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.
OK, I'm back! I seem to have made a lot of people uncomfortable. And that was perhaps my point. I have studied education issues on the local, state and national level for 20 years for a political organization. I know, I might say, better than many people on this board know, that taxes paid by parents do not totally fund public education. In my district, as I pointed out, 80% of taxpayers do not have kids in school. Some had kids in school at one time, some will in the future, and some never have/never will. 100% of the taxpayers are supporting the 20% of the taxpayers' kids. I am certain the figures are the same within a few percentage points in almost every district in the country. Those who argue that they are "paying" for the schools because they pay taxes are incorrect. A child can attend school even if his/her parents pay no taxes. This happens, as some have pointed out, when a kid from a homelss shelter, which is probably tax exempt, attends school in his/her attendance area. Forget this arguing over whether a kid from a homeless shelter can attend a school not in his/her attendance area (although that would be possible in Colorado). A kid from a homelss shelter can attend a public school. A kid from a public housing project can attend a public school. A kid in married student housing at a tax-exempt university can attend a public school. A kid living in a one bedroom hovel that has a low tax bill can attend public school and get the same type of education as a kid living in a McMansion, that has a high tax bill. Kids from 10 kid families get the same kind of education as kids from only-child families, even if their parents are paying the same amount in taxes. Paying taxes is not a method of paying tuition. Even in my state, which is on the low end of the per-pupil expenditure, it costs almost $7K/year to educate one child (on average). That is about 1/4 of what I pay in property taxes, and maybe 1/2 of the total I pay in taxes to support the schools. Yet my two kids got a public education for the 13 years they were both in school together, and for 16 years total. Kids are not "charged" for public education, except for incidentals (consumable materials fees for middle/high school classes such as photography, home ec, lab science, etc).
I am not an idiot, like some seem to think. I know you can't wave a magic wand and fund the schools. But the state constitution of all 50 states guarantees a free public education. All one needs to do is google "free public education (insert name of state) constitution.
To sum up, anyone who thinks because they pay taxes that they are paying for their kids' educations, and that if they didn't pay them their kids would not get educated, is mistaken, and possibly kidding themselves.
Actually, you can go to public school even if you are in a living situation that pays no taxes, b/c the constitution of every state guarantees a "free public education".
The constitution of every state guarnatees a free public education. I told you how to google this in the body of my post.
This is not true. Your kids are guaranteed a free public education whether you personally pay taxes or not.
The federal constitution left anything they did not enumerate up to the states. Every state guarantees a free public education. I am not talking about procreation; maybe you've mixed me up with someone else.
Look you refuse to admit when you are wrong . People who don't pay taxes can go to school because others subsidze them, they are not going for "free". Remember my food stamp analogy. People are not getting food for "free" the tax payer is subsidizing them.
You are simply wrong when you say "anyone who thinks because they pay taxes that they are paying for their kids' educations, and that if they didn't pay them their kids would not get educated, is mistaken, and possibly kidding themselves" . If you do not pay property taxes your house will be sold at auction and you will be in a homeless shelter and you can start at the top of my thread for what happens next.
Seems to be implied that if a conservative uses the public school system, they are being hypocrits about socialism. In order for conservatives to NOT be hypocrits, they should just pay their taxes like good little conservatives to educate the children of the liberals. This is what I'm getting from the OP and from Katiana.
I'm really getting angry about you putting words in my mouth, Chatteress. No matter how many times I say that's not what I'm saying, you come back with another post that says I am.
I'm saying, there are many conservatives who obviously don't realize how much of a subsidy their kids are getting from other people to get their public education. Perhaps that should put a new light on paying taxes. Sometimes, paying taxes can contribute to the public good.
OK, I'm back! I seem to have made a lot of people uncomfortable. And that was perhaps my point. I have studied education issues on the local, state and national level for 20 years for a political organization. I know, I might say, better than many people on this board know, that taxes paid by parents do not totally fund public education. In my district, as I pointed out, 80% of taxpayers do not have kids in school. Some had kids in school at one time, some will in the future, and some never have/never will. 100% of the taxpayers are supporting the 20% of the taxpayers' kids. I am certain the figures are the same within a few percentage points in almost every district in the country. Those who argue that they are "paying" for the schools because they pay taxes are incorrect. A child can attend school even if his/her parents pay no taxes. This happens, as some have pointed out, when a kid from a homelss shelter, which is probably tax exempt, attends school in his/her attendance area. Forget this arguing over whether a kid from a homeless shelter can attend a school not in his/her attendance area (although that would be possible in Colorado). A kid from a homelss shelter can attend a public school. A kid from a public housing project can attend a public school. A kid in married student housing at a tax-exempt university can attend a public school. A kid living in a one bedroom hovel that has a low tax bill can attend public school and get the same type of education as a kid living in a McMansion, that has a high tax bill. Kids from 10 kid families get the same kind of education as kids from only-child families, even if their parents are paying the same amount in taxes. Paying taxes is not a method of paying tuition. Even in my state, which is on the low end of the per-pupil expenditure, it costs almost $7K/year to educate one child (on average). That is about 1/4 of what I pay in property taxes, and maybe 1/2 of the total I pay in taxes to support the schools. Yet my two kids got a public education for the 13 years they were both in school together, and for 16 years total. Kids are not "charged" for public education, except for incidentals (consumable materials fees for middle/high school classes such as photography, home ec, lab science, etc).
I am not an idiot, like some seem to think. I know you can't wave a magic wand and fund the schools. But the state constitution of all 50 states guarantees a free public education. All one needs to do is google "free public education (insert name of state) constitution.
To sum up, anyone who thinks because they pay taxes that they are paying for their kids' educations, and that if they didn't pay them their kids would not get educated, is mistaken, and possibly kidding themselves.
This is not true. Your kids are guaranteed a free public education whether you personally pay taxes or not.
Ok let me try it this way. So if I stop paying my taxes and lose my house I will still be able to send my kids to the school in a town where I have no residency? It that what you are say?
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Of course the states say so! LOL
I think I will start my own forum site where folks can post for free. There will be a mandatory "maintenance" fee charged to each user but it is a "free" site to everyone that wishes to post. If you are unable to afford the fee, don't worry about it because it will be subsidized by other users.
Ok let me try it this way. So if I stop paying my taxes and lose my house I will still be able to send my kids to the school in a town where I have no residency? It that what you are say?
No. But they will be able to go to school where you live. You have to live somewhere, even if it's in a trash can. Why do you continue to confound this with talking about people going to school where they don't have "residency"? In Colorado, anyone may apply to open-enroll in any school in any district, but that is not the case in every state.
I'm really getting angry about you putting words in my mouth, Chatteress. No matter how many times I say that's not what I'm saying, you come back with another post that says I am.
I'm saying, there are many conservatives who obviously don't realize how much of a subsidy their kids are getting from other people to get their public education. Perhaps that should put a new light on paying taxes. Sometimes, paying taxes can contribute to the public good.
I am not against paying taxes but you refuse to admit that those taxes help pay for public school, which means it is not free. Free means you pay NOTHING for it, not taxes, not tuition, not fees NOTHING. That is free, public schools are NOT free.
No. But they will be able to go to school where you live. You have to live somewhere, even if it's in a trash can.
But SOMEONE is paying for it. What is so hard for you to get about that. Free is just that free does not cost you one cent. Public schools cost people money, which means it's not free.
Quote:
Why do you continue to confound this with talking about people going to school where they don't have "residency"? In Colorado, anyone may apply to open-enroll in any school in any district, but that is not the case in every state.
Not the case in NJ. You HAVE to live in the town to go to school there but it still comes back to the point that SOMEONE is paying for it so it is not free. Maybe it is free to the people that as you say live in a trash can but it is not free to the rest of the tax payers.
I am not against paying taxes but you refuse to admit that those taxes help pay for public school, which means it is not free. Free means you pay NOTHING for it, not taxes, not tuition, not fees NOTHING. That is free, public schools are NOT free.
Your kids' ability to attend public schools is not predicated on your paying your taxes. You do not have to show your paid up tax receipts to enroll. You are not charged for them to attend.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Your kids' ability to attend public schools is not predicated on your paying your taxes. You do not have to show your paid up tax receipts to enroll. You are not charged for them to attend.
Just because you don't have to show proof of payment does not negate your responsibility to pay your taxes, which fund the public schools.
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.
