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.
I went to Catholic School the whole way, my parents paid for it. They also paid taxes that sent other kids to public school. That's the other side of vouchers, and why I tend to agree with them. Parents who send their kids to private schools should get a tax credit for paying for a seat their kids will never sit in.
People who are catholic and want to send their kids to catholic schools should get their welfare subsidies from the pope.
There's a lot of non-catholic kids in the schools because they tend to be the most affordable private schools in NYC. And again, it's not welfare when the parents are paying taxes for public school seats they will never use. Disagree on rational terms and maybe I'd understand, but your response was just hyperbole.
I'm actually more for vouchers based on ideological grounds. NYC public schools are the most radical public schools in the nation. There's plenty of hardworking tax payers who would prefer not to subject their children to NYC's teachers. There's no way in hell I'm allowing my kids to be in NYC schools after maybe 5th grade. We'll probably move out of the city though rather than stay and use private schools.
(and if you need a perspective on my religious views, just read the threads that toll started yesterday).
Vouchers are a backdoor way of resegregating schools both by race and by "class." Thus in any parlance, they STINK.
Private schools = private money.
Public scholos = public tax money.
The rich can pay to support the public schools and have enough left over to sent Tiffany and Bryce to Andover. If they don't like the system let them move abroad.
There's a lot of non-catholic kids in the schools because they tend to be the most affordable private schools in NYC. And again, it's not welfare when the parents are paying taxes for public school seats they will never use. Disagree on rational terms and maybe I'd understand, but your response was just hyperbole.
I'm actually more for vouchers based on ideological grounds. NYC public schools are the most radical public schools in the nation. There's plenty of hardworking tax payers who would prefer not to subject their children to NYC's teachers. There's no way in hell I'm allowing my kids to be in NYC schools after maybe 5th grade. We'll probably move out of the city though rather than stay and use private schools.
(and if you need a perspective on my religious views, just read the threads that toll started yesterday).
Don't know whether you will consider it "rational"( you probably won't) but here is my "rational" response and I think it's totally "rational".
I think religion....all religion....is a cancer and is at the root of all of the problems of the world.
I would strongly object to any public tax money being used to support schools that have any kind of a religious background or affiliation whatsoever.
If jews,catholics,protestants, muslims,hindi,buddhist,sikhs or whatever want to send their kids to religious schools for indoctrination ,in order to create armies of bigots to continue their wars and jihads with each other, they should pay for it themselves or those schools should be free to the faithful,supported by the hierarchy such as the pope and archbishop.
Do you think our tax dollars should be used to pay for muslim children to go to madrassa schools ?
I have no objection to public school parents getting vouchers to use at other public on non religiously affiliated charter schools.
By the way,I was born a catholic and went to catholic grammar school so I know all about the indoctrination process.
Again, for my religious views, check the threads from yesterday. I only mentioned catholic schools to give a perspective on my reasoning: tax paying parents like mine were (ones that don't live on and are looked down on on the UES where Kefir and his distorted world view reside), are paying for seats in public schools and not using them, a net savings for tax payers. Any voucher system that seeks to benefit lower income families by helping them put their kids in private schools should address the many middle class families in the situation I described. Middle class families are the ones bearing the brunt of US/NYS/NYC tax policy. Reality is that many middle class families try to use private schools for varied reasons.
Re-read your response with an eye for rational debate and you'll maybe understand why I labeled it as such. This forum can rarely support an interesting discussion because of how quickly hyperbole becomes the predominate debate tactic.
Though I think in this case, everyone who pays taxes would get a voucher including those who are willing to sacrifice.
Including those who have no children ? Can people with no kids get an equal straight tax deduction ? How many vouchers or tax deductions do we get ? Just one or the average of the number of vouchers given out to a family ? If abstaining from from contributing to the strains on the public coffers by not procreating do we get a single $8,500 Tax Deduction OR 1.5 OR 2 ?
Would there be a limit on the number of vouchers per family ? If I had only 1 kid and were getting only 1 voucher I would strenuously object to having to subsidize the 5 vouchers for my next door neighbors.
What difference will it make to those who have no children? They will still be paying taxes to PS or vouchers regardless. And if it brings down the cost of education (which it likely will since costs per student in prochial schools are lower than public schools), it actually benefits them in the end.
What difference will it make to those who have no children? They will still be paying taxes to PS or vouchers regardless. And if it brings down the cost of education (which it likely will since costs per student in prochial schools are lower than public schools), it actually benefits them in the end.
Because the glue that has always bound together the whole concept of tax dollars going to support education at all is the concept of PUBLIC (non sectarian) EDUCATION.Once you step away from the commitment to PUBLIC EDUCATION the glue dissolves .
It matters because there are many of us who believe in paying for PUBLIC EDUCATION but who do not believe in any kind of sectarian education .I don't feel that it benefits me or the world in any way whatsoever to brainwash kids into various religious views, even if it costs less.
Actually,it feels like the glue that has held the commitment to PUBLIC EDUCATION( and the societal agreement to tax for that purpose) together for the last 150 years is already beginning to dissolve.Even science is now beginning to viewed as sectarian.If it's( the glue) going to dissolve, it might be best to let it dissolve completely and revert to the way things were before.Don't forget that the whole notion of taxing to pay for PUBLIC EDUCATION was considered very radical when it was first instituted in Boston.Quite controversial.It really is a socialistic concept.
Last edited by bluedog2; 10-21-2012 at 10:50 AM..
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.
