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.
Oh, no it's not wrong. First of all, I quoted three (I think)state constitutions saying exactly that. Yes, the state provides the free public education, meaning it's tax supported. But you do not pay for anything at the point of service. You can live in a public housing project, which is property tax-exempt, and attend public school. You can live in university housing, again, generlly property tax-exempt, and attend public school. Church housing, all kinds of housing, is property tax exempt.
Public housing is not free the remaining tax payers pick up the tab. So there is still money being paid towards schooling. University housing is not free it is in your tuition. As I said what you think is free is not it is supplemented by the tax payers. Not free.
Quote:
Plus, education is not supported entirely by property taxes. Much of it comes from states' general fund monies, again, tax money, but you don't have to prove you paid any. People on welfare don't pay income tax, for instance. Lower income people pay less in sales taxes.
I am sorry but you are again incorrect. Property taxes DO pay the majority of schooling other then money they receive from the Fed of which again is all tax money. Sales taxes do not pay for school. The people on welfare are not getting free education because I and the other tax payers are paying FOR them. Nothing is free.
You are splitting hairs. It IS paid for just because you do not write out a check paid directly to the school does not mean it is not paid for. If every person in a town did not pay their taxes there would be no school because there would be no money to pay for it. If what you say is correct then I should be able to remove the school portion of my tax bill and still keep my home but we both know that is not the case. So once again NO it is not free.
Ummmm no they are NOT free. We pay TAXES for our kids to go there.
As many have pointed out, those of us without kids also pay for YOUR kids to go to school. Now that is fine and dandy with me because I would prefer that our citizens are educated. I will also WILLINGLY pay taxes so other people can have access to health care (yeah, I know, ANYONE can get healthcare, just go to the emergency room).
Many of you who are against healthcare are MORE THAN WILLING to take MY TAX DOLLARS to educate your children. Children are a choice. No one is forcing you to have one or many. Being healthy, beyond taking care of yourself, really isn't a choice. You get what you get.
As many have pointed out, those of us without kids also pay for YOUR kids to go to school. Now that is fine and dandy with me because I would prefer that our citizens are educated. I will also WILLINGLY pay taxes so other people can have access to health care (yeah, I know, ANYONE can get healthcare, just go to the emergency room).
Many of you who are against healthcare are MORE THAN WILLING to take MY TAX DOLLARS to educate your children. Children are a choice. No one is forcing you to have one or many. Being healthy, beyond taking care of yourself, really isn't a choice. You get what you get.
I see what you are saying, and in large part I do agree with you.
However, lets change your last sentence to more accurately reflect what a person can expect from any and all types of government run programs --- you get what you pay for.
Some public school districts are excellent. They hire motivated teachers and have top of the line resources. And they almost always are smack in the middle of an affluent neighborhood that not only pays substantial amounts of property tax but are usually willing to pony up in cases of bond issues. Other public schools are in poverty stricken neighborhoods where the property values and parental involvement are low and as a result those schools have many, many problems.
Just how do you think a universal health care system would be any different? Perhaps those lucky ba*tards who live near the Mayo Clinic will get fantastic care while those who live near St. Crackpipe will get substantially less. Perhaps you will pay more then you are paying now to an insurance company as a way to level the playing field - perhaps you will get less benefits also as a way to level the playing field.
The only fact that we know is that whatever the federal government touches becomes a quagmire of beurocracies, uneven results and rapidly expanding debt. Watch out - there is no such thing as a free lunch, you know.....
I see what you are saying, and in large part I do agree with you.
However, lets change your last sentence to more accurately reflect what a person can expect from any and all types of government run programs --- you get what you pay for.
Some public school districts are excellent. They hire motivated teachers and have top of the line resources. And they almost always are smack in the middle of an affluent neighborhood that not only pays substantial amounts of property tax but are usually willing to pony up in cases of bond issues. Other public schools are in poverty stricken neighborhoods where the property values and parental involvement are low and as a result those schools have many, many problems.
Just how do you think a universal health care system would be any different? Perhaps those lucky ba*tards who live near the Mayo Clinic will get fantastic care while those who live near St. Crackpipe will get substantially less. Perhaps you will pay more then you are paying now to an insurance company as a way to level the playing field - perhaps you will get less benefits also as a way to level the playing field.
The only fact that we know is that whatever the federal government touches becomes a quagmire of beurocracies, uneven results and rapidly expanding debt. Watch out - there is no such thing as a free lunch, you know.....
To the best of my knowledge 'the cons' have never asserted a desire for the abolition of all government services. They have demanded an accountability of our governments expenditures (which I do believe Obama mentioned a time or two during the election) and a balanced budget. You seem to be confusing conservatives with anarchists -- not the same thing at all.
I am certainly not implying that all conservatives, or many, or most are in favor of anarchy. However, many bristle at the idea of paying taxes for many things. The OP asked,
Quote:
For all you conservatives who are screaming about Socialism, do your children attend public schools?
This is a reasonable question to ask people who are concerned about socialism. What is public education other than a socialist system?
Here is a list of per-pupil spending by state:
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitors sites is not allowed
How many people, of any political persuasion, spend that number X the number of kids they have in the schools at any given time in property taxes. My own property taxes are barely 25% of the cost of educating one child for one year, and I live in a fairly good-sized house.
In my district, it is estimated that 80% of the taxpayers do not have kids in school.
I don't live in New Jersey, can't tell you how to do anything there. You have made a choice however, to pay the taxes and the private school tuition. Take your arguments about choice over to the education forum if you want.
I've enjoyed this thread. It's entertaining to see the cons jump to support their own use of public schools, trying to justify it by saying they pay taxes.
I don't make a choice to pay taxes. I am fortunate in that I can pay taxes (the highest in the country) and send my kid to a private school with a tuition bill that would turn your hair white (if your hair isn't already white). I don't think it is very fair to tax people to the hilt and then ask them why they use what they are forced to pay for. I think to disparge them because they can't afford taxes they are forced to pay and private school tuition is grossly unfair.
I don't make a choice to pay taxes. I am fortunate in that I can pay taxes (the highest in the country) and send my kid to a private school with a tuition bill that would turn your hair white (if your hair isn't already white). I don't think it is very fair to tax people to the hilt and then ask them why they use what they are forced to pay for. I think to disparge them because they can't afford taxes they are forced to pay and private school tuition is grossly unfair.
I have not disparaged anyone for their financial situation. And I do know NJ has high ed. taxes.
I have not disparaged anyone for their financial situation. And I do know NJ has high ed. taxes.
Go back through the thread it (NJ property taxes) is there and you did disparage people.
"I've enjoyed this thread. It's entertaining to see the cons jump to support their own use of public schools, trying to justify it by saying they pay taxes." Katiana
If that isn't disparaging I am not sure what is. But then again you think schools are free.
Go back through the thread it (NJ property taxes) is there and you did disparage people.
"I've enjoyed this thread. It's entertaining to see the cons jump to support their own use of public schools, trying to justify it by saying they pay taxes." Katiana
If that isn't disparaging I am not sure what is. But then again you think schools are free.
To that point, no one had said they use public schools b/c they can't afford private schools. In fact, no one has said that yet.
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.
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.
). 
