnig you must remember.

It is mandated by law that all children recieve an education up to the age of 16. Therefore..school MUST be kept affordable for every family. In a privitizaton scheme.. school is NOT affordable for every family.

AND.. homeschooling is NOT an option for many families in that middle income bracket especially when both parents are working.. that and not all parents are qualified or equipped to teach their children from home.

THAT is why we have publicly funded education system.. so that EVERY child is guaranteed an education. The reason we pay for it through Property taxes is because everyone as a whole in the community and in the nation benefit when our people are educated.

Don't like it . you have a choice.. move to a country that does not have publicly funded schools in which you are not requiredto pay property taxes. You have a choice!

Right now. . we have an education system that guarantees all children an education.. not one child is left out of the equation. This helps perpetuate the American Dream..that you can obtain more than you have through education and hard work. Take away the system we have now and convert to a system of privatized schools that leave the affordability potential out for just 1 child and you've killed a good thing we have going here.

Bottom line..there is nothing to indicate the quality between a private and a public school is better. I've shown that what is needed is to change HOW our children are taught.. to improve the instructors that are teaching it.. NOTHING indicates that any of the flaws within the school system are based on the fact that it is public rather than private.

Some, like Valley Native, want to proclaim they care about the quality of our future generations education. All he has shown in his posts is that he cares about the $1100 he wouldn't have to pay every year under his "charity" and privitized theoretical school system. If his motivation was truly what is best for this country and it's future leaders and innovators he would get involved in his local school administration, board, etc. etc. His motivations, with this post have NOTHING to do with what is best for this country and the children in it , but what is best for his bottom line.

Last edited by TristansMommy; 09-25-2008 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top