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.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Responsible people who only have kids they can afford (or not at all because they can't afford them) be rewarded with lower taxes? Why not tax people the more kids they have, since they're such a drain on resources?
Obviously that's taking it to the logical extreme and only slightly facetious, but I also believe in eugenics.
Seriously though, don't have kids you can't afford. Don't have kids if you don't have a 3-digit IQ either. Taxing people without kids would be both absurd and encourage more people to have kids they can't afford.
I agree with the don't have kids if you can't afford them, but after skimming this thread I've noticed a lot of people who don't have kids and gripe about the school taxes fail to take into account the benefits of being zoned to a good public school. Those often include
1) Professional, or at least financially secure neighbors who have kids and want them to go to a good public school
2) Higher resale values due to increased demand
3) Harder to prove, but a case could be made for lower crime rates, better roads, faster emergency response as the added tax base often results in other tangible benefits in city services.
In short, you get what you pay for. Don't like spending a lot of money on schools when you don't have kids? Move to a neighborhood with crappy schools. I'm sure you'll love it there. I have two kids who are too young for school, but I'm stuck in a neighborhood with a high taxable base but a crappy public school because they bus in kids from other parts of town. I probably have a better reason to b*tch & moan, but I don't because I understand the basic premise that if I pay some money to educate a child, there's a reduced chance that child will grow up to be the type who shoots me for my wallet.
One more thing, people complain about not having kids, well the Baby Boomers didn't have enough so that ponzi scheme that is Social Security is now up the actuarial creek. I forget the specifics, but it's soon going to have more recipients than donors, if it doesn't already. Yeah, you guys are gonna get screwed. I am too, but at least I'm not deluding myself into thinking otherwise & can plan accordingly since I still have 25-30 years left to work. Maybe more if my wife keeps blowing through my cash :P
I agree with the don't have kids if you can't afford them, but after skimming this thread I've noticed a lot of people who don't have kids and gripe about the school taxes fail to take into account the benefits of being zoned to a good public school. Those often include
1) Professional, or at least financially secure neighbors who have kids and want them to go to a good public school
2) Higher resale values due to increased demand
3) Harder to prove, but a case could be made for lower crime rates, better roads, faster emergency response as the added tax base often results in other tangible benefits in city services.
In short, you get what you pay for. Don't like spending a lot of money on schools when you don't have kids? Move to a neighborhood with crappy schools. I'm sure you'll love it there. I have two kids who are too young for school, but I'm stuck in a neighborhood with a high taxable base but a crappy public school because they bus in kids from other parts of town. I probably have a better reason to b*tch & moan, but I don't because I understand the basic premise that if I pay some money to educate a child, there's a reduced chance that child will grow up to be the type who shoots me for my wallet.
One more thing, people complain about not having kids, well the Baby Boomers didn't have enough so that ponzi scheme that is Social Security is now up the actuarial creek. I forget the specifics, but it's soon going to have more recipients than donors, if it doesn't already. Yeah, you guys are gonna get screwed. I am too, but at least I'm not deluding myself into thinking otherwise & can plan accordingly since I still have 25-30 years left to work. Maybe more if my wife keeps blowing through my cash :P
Except the outrageous cost of educating a kid, taking into account the increase over the past 50 years, has no correlation with educational performance. So you really don't get what you pay for. Throwing money at things isn't an answer, and it's what we do across the country, because nobody is willing to tell the school districts to really straighten themselves out. Bureaucracy never cuts itself.
I'd bet money you could cut school funding 40% and schools would be better run. Much of the increase is useless bureaucracy. The average teaching to non-teaching ratio in the 1950s was roughly 240 - 100. For all states since then that's gone the opposite direction. Mine in 2008 was 100 - 140 (when you have more non-teaching then teaching persons you know you have a problem). In constant dollars we were spending $3500 per child. It's close to $14,000 today. Test scores? The same.
It's at all levels. My last year it college; cut student funding half a million, teachers without contracts/raises for 2 years, administration gets 3% raises, hire more administrators. The administrators at the school were some of the most inept ones I ever met.
Last edited by LordSquidworth; 04-02-2014 at 12:50 PM..
Wouldn't make sense to make parents pay higher taxes since by having children using the public facilities like school and such they are placing a higher demand for tax funded infrastructure than non parents? Thats the common sense thing. Of course in america, those whose rely on the government the least pay the most.
And how would YOU have benefitted if YOUR parents had been taxed much higher for having YOU?
There are already enormous tax giveaways for having kids. You get an extra deduction, a child tax credit, and if you're lower income, the EITC. People with kids routinely walk away with thousands of dollars in "free" money. And then the government spends thousands more per child for public schools. In many cases, the government even provides lunch and transportation. Then those same people have the gall to unironically complain about "welfare." I don't know what else the government could possibly do.
EXACTLY. Parents are already subsidized enough for having kids.
Want to tax me even more? OK then..... when I get old.....send your kid over to mow my lawn or shovel my driveway or take me to the doctor, take care of me when I am ill, etc., etc., etc..... all of the things your children will do for you for free when you are old and need help.....things I normally would have to pay your kid to do for me. Why should I have to pay them for help, considering I sacrificed so much of my earnings to raise them?
Parents reap untold rewards for having children that they are not going to share with me.
I already pay more tax than people with children.....how about letting me keep enough of my own money to pay for the services your children will provide to you for free someday?
Except the outrageous cost of educating a kid, taking into account the increase over the past 50 years, has no correlation with educational performance. So you really don't get what you pay for. Throwing money at things isn't an answer, and it's what we do across the country, because nobody is willing to tell the school districts to really straighten themselves out. Bureaucracy never cuts itself.
I'd bet money you could cut school funding 40% and schools would be better run. Much of the increase is useless bureaucracy. The average teaching to non-teaching ratio in the 1950s was roughly 240 - 100. For all states since then that's gone the opposite direction. Mine in 2008 was 100 - 140 (when you have more non-teaching then teaching persons you know you have a problem). In constant dollars we were spending $3500 per child. It's close to $14,000 today. Test scores? The same.
It's at all levels. My last year it college; cut student funding half a million, teachers without contracts/raises for 2 years, administration gets 3% raises, hire more administrators. The administrators at the school were some of the most inept ones I ever met.
I agree with part of what you're saying. On the one hand we spend a LOT per child on education, but if you look at the details, we have a much harder population (sociologically & economically heterogeneous) to educate than most Westernized countries. That said, I'm certain we're wasting money on teachers contracts. I'm all for pay for performance to a degree, but my wife and I are seriously considering putting our kids in private schools to avoid the whole Teach to the Test mindset that seems to plague all of the "good" public schools near us. Despite the fact we pay some pretty heavy property taxes! (It's safe to say my wife and I waited until we could afford to have kids before doing so. Hope that appeases some of the posters here).
Honestly, I'm certain if we got a room full of parents and academics who study educational policies, we could hash out something better than what the school admins & teacher union reps would give us. The difference is those two parties have stopped placing the education of our youth as the priority and have become cronies to their own self interest. Back to the topic of the thread, I still maintain there are benefits that folks who pay for schools are getting that they aren't considering when writing about their grievances.
I agree with part of what you're saying. On the one hand we spend a LOT per child on education, but if you look at the details, we have a much harder population (sociologically & economically heterogeneous) to educate than most Westernized countries. That said...
"that said" my patootie.
Dealing constructively with that social welfare issue is the ONLY problem.
But it absolutely should not be a work or monetary burden of the schools.
If dealt with well... the remaining 70% or so children and their results
might actually resemble what functioning public schools used to brag on.
How much are you going to tolerate? And so people keep having more and you don't have a problem with that?
I am childless myself by chance and I am appalled at anyone thinking I should pay higher taxes. Parents already get a boat load of incentives. I shake my head when anyone thinks the child tax credit needs to be raised. Of course, kids are going to cost money, hence, the reason some people choose not to have them or postpone kids. Why should I subsidize another person's choice? Because it's PC? It's like calling for non-smokers to pay for the health care of smokers because they choose to smoke? America is youth obsessed. Why can't taxes take better care of our elderly who get kicked to the curb in a pro-natalist culture?
I am childless myself by chance and I am appalled at anyone thinking I should pay higher taxes. Parents already get a boat load of incentives. I shake my head when anyone thinks the child tax credit needs to be raised. Of course, kids are going to cost money, hence, the reason some people choose not to have them or postpone kids. Why should I subsidize another person's choice? Because it's PC? It's like calling for non-smokers to pay for the health care of smokers because they choose to smoke? America is youth obsessed. Why can't taxes take better care of our elderly who get kicked to the curb in a pro-natalist culture?
It's not PC. It's what some parents want because thing are not going well or they think the childless are getting away with what they are stuck with.
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.
