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 YEAH osugirl2 NOW you are thinkin! But it is far too logical, and logic won't fly here in babyland. The parunts would all be screaming foul and it most certainly would not get the legislature's support. Oh well, thanks for trying. I like it but most won't. But it sure is fair to say the least. As I've said before I'd pass on the "village" mentality. I prefer those become responsible for their lives as they make and live them, not everyone at large. We are supposed to be a land of the free as in making our OWN decisions and living our OWN lives, not having to be connected by the hip to those that are living another lifestyle than ours and having US pay for it. That was my entire point. This whole "greater good" mentality doesn't sit with me. It's called "Socialism". I preferred to leave that to History and Russia thanks............
I honestly think that if it were to be done that way, the schools would get more money and the children would get better educations. It would also make parents think twice about family planning and having children they cannot afford. I don't mind chipping in for some things. If my taxes were going to go toward education, I would rather it supplement scholarships for doctors and teachers....those who are deserving, do well in school and plan on serving the community. Of course the argument could be made that they have to get through grade and high school first before college, but if parents were willing to share the burden early on to educate their children, I would be willing to fork out money through taxes for children to receive a higher education, because that way there would be stipulations to receiving the money. The individual would have to take a certain amount of hours and have to maintain a certain gpa and that way I could ascertain that my tax dollars were going to develop a future productive member of society.
See, once again you are applying the logical and intelligent approach. Rewards based on PERFORMANCE and not just throwing money at someone hoping it sticks. This is the area I have an issue with the gal that moderates this forum. I too am NOT for global support but rather support IF there is performance. I have seen evidence that some of the charter schools (not all) have shown their ability to provide superior educational results. They should indeed be accordingly funded. But just cranking out new schools due to the burgeoning population is a bit nuts (with it's attendant higher taxation). For example, If I elected to have 3 dogs in my home, I have to fully expect to have higher maintenance costs along with additional food and vet costs. This is no different than having human kids. They too come with those additional costs. Schools should also be viewed, IMHO, as additional costs to THOSE that choose to burden those systems, not the global shotgun approach of today. HOWEVER if Belle's approach that we should help to be responsible for tomorrows doctors and scientists, I say do it WHEN and ONLY WHEN they prove worthy of the additional "investment". NOT all will qualify to be of this caliber no matter HOW you educate them. I consider the grade and high school to be a "weeding out" ground for this as if they are not capable of moving on to this higher level which doctors and scientists would require, than no "outside" investment should be handed to them. Technically speaking, NOBODY is "entitled" to an education higher than High School. It is a privilege pure and simple. Privileges should be handed out based on "PERFORMANCE", not automatically.
See, once again you are applying the logical and intelligent approach. Rewards based on PERFORMANCE and not just throwing money at someone hoping it sticks. This is the area I have an issue with the gal that moderates this forum. I too am NOT for global support but rather support IF there is performance. I have seen evidence that some of the charter schools (not all) have shown their ability to provide superior educational results. They should indeed be accordingly funded. But just cranking out new schools due to the burgeoning population is a bit nuts (with it's attendant higher taxation). For example, If I elected to have 3 dogs in my home, I have to fully expect to have higher maintenance costs along with additional food and vet costs. This is no different than having human kids. They too come with those additional costs. Schools should also be viewed, IMHO, as additional costs to THOSE that choose to burden those systems, not the global shotgun approach of today. HOWEVER if Belle's approach that we should help to be responsible for tomorrows doctors and scientists, I say do it WHEN and ONLY WHEN they prove worthy of the additional "investment". NOT all will qualify to be of this caliber no matter HOW you educate them. I consider the grade and high school to be a "weeding out" ground for this as if they are not capable of moving on to this higher level which doctors and scientists would require, than no "outside" investment should be handed to them. Technically speaking, NOBODY is "entitled" to an education higher than High School. It is a privilege pure and simple. Privileges should be handed out based on "PERFORMANCE", not automatically.
well then dcisive, you are not alone on this forum on this issue, because you and I are in agreement.
So, in other words, the whole burden of educating children would fall only on those who have kids in school?
I see this as problematic for a number of reasons:
1. Lots of people besides parents with kids in school benefit from public education. All of us benefit if we have an informed citizenry that is able to read and write and is employable. People who are employed pay taxes that support government programs for all categories of people. Therefore it is not wrong to ask all to provide some support for education.
2. The revenue that your tuition program would raise would be uncertain at best. I suspect that to get anywhere enough money to support the school system that you'd have to make the very lowest income adjusted tuition rather high to run any school system at all. What would you do with people who couldn't afford the payments?
3. It strikes me that some people would unduly suffer under the system you have described above. I think of the divorced mother trying to raise 3 or more children who isn't collecting child support from her ex-husband. She'd be stuck with quite a burden.
4. If we don't have enough revenue to support decent quality schools everyone--not just the kids in the school--suffer as a result. Our citizens will be less employable, less knowledgable, and our state would than stand out as being a particularly ignorant place. Companies and businesses might make decisions not to locate here based on what they know about the educational system.
I think we should ask people with large families to kick in more dollars for education than we do under the current system. However, the idea that schools should be solely funded by people with kids in school is wrong.
Perhaps it would be wise to seek advice from other States that have made their systems work without overburdening the public at large. I've lived in several States, NONE of which had particular issues funding their school systems and they didn't have such a focus on heavy taxation for their educational systems. They just worked within the tax base provided. Here it just seems as if it's an entity of it's own, never funded ENOUGH like a bottomless hole. Perhaps the kiddy population levels here compared to other places around the country have something to do with this. IF that is the case indeed MORE of that burden MUST be carried by those that populate the system most. Only THAT is fair..........
I understand the concept that an educated child will hopefully, eventually be a working member of society paying taxes to fund SS (if it's still there) and other social programs.
I love the idea of a performance based/scholarship type prorgram to fund higher education. I wouldn't mind paying some form of a tax for that. I don't understand why a portion of funding for education has to come from property taxes.
I also see a problem as I get older, my property taxes will go up but my income once I retire will not stretch as far.
If people have more than say, 2.5 kids (obviously that's an average not an actual) then they should contribute more money to educate them. People should not be having children if they can't afford to take care of them and educate them. I've heard parents whining about the lack of education funding and wondered if they would be so quick to give up their child tax credits and additional child tax credits to educate their kids. I don't get those tax credits because I don't have kids. Yet I have to pay for those kids to get an education?
Don't some states use lottery money to fund education?
So, in other words, the whole burden of educating children would fall only on those who have kids in school?
I see this as problematic for a number of reasons:
1. Lots of people besides parents with kids in school benefit from public education. All of us benefit if we have an informed citizenry that is able to read and write and is employable. People who are employed pay taxes that support government programs for all categories of people. Therefore it is not wrong to ask all to provide some support for education.
2. The revenue that your tuition program would raise would be uncertain at best. I suspect that to get anywhere enough money to support the school system that you'd have to make the very lowest income adjusted tuition rather high to run any school system at all. What would you do with people who couldn't afford the payments?
3. It strikes me that some people would unduly suffer under the system you have described above. I think of the divorced mother trying to raise 3 or more children who isn't collecting child support from her ex-husband. She'd be stuck with quite a burden.
4. If we don't have enough revenue to support decent quality schools everyone--not just the kids in the school--suffer as a result. Our citizens will be less employable, less knowledgable, and our state would than stand out as being a particularly ignorant place. Companies and businesses might make decisions not to locate here based on what they know about the educational system.
I think we should ask people with large families to kick in more dollars for education than we do under the current system. However, the idea that schools should be solely funded by people with kids in school is wrong.
If you look at my posts after the first one, you'll see that I am in favor of funding higher education rather than grade and high school. That way we are covering the benefit society receives from an educated person issue. Doing things this way will encourage parents to push their children to do well in school so that they can go on to college, and if taxes are helping to fund a college education society will be well educated and the individuals will have more income potential in the future. I don't feel the revenue would be uncertain because in order for your child to go to school you have to pay. If we are taxing people less, individuals will have more income at their disposal to put toward there children's education. If a single mom with three children isn't collecting child support, she needs to file a complaint with DHS and get it resolved. They will be giving her assistance with daycare, housing and food if she has a job or is going to school, and if she goes to school to further her education her income potential will increase as well. My divorced best friend with two children works 35 hours per week and receives food and daycare assistance, because she's not getting child support right now and she has more disposible income than I do, so honestly I'm not worried about someone in that scenario because their options to receive help and better themselves are bountiful. Doing things this way also ensures that families with several children are paying the most. If one doesn't want to pay tuition, don't have a bunch of children, or opt to homeschool your children. Go ahead and let some taxes cover maintenance and fund the school structure and let tuition pay for staff, supplies and such. Even if we did a 50/50 (private pay/taxes) system it would take a large burden off the tax system. Honestly some people probably would suffer under the system, but no matter what you do, someone is going to suffer. The best that can be done is to mitigate the suffering and make the system as fair as possible.
I understand the concept that an educated child will hopefully, eventually be a working member of society paying taxes to fund SS (if it's still there) and other social programs.
I love the idea of a performance based/scholarship type prorgram to fund higher education. I wouldn't mind paying some form of a tax for that. I don't understand why a portion of funding for education has to come from property taxes.
I also see a problem as I get older, my property taxes will go up but my income once I retire will not stretch as far.
If people have more than say, 2.5 kids (obviously that's an average not an actual) then they should contribute more money to educate them. People should not be having children if they can't afford to take care of them and educate them. I've heard parents whining about the lack of education funding and wondered if they would be so quick to give up their child tax credits and additional child tax credits to educate their kids. I don't get those tax credits because I don't have kids. Yet I have to pay for those kids to get an education?
Don't some states use lottery money to fund education?
Oklahoma uses a lottery to fund education, but to be perfectly honest, it hasn't appeared to help at all. The education budget keeps getting cut every year, teachers are having to be let go and programs are going away. A lottery doesn't appear to be the answer; at least in Oklahoma
If you look at my posts after the first one, you'll see that I am in favor of funding higher education rather than grade and high school. That way we are covering the benefit society receives from an educated person issue. Doing things this way will encourage parents to push their children to do well in school so that they can go on to college, and if taxes are helping to fund a college education society will be well educated and the individuals will have more income potential in the future. I don't feel the revenue would be uncertain because in order for your child to go to school you have to pay. If we are taxing people less, individuals will have more income at their disposal to put toward there children's education. If a single mom with three children isn't collecting child support, she needs to file a complaint with DHS and get it resolved. They will be giving her assistance with daycare, housing and food if she has a job or is going to school, and if she goes to school to further her education her income potential will increase as well. My divorced best friend with two children works 35 hours per week and receives food and daycare assistance, because she's not getting child support right now and she has more disposible income than I do, so honestly I'm not worried about someone in that scenario because their options to receive help and better themselves are bountiful. Doing things this way also ensures that families with several children are paying the most. If one doesn't want to pay tuition, don't have a bunch of children, or opt to homeschool your children. Go ahead and let some taxes cover maintenance and fund the school structure and let tuition pay for staff, supplies and such. Even if we did a 50/50 (private pay/taxes) system it would take a large burden off the tax system. Honestly some people probably would suffer under the system, but no matter what you do, someone is going to suffer. The best that can be done is to mitigate the suffering and make the system as fair as possible.
If we did adopt the system that I think you are proposing, Utah would be the only state in the country to have something like it. I'm not certain it would be constitutional. There is a US Supreme Court case which has made it clear that states have an obligation to adequately fund a primary school system for students.
The notion that you could fund primary schools simply based on tuition payments for individual students is a flawed one at best. (I think that is what you are advocating). It would be a system in which well-to-do people had no problems educating their kids and one in which poor families would struggle dearly to meet the expenses of sending their children to school.
My example of the divorced mother trying to raise children on her on own is unfortunately a very common occurrence. Neither private attorneys or government agencies like ORS have been very been effective in collecting back child support as you would suggest they are. National statistics indicate that as much as 50% of child support awarded by courts goes unpaid.
I think colleges and universities would be among the most ardent opponents of your plan. They want students educated and prepared to do college level work upon admission to their institutions. A system which would inevitably reduce funding for primary schools is not going to do a better job preparing kids to go to college.
What many seem to miss is that by not accepting that education is at least partially a societal responsibility is that uneducated students will end up costing them in the end anyway. Uneducated people are more likely to end up in prison, more likely to require job training later on in their life, more likely to collect unemployment benefits, and more likely to have issues with drugs or alcohol which impose external costs on society.
The area that I do share some agreement with you and dcsive about is that I think families with lots of children should pay more than what they currently do for education. Perhaps, we should have more student fees than we do and be less willing to grant waivers from those fees? I think raising the sales tax on food is a good idea because its a tax that these families cannot avoid paying. I also would like to do more culturally to discourage people from having large families. However, that is a long-term issue that inevitably offends alot of people here in this state.
What many seem to miss is that by not accepting that education is at least partially a societal responsibility is that uneducated students will end up costing them in the end anyway. Uneducated people are more likely to end up in prison, more likely to require job training later on in their life, more likely to collect unemployment benefits, and more likely to have issues with drugs or alcohol which impose external costs on society.
The area that I do share some agreement with you and dcsive about is that I think families with lots of children should pay more than what they currently do for education. Perhaps, we should have more student fees than we do and be less willing to grant waivers from those fees? I think raising the sales tax on food is a good idea because its a tax that these families cannot avoid paying. I also would like to do more culturally to discourage people from having large families. However, that is a long-term issue that inevitably offends alot of people here in this state.
To this I am heartily in agreement. I merely stated that it is primarily the "excessive" burden on the taxpayers at large, from the excessively large families that makes for this rather slanted and unfair level of taxation without representation. I am by NO means against "some" taxes going towards support of the general education at levels below college levels. I still do feel however that college is a "privilege" and not one which should be taken lightly. It is clear in many if not most cases, that the children going to college will have to work extra hard to be able to financially get to and through college level courses. I also agree it is pretty obvious that while it might appear to be a bit of a "targeted" comment, it is self explanatory that the suggestion that larger families pay more would be offensive. We know all too well where we live and the large family mandate that follows here. Still, it doesn't mean we can't be viewing this from a "logical" state of mind instead of a religiously mandated state of mind. I stand behind the model "if YOU have them, YOU pay for them, YOU raise them and be responsible for them". I didn't sign on for them....they're all yours thanks
Last edited by dcisive; 11-19-2009 at 11:50 AM..
Reason: accentuate quote
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.
