PDA

View Full Version : Education Should you get a tax refund if you send your kids to private school?


healthpellets
08-24-2010, 11:31 AM
So if you send your kids to private school (either religious or not), why should you not receive a tax refund or credit or something to offset the amount of property taxes you paid that directly fund the public schools?

FD
08-24-2010, 11:52 AM
What about people without kids at all? What you're suggesting is public education's funding come just from its users, and thus not public education at all. It would be tuition payments in the form of taxes.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 11:54 AM
http://i45.tinypic.com/1232z3s.jpg

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 11:54 AM
What about people without kids at all? What you're suggesting is public education's funding come just from its users, and thus not public education at all. It would be tuition payments in the form of taxes.

Seriously.............

I don't have kids, nor do I plan on them. Can I opt out completely?

healthpellets
08-24-2010, 11:58 AM
What about people without kids at all? What you're suggesting is public education's funding come just from its users, and thus not public education at all. It would be tuition payments in the form of taxes.

No its still public. Anyone can go.

vailpass
08-24-2010, 12:00 PM
Hell yes, in the form of vouchers. This year in tuition alone we will spend $27,500 on tuition for our 3 boys. I don't expect the state to compensate me for that but I want the tax money I paid for my kids to go to public school to be put toward my tuition.

vailpass
08-24-2010, 12:02 PM
What about people without kids at all? What you're suggesting is public education's funding come just from its users, and thus not public education at all. It would be tuition payments in the form of taxes.

It is to every citizen's benefit to have a public that has the basic skills learned in grade school and high school and college.
A person may not have kids but they still benefit from doctors, lawyers, engineers, sharing the roads with drivers who can read stops signs etc.

FD
08-24-2010, 12:04 PM
It is to every citizen's benefit to have a public that has the basic skills learned in grade school and high school and college.
A person may not have kids but they still benefit from doctors, lawyers, engineers, sharing the roads with drivers who can read stops signs etc.

I agree completely, that was my point. Public education is a public good and should be paid for by all taxpayers.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 12:04 PM
Hell yes, in the form of vouchers. This year in tuition alone we will spend $27,500 on tuition for our 3 boys. I don't expect the state to compensate me for that but I want the tax money I paid for my kids to go to public school to be put toward my tuition.

I want the tax money I paid for other kids to go to public school to be put toward paying off my car. I'm just sayin'..............

vailpass
08-24-2010, 12:07 PM
I want the tax money I paid for other kids to go to public school to be put toward paying off my car. I'm just sayin'..............

You benefit from education in other ways. The fact that you don't have children in the system preculded you from being able to utilize a voucher.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 12:08 PM
It is to every citizen's benefit to have a public that has the basic skills learned in grade school and high school and college.
A person may not have kids but they still benefit from doctors, lawyers, engineers, sharing the roads with drivers who can read stops signs etc.

So, since I paid for part of their education, can I get a discount for their services when I need them?

vailpass
08-24-2010, 12:09 PM
I agree completely, that was my point. Education is a public good and should be paid for by all taxpayers by sending their children to the school they deem appropriate along with a voucher representing their tax dollars.

Edited to reflect my view

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 12:10 PM
You benefit from education in other ways. The fact that you don't have children in the system preculded you from being able to utilize a voucher.

Right. But if it's partly my responsibility to fund other people's kids with an education, isn't it yours as well? Regardless of your own kids, and your own ability to pay for a better education for them, why do you get a pass on poor people's kids, but I don't? Because you have your own? That's just not a good enough reason IMO. IMO, if you can't afford to pay for your kids, don't have them, and I'm confident we agree on that front.

mlyonsd
08-24-2010, 12:14 PM
I voted no.

But start another poll in 3 years when the last of my kids is through HS and my yes vote could be bought if the price was right.

mnchiefsguy
08-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Schools are part of the community, so everyone should share in the costs. However, given the condition of most schools, if parents choose to send their children to private school, they should receive some vouchers, not necessarily for all of their taxes, but at least half. That seems like a fair compromise....the parents get some money back, and still contribute some to the system to maintain the public schools so that they are available to the community.

vailpass
08-24-2010, 12:21 PM
Right. But if it's partly my responsibility to fund other people's kids with an education, isn't it yours as well? Regardless of your own kids, and your own ability to pay for a better education for them, why do you get a pass on poor people's kids, but I don't? Because you have your own? That's just not a good enough reason IMO. IMO, if you can't afford to pay for your kids, don't have them, and I'm confident we agree on that front.


Sounds good Flop, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Taco John
08-24-2010, 12:22 PM
What about people without kids at all?

I see no reason for people without kids to pay for my kids education. My kids aren't their responsibility.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 12:23 PM
Schools are part of the community, so everyone should share in the costs. However, given the condition of most schools, if parents choose to send their children to private school, they should receive some vouchers, not necessarily for all of their taxes, but at least half. That seems like a fair compromise....the parents get some money back, and still contribute some to the system to maintain the public schools so that they are available to the community.

So, for people who don't have kids, should they get a portion of their public school money taxes back if they fall under a certain income bracket? For instance, if they make less money than over half the parents in their district who have kids in the system.

This system either needs to be entirely public, or entirely private IMHO.

FishingRod
08-24-2010, 12:23 PM
Uh, Can I borrow an F-22 or at least get a ride along once in a while?

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 12:25 PM
Sounds good Flop, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Totally fair, my friend. Your points have validity, the same way I think mine do. No worries, we can't all agree on everything.

I see no reason for people without kids to pay for my kids education. My kids aren't their responsibility.

I agree. I've made choices to not have children due to the financial, and time constraints they create. When I've made my money, I may change my mind. Until then though, I'm not going to burden society with them.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:32 PM
I am against vouchers because it will just get the govt, including the Fed, into the door to say they have to have this or that political correct curriculum and such and such.

I would prefer a tuition tax credit though. For those who think it creates a free ride when it pays for a private school....it does not. It only makes it less expensive. For instance I paid $8-9k for ten years and my property tax is only about $2800. So it only makes it less expensive. Every little bit helps though.

If one argues have an educated society benefits all, then why not? Competition would help achieve that better than a monopoly. It only displaces the funds to another school.

mnchiefsguy
08-24-2010, 12:34 PM
So, for people who don't have kids, should they get a portion of their public school money taxes back if they fall under a certain income bracket? For instance, if they make less money than over half the parents in their district who have kids in the system.

This system either needs to be entirely public, or entirely private IMHO.

I would be okay with those with no children getting a partial refund as well. The fact is, our tax dollars go to pay for things we don't necessarily agree with, and don't necessarily use, but benefit the community as a whole. I have no real problem with that, provided that the taxes are reasonable. That being said, taxes left the realm of being reasonable a long, long, time ago.

patteeu
08-24-2010, 12:39 PM
I am against vouchers because it will just get the govt, including the Fed, into the door to say they have to have this or that political correct curriculum and such and such.

I would prefer a tuition tax credit though. For those who think it creates a free ride when it pays for a private school....it does not. It only makes it less expensive. For instance I paid $8-9k for ten years and my property tax is only about $2800. So it only makes it less expensive. Every little bit helps though.

If one argues have an educated society benefits all, then why not? Competition would help achieve that better than a monopoly. It only displaces the funds to another school.

I'm against vouchers and tax credits for the same reason you're against vouchers and because both forms of subsidy will drive up the equilibrium cost of education.

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 12:40 PM
I voted no.

Public schools are, by definition, funded by the public. Private schools, also by definition, are not part of that equation.

If you want to send your kids to a private school, more power to you. But it's unreasonable to expect the government to subsidize it for you either by tax credits or vouchers.

alnorth
08-24-2010, 12:41 PM
no. The tax is intended to build and maintain a needed city service (public school). Whether you use it or not is not relevant.

If people who use private schools get a tax break, is it for the rest of their lives, or just those few years? If they plan to use private school in the future for planned children not born yet, can they stop paying? Why should people without kids pay this tax?

There is also an indirect benefit of a good quality public school, even if you have no kids. If your local school is good, you are less likely to have useless kids running around breaking s**t. You are more likely to have high-income successful families choose to move into your area.

I dont always vote yes on every little wish-list item the local schools beg for, but people who automatically vote no on every single school issue because they wont use it, they could be short-sightedly harming themselves. If your local school really, really sucks then property values are lower, crime could be higher, no one of substance wants to live in your area, etc.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:42 PM
I voted no.

Public schools are, by definition, funded by the public. Private schools, also by definition, are not part of that equation.

If you want to send your kids to a private school, more power to you. But it's unreasonable to expect the government to subsidize it for you either by tax credits or vouchers.
Wow! That's really ironic. The people paying property tax are subsidizing it for the govt. ( govt workers, real estate, materials, curriculum) as well as the the other people except you.

healthpellets
08-24-2010, 12:44 PM
I am against vouchers because it will just get the govt, including the Fed, into the door to say they have to have this or that political correct curriculum and such and such.

I would prefer a tuition tax credit though. For those who think it creates a free ride when it pays for a private school....it does not. It only makes it less expensive. For instance I paid $8-9k for ten years and my property tax is only about $2800. So it only makes it less expensive. Every little bit helps though.

If one argues have an educated society benefits all, then why not? Competition would help achieve that better than a monopoly. It only displaces the funds to another school.

education is within the domain of the states. so if the states want to issue vouchers and what not, go for it.

but the feds don't need to be involved in that.

FD
08-24-2010, 12:46 PM
I see no reason for people without kids to pay for my kids education. My kids aren't their responsibility.

So you don't support public education at all? Do you generally not believe in public goods or do you just not think education is a public good?

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:47 PM
no. The tax is intended to build and maintain a needed city service (public school). Whether you use it or not is not relevant.

If people who use private schools get a tax break, is it for the rest of their lives, or just those few years? If they plan to use private school in the future for planned children not born yet, can they stop paying? Why should people without kids pay this tax?

At least the duration of their child or children's education. I am basing this on the argument that public education benefits the society ( the collective). That was the fake reason given for it. ( when it was really started by Protestants who feared Roman Catholic church would one-up them because they educated their young in their parishes)

So if it does benefit the society and someone wants better quality, values etc then why not? That still provides the same so-called collective benefit. Why should any taxpayer subsidize what they consider garbage quality and politician indoctrination which is laced through most of it including literature and health curriculum.

luv
08-24-2010, 12:50 PM
No. Sending kids to private schools is a choice. If you can't afford it, then public schools are available. If you feel public schools are not good enough, or do not teach your child what you feel they should learn, then it's up to you to provide better for them.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:53 PM
education is within the domain of the states. so if the states want to issue vouchers and what not, go for it.

but the feds don't need to be involved in that.

You're preachin' to the choir regarding this being a state issue. However, it really was a much more local issue than that even—which is even better.

As for the Feds, they are already involved and have been since 1966, after which SAT scores began to plummet. That's when all the experimental stuff started in the schools. From there the Feds role has increased as we march on into socialism by slowly nationalizing the schools. Add in the Dept of Ed formed at the Fed level which RR promised to abolish. Some argue it's such a small amount of money, which is true at about 7%, but that small amount is used to control the schools with crap programs, including by passing the states going right to the local level. Those local schools want the money so they comply—much to their detriment imo.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 12:53 PM
I would be okay with those with no children getting a partial refund as well. The fact is, our tax dollars go to pay for things we don't necessarily agree with, and don't necessarily use, but benefit the community as a whole. I have no real problem with that, provided that the taxes are reasonable. That being said, taxes left the realm of being reasonable a long, long, time ago.

Amen.

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 12:54 PM
Wow! That's really ironic. The people paying property tax are subsidizing it for the govt. ( govt workers, real estate, materials, curriculum) as well as the the other people except you.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The issue is not who pays the taxes. The issue is whether the government should spend taxpayer dollars on a private service when it already spends taxpayer dollars on the same public service.

I know, the government already wastes trillions of dollars anyway, so what's the difference? But that's not really the issue.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:54 PM
No. Sending kids to private schools is a choice. If you can't afford it, then public schools are available. If you feel public schools are not good enough, or do not teach your child what you feel they should learn, then it's up to you to provide better for them.

No it's a RIGHT—a Natural Right....that is penalized in a free country.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:55 PM
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

The issue is not who pays the taxes. The issue is whether the government should spend taxpayer dollars on a private service when it already spends taxpayer dollars on the same public service.

I know, the government already wastes trillions of dollars anyway, so what's the difference? But that's not really the issue.

The issue should be who pays the taxes though. At the very least it unburdens the school's capacity load. I say it helps more than it harms.

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 12:56 PM
No it's a RIGHT—a Natural Right....that is penalized in a free country.
Sending kids to a private school may be a RIGHT, but that doesn't mean the government has to pay for it.

Garcia Bronco
08-24-2010, 12:56 PM
Not only yes, but hell yes.

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2010, 12:57 PM
No. Sending kids to private schools is a choice. If you can't afford it, then public schools are available. If you feel public schools are not good enough, or do not teach your child what you feel they should learn, then it's up to you to provide better for them.

LAME If people can get their kids a better education and tax payers get a break only a total die hard socialist would be against that.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 12:58 PM
Sending kids to a private school may be a RIGHT, but that doesn't mean the government has to pay for it.

The govt is not paying for it, the parent is. It just allocates it differently.
What isn't a RIGHT is that others have others pay for their children to be educated. That's a voted in benefit.

alnorth
08-24-2010, 12:58 PM
At least the duration of their child or children's education. I am basing this on the argument that public education benefits the society ( the collective). That was the fake reason given for it. ( when it was really started by Protestants who feared Roman Catholic church would one-up them because they educated their young in their parishes)

So if it does benefit the society and someone wants better quality, values etc then why not? That still provides the same so-called collective benefit. Why should any taxpayer subsidize what they consider garbage quality and politician indoctrination which is laced through most of it including literature and health curriculum.

I am in favor of some accountability for public schools. If a public school is a total disaster, the teachers cant or wont improve, the administration sucks, etc and all they care about is mailing it in and getting paid to shuffle through lousy students, then in some very limited circumstances you may need to help parents flee to a private school through vouchers. (This needs to be scientifically measured to eliminate outside influence like race and economics. Maybe use a value-added measurement where we see how kids test at 2nd grade, then test them again in 5th grade to see if they at least maintain their spot or improve on the bell curve vs kids at other schools.)

I'm only for vouchers to the extent that public schools shouldn't be allowed to take money from the taxpayers without an incentive to produce a good product. If the public school is not a disaster, then there is a public need to support that public school that benefits all who use or dont use it. It provides a decent public school for poor families. Let the private school cater to the wealthier families who want the awesome school instead of just an OK or decent school.

alnorth
08-24-2010, 01:00 PM
LAME If people can get their kids a better education and tax payers get a break only a total die hard socialist would be against that.

you benefit from a good public school vs a bad public school even if you dont use it.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 01:00 PM
I am in favor of some accountability for public schools. If a public school is a total disaster, the teachers cant or wont improve, the administration sucks, etc and all they care about is mailing it in and getting paid to shuffle through lousy students, then in some very limited circumstances you may need to help parents flee to a private school through vouchers. (This needs to be scientifically measured to eliminate outside influence like race and economics. Maybe use a value-added measurement where we see how kids test at 2nd grade, then test them again in 5th grade to see if they at least maintain their spot or improve on the bell curve vs kids at other schools.)

I'm only for vouchers to the extent that public schools shouldn't be allowed to take money from the taxpayers without an incentive to produce a good product. If the public school is not a disaster, then there is a public need to support that public school that benefits all who use or dont use it. It provides a decent public school for poor families. Let the private school cater to the wealthier families who want the awesome school instead of just an OK or decent school.

I am OPPOSED to VOUCHERS as these will wreck what private education because what govt funds, through taxes, they control. It is that type of control that hurts the public school's quality.

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 01:01 PM
One thing I fear is that providing tax refunds and/or vouchers to people who send their kids to private schools would divert money away from public schools, and eventually the public school system would fail.

Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. Maybe we'd be better off if all schools were private schools and a free market provided all education. But that's a pretty drastic change, and I think it would turn out bad.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 01:04 PM
One thing I fear is that providing tax refunds and/or vouchers to people who send their kids to private schools would divert money away from public schools, and eventually the public school system would fail.
As I suspected. What's wrong with that?

Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. Maybe we'd be better off if all schools were private schools and a free market provided all education. But that's a pretty drastic change, and I think it would turn out bad.

Hmmmmmm....good and bad are opinions. Depends on the bad and good.

alnorth
08-24-2010, 01:05 PM
I am OPPOSED to VOUCHERS as these will wreck what private education because what govt funds, through taxes, they control. It is that type of control that hurts the public school's quality.

Dont get me wrong, I think vouchers have to be pretty damned rare, but I support the use of vouchers just like I support the NCAA's right to impose the death penalty on a university's sports program. It has only happened once, but the colleges are so incredibly frightened of it happening again, that they try to comply.

Vouchers would basically destroy a school, but some schools are so bad with teachers (union, of course) who are so apathetic and care so little, that they need the threat of a death penalty that may never be used to at least try to improve.

Old Dog
08-24-2010, 01:05 PM
No. Sending kids to private schools is a choice. If you can't afford it, then public schools are available. If you feel public schools are not good enough, or do not teach your child what you feel they should learn, then it's up to you to provide better for them.

This

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 01:06 PM
Dont get me wrong, I think vouchers have to be pretty damned rare, but I support the use of vouchers just like I support the NCAA's right to impose the death penalty on a university's sports program. It has only happened once, but the colleges are so incredibly frightened of it happening again, that they try to comply.

Vouchers would basically destroy a school, but some schools are so bad with teachers (union, of course) who are so apathetic and care so little, that they need the threat of a death penalty that may never be used to at least try to improve.

I got that you support vouchers. I just don't.

BTW I am talking about vouchers destroying private schools with the strings attached to them from the govt. I could care less what it does to the public schools. Those strings are govt managing it through the back door and will lead to the same bad results.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 01:07 PM
This

That...








is so wrong in so many ways. :shake:

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 01:07 PM
As I suspected. What's wrong with that?

Society as a whole benefits when as many people as possible get some sort of education. Eliminating public schools could easily result in more young people getting very little education or no education at all.

Omaha
08-24-2010, 01:08 PM
No its still public. Anyone can go.

But you're suggesting that it will be paid for by those who are using it. So, basically funded by tuition rather than public funds, right?

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 01:08 PM
I could care less what it does to the public schools.
I'm thinking that you're not a fan of public schools.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 01:09 PM
Society as a whole benefits when as many people as possible get some sort of education.
Well, yeah but I already said that myself. This doesn't address who pays for it though.

Eliminating public schools could easily result in more young people getting very little education or no education at all.

That's what's happening right now.
I think you need to read up on the history of public education in America.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 01:11 PM
I'm thinking that you're not a fan of public schools.

Absolutely NOT! Where have you been around here?
I pretty much admitted in this thread that I've paid close to $90k for an elementary/middle school and 1.5 years of high school education for my daugther. I am now homeschooling her last two years—BECAUSE she won't even go to a public high school and I live 2 minutes from a top public high school in the country. I kinda figured her basics should be strong at this point to have her complete in one. But she flat out refused. After enrolling her again this summer, I just unenrolled her....particularly after I saw the reading list in English and the Health Curriculum etc. It took all I could to get her just to take an Honors Physics class in one under dual enrollment in our local school. I twisted her arm on that one though, because I don't have a lab or the ability to deliver that.

Old Dog
08-24-2010, 01:26 PM
If your daughter is the one ruling your roost and "flat out refused" to go to a school at that age (assuming 13-14 since it appears you're talking an advanced student in the first couple of years of high school) maybe you have bigger issues.

luv
08-24-2010, 01:29 PM
LAME If people can get their kids a better education and tax payers get a break only a total die hard socialist would be against that.

Where's my tax break?

Hydrae
08-24-2010, 01:43 PM
At least the duration of their child or children's education. I am basing this on the argument that public education benefits the society ( the collective). That was the fake reason given for it. ( when it was really started by Protestants who feared Roman Catholic church would one-up them because they educated their young in their parishes)

So if it does benefit the society and someone wants better quality, values etc then why not? That still provides the same so-called collective benefit. Why should any taxpayer subsidize what they consider garbage quality and politician indoctrination which is laced through most of it including literature and health curriculum.

We all fund things we may not like through our taxes. If you don't like the way things are now, work to change them don't just refuse to pay your fair share. If you get your way, the public schools and their end product (youth in America) will get even worse. That is not a solution, that is elitism.

I would agree with alnorth that the concern with vouchers is that it would take away from the revenue for the public school districts. This could lead to all kinds of unintended consequences such as suddenly finding at the beginning of the school year that there is not enough money to fund the year because the revenue they were counting (and budgeting) on has suddenly been diverted to private schools.

FYI, my kids are not in public school but are in a publicly funded charter school. I go out of my way to take them 15 miles each way on my way to and from work to accomplish this. I do this to allow them a better chance down the road. I am willing to put in extra effort for my kids but not all parents are able or willing to. The majority certainly are not in a position to afford a private school.

Taco John
08-24-2010, 02:12 PM
No. Sending kids to private schools is a choice. If you can't afford it, then public schools are available. If you feel public schools are not good enough, or do not teach your child what you feel they should learn, then it's up to you to provide better for them.


What about poor people who can't afford to provide better education for them because the state is taking their money to provide inadequate education? Why shouldn't they receive a voucher to try to send their kid to the school of their choice?

Taco John
08-24-2010, 02:14 PM
Sending kids to a private school may be a RIGHT, but that doesn't mean the government has to pay for it.

Who pays for government?

jiveturkey
08-24-2010, 02:18 PM
Can I get a tax refund if don't have kids?

If schools went completely private wouldn't that remove someone like me from the school tax system?

I'd be all for that.

Cave Johnson
08-24-2010, 02:24 PM
It's delicious, delicious irony that, generally, the same segment that's against extending UI benefits and other government "handouts" are for government subsidization of their private school tuition.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 02:44 PM
Public schools are like roads -- available for, and for the benefit of, the entire society. Whether you own a car or not, whether you choose to drive the car you ahve or not, or whether you only drive it up and down your own private driveway, you must pay for the roads.

And there's no use, or alternative use, discount. First, because it unnecessarily complicates the system. Second, becaues there's no more fairness in giving vouchers for private schools than in giving a discount for use-avoidance by not having children. Third, because a school system has high fixed costs, which are nto dependent on the number of children enrolled, so that the unenrollment of a few children does not result in much/any appreciable savings in cost to the school system. Fourth, because your local property taxes, which are the main source of public education costs, are a direct result of the town/city in which you CHOSE to live. Fifth, because using public funds to subsidize private schooling -- usually by the comparatively wealthy -- makes very little sense. Sixth, because employing a voucher system will increase the net tax burden on all other non-private school utilizing residents in the community.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but it comes down to this -- if you want to use private schools, you have every right, but that doesn't somehow result in a right to get some kind of tax credit any more than getting a tax credit for never having the fire department come to your house because it never catches on fire, or never using the roads because you're a public transit maven, or.....

Saul Good
08-24-2010, 03:08 PM
I'm against vouchers and tax credits for the same reason you're against vouchers and because both forms of subsidy will drive up the equilibrium cost of education.

How so? It's already 100% subsidized for public schools. Why wouldn't competition make it less expensive as private schools vie to provide more value?

Saul Good
08-24-2010, 03:13 PM
I am in favor of some accountability for public schools. If a public school is a total disaster, the teachers cant or wont improve, the administration sucks, etc and all they care about is mailing it in and getting paid to shuffle through lousy students, then in some very limited circumstances you may need to help parents flee to a private school through vouchers. (This needs to be scientifically measured to eliminate outside influence like race and economics. Maybe use a value-added measurement where we see how kids test at 2nd grade, then test them again in 5th grade to see if they at least maintain their spot or improve on the bell curve vs kids at other schools.)

I'm only for vouchers to the extent that public schools shouldn't be allowed to take money from the taxpayers without an incentive to produce a good product. If the public school is not a disaster, then there is a public need to support that public school that benefits all who use or dont use it. It provides a decent public school for poor families. Let the private school cater to the wealthier families who want the awesome school instead of just an OK or decent school.

The fact that "is not a disaster" is where you set the bar for public schools should prove that they don't work.

Saul Good
08-24-2010, 03:17 PM
No. Sending kids to private schools is a choice. If you can't afford it, then public schools are available. If you feel public schools are not good enough, or do not teach your child what you feel they should learn, then it's up to you to provide better for them.

I guess that depends on the purpose of spending tax dollars on education. Is the goal to provide the best education for the money, or is the goal to fund public education regardless of the results? It can't be both.

vailpass
08-24-2010, 03:19 PM
It's delicious, delicious irony that, generally, the same segment that's against extending UI benefits and other government "handouts" are for government subsidization of their private school tuition.

Applying your education tax dollars to the school which your children attend is NOT goverment subsidy.
But you know that.

vailpass
08-24-2010, 03:22 PM
Public schools are like roads -- available for, and for the benefit of, the entire society. Whether you own a car or not, whether you choose to drive the car you ahve or not, or whether you only drive it up and down your own private driveway, you must pay for the roads.

And there's no use, or alternative use, discount. First, because it unnecessarily complicates the system. Second, becaues there's no more fairness in giving vouchers for private schools than in giving a discount for use-avoidance by not having children. Third, because a school system has high fixed costs, which are nto dependent on the number of children enrolled, so that the unenrollment of a few children does not result in much/any appreciable savings in cost to the school system. Fourth, because your local property taxes, which are the main source of public education costs, are a direct result of the town/city in which you CHOSE to live. Fifth, because using public funds to subsidize private schooling -- usually by the comparatively wealthy -- makes very little sense. Sixth, because employing a voucher system will increase the net tax burden on all other non-private school utilizing residents in the community.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but it comes down to this -- if you want to use private schools, you have every right, but that doesn't somehow result in a right to get some kind of tax credit any more than getting a tax credit for never having the fire department come to your house because it never catches on fire, or never using the roads because you're a public transit maven, or.....


Wrong.
In AZ we get a $1000/year tax credit from the state taxes we pay towards our private school tuition.
Now all that is left to do is raise that amount to reflect today's tuition rates.

http://www.catholictuition.org/default.aspx

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:32 PM
It's delicious, delicious irony that, generally, the same segment that's against extending UI benefits and other government "handouts" are for government subsidization of their private school tuition.

That would be me without someone having the balls to quote me.

Here's the error in your post: that govt is subsidizing private school tuition when they took that family's private money at the outset and the property owner is just asking for part or all of it back to do exactly what the state wants to do with the money. If they were using the public schools then THAT would be subsidization.

This is typical of the left and progressives—one's own contributions/money is the state's money. It isn't. It's their money. That opinion is properly labeled as have a sense of property that's communistic.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:35 PM
Applying your education tax dollars to the school which your children attend is NOT goverment subsidy.
But you know that.

Exactly! But NO, those on that side of the argument don't know that.....they have NO sense of the origins of that money. Instead, it's the state's. :harumph:

Yet they balk at being called socialists or socialistic.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:37 PM
Public schools are like roads -- available for, and for the benefit of, the entire society.
Except not everyone uses them unlike roads or wants to use them...and most are forced to.

Using your argument one could say everyone uses food therefore food should be subsidized.

mlyonsd
08-24-2010, 03:39 PM
I'll bet if we actually got some value for what we spend on public education we wouldn't be discussing it now.

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 03:40 PM
Public schools are like roads -- available for, and for the benefit of, the entire society. Whether you own a car or not, whether you choose to drive the car you ahve or not, or whether you only drive it up and down your own private driveway, you must pay for the roads.

And there's no use, or alternative use, discount. First, because it unnecessarily complicates the system. Second, becaues there's no more fairness in giving vouchers for private schools than in giving a discount for use-avoidance by not having children. Third, because a school system has high fixed costs, which are nto dependent on the number of children enrolled, so that the unenrollment of a few children does not result in much/any appreciable savings in cost to the school system. Fourth, because your local property taxes, which are the main source of public education costs, are a direct result of the town/city in which you CHOSE to live. Fifth, because using public funds to subsidize private schooling -- usually by the comparatively wealthy -- makes very little sense. Sixth, because employing a voucher system will increase the net tax burden on all other non-private school utilizing residents in the community.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but it comes down to this -- if you want to use private schools, you have every right, but that doesn't somehow result in a right to get some kind of tax credit any more than getting a tax credit for never having the fire department come to your house because it never catches on fire, or never using the roads because you're a public transit maven, or.....
I'd say Amnorix pretty much hit the nail on the head.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:41 PM
If your daughter is the one ruling your roost and "flat out refused" to go to a school at that age (assuming 13-14 since it appears you're talking an advanced student in the first couple of years of high school) maybe you have bigger issues.

Are you talking to me? My daughter does not rule my roost....but if she is not going to be happy in a school then I wouldn't force it. I think a happy kid does better. She is loved by all her teachers and she is an easy child to handle while still being pretty popular among her peers. So don't make assumptions off an internet post. Most parents would love to have my daughter for a child. I attribute that to not forcing her to have to endure living in an authoritarian home.

Plus, the reason why was that too many of the public school kids, do what she considers "disgusting" things.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:42 PM
I'll bet if we actually got some value for what we spend on public education we wouldn't be discussing it now.

Agreed.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:43 PM
I'd say Amnorix pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Disagree....it's a typical socialist outlook. In fact, this is one way I would think Ds and Rs, conservatives and liberals could agree as a reasonable compromise.
I've see some Ds support it here even.

Taco John
08-24-2010, 03:45 PM
I'd say Amnorix pretty much hit the nail on the head.


Except for the fact that public schools are nothing like roads. It's children we're talking about, not apshalt. My kids are not your social experiment.

I'm talking about my son's education, not about the best access to get to Walmart.

A lot of middle income families would love to send their kids to private schools, and are just under the economic borderline to do so. They should be able to apply their tax money towards their own children. Period.

And further, the better schools should be receiving this money.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 03:57 PM
We all fund things we may not like through our taxes. If you don't like the way things are now, work to change them don't just refuse to pay your fair share.

I can't believe you even said THAT. "Refuse to pay my fair share?" What's fair to one isn't to another....but whoever said I didn't pay my fair share. Did I say that anywhere? Have I done that? NO, in fact I said and have done the opposite. This is a strawman you're using here.

My argument has to do not just with getting a break while not depriving the system, as it would never cover private tuition BUT about getting some quality into the schools by introducing competition. That IS an argument for society.

If you get your way, the public schools and their end product (youth in America) will get even worse. That is not a solution, that is elitism.[/quotge]
No that's just your opinion that it's elitism. The public school system as it currently exists wrecks youth in America now.

I'll repeat:
My argument has to do not just with getting a break while not depriving the system, as it would never cover private tuition BUT about getting some quality into the schools by introducing competition. That IS an argument for society.

I would agree with alnorth that the concern with vouchers is that it would take away from the revenue for the public school districts. This could lead to all kinds of unintended consequences such as suddenly finding at the beginning of the school year that there is not enough money to fund the year because the revenue they were counting (and budgeting) on has suddenly been diverted to private schools.
I think it's time to try some new things. But the above would happen only if the private schools delivered a better result. What's wrong with that?

I could argue you want to continue to fund mediocrity.

FYI, my kids are not in public school but are in a publicly funded charter school. I go out of my way to take them 15 miles each way on my way to and from work to accomplish this. I do this to allow them a better chance down the road. I am willing to put in extra effort for my kids but not all parents are able or willing to. The majority certainly are not in a position to afford a private school.
From age 6-15/16 I spent a total of one full day of driving my kid to her school. Plus I volunteered to help in their standards department in reading and other volunteer work. My daughter not only got a good education BUT a love of learning. That was my goal and that's what they promise with their program because they make it FUN and INTERESTING and they INDIVIDUALIZE for them instead of running them through a sausage machine.

If you think I could have afforded it...think again. I had to handle my ex on it on the grounds that her school went until 5PM and I would be able to make money instead of worrying and having to pick her up midday. I reasoned it really wouldn't have cost that much more over her part time day care we used up until school age. And we ditched the second car too. We split it....and I had to empty my bank account a few times. Toward the end, during the economic decline I borrowed some money to keep her there because she loved it and did well. Plus they gave me a small scholarship to help.

My original plan was that by HS, I would not have to pay anymore plus the state has BFA scholarships for college not funded by taxes but a lottery. I figured I was just paying on the young side as opposed to the older age side with her secondary and post-secondary education....by getting in strong basics. I did that because I've sat in on K reading level schools and was appalled at how they taught reading. They ruin them by Grade 3. I also would spy on schools to get syllabuses and was appalled at the crap about suicide they taught....and the news papers printed what I found. So I wanted strong basics that would set her up better for later, not be depressed kid, a druggie or a statist to the core.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:00 PM
Except for the fact that public schools are nothing like roads. It's children we're talking about, not apshalt. My kids are not your social experiment.

ROFL Excellent way of putting it.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:05 PM
Hydrae,
Now I have to drive her 20 minutes north of here for an 1.5 class; then drive her 40 minutes south to her dual enrollment in college class; then home; then at 7 PM drive her north again for 20 minutes to her other dual enrollment class on Mondays and Wednesdays. That's 4 trips for each as I have to return home for each leg. I though my taxi days were over......I'm gonna have to get her driving in the next month. It's time.

Brainiac
08-24-2010, 04:06 PM
Here's the error in your post: that govt is subsidizing private school tuition when they took that family's private money at the outset and the property owner is just asking for part or all of it back to do exactly what the state wants to do with the money. If they were using the public schools then THAT would be subsidization.

This is typical of the left and progressives—one's own contributions/money is the state's money. It isn't. It's their money. That opinion is properly labeled as have a sense of property that's communistic.
When governments allocate tax dollars to build schools and to pay all of the ongoing expenses, and when they allow the public to attend these schools, those schools are by definition public schools. It should be understood by all taxpayers that those schools are the schools that the government will pay for.

You may decide that the public schools suck. You may be 100% correct in that assessment. And you may decide to send your kids to private schools instead. That's certainly your right.

But to expect the government to pay for the private schools that you choose will inevitably result in the shifting of funds from the public schools to the private schools. When you do that, the public schools will suck even more. That's not a solution.

If public schools suck, the only real solution that a government should implement is to change things so that they don't suck. The government can't simply give tax credits to everyone who wants to pull their kids out of the public school system and enroll them in private schools. That would cause the public schools to fail.

Nobody is telling anyone that they MUST send their kids to public schools. It's your choice in a free society to send them to any school you want. But since we don't have an infinite supply of tax dollars, it's perfectly reasonable to say that tax dollars will be spent on public schools only. To spend tax dollars on private schools is a subsidy of the private schools, no matter how you twist the argument and change it to a discussion of who owned the money in the first place. It really doesn't matter where that money came from. As a general rule all tax dollars go into one general fund, and all expenses come from the same fund.

Whether or not you are over-taxed and whether or not the government should be taxing you in the first place is a completely different topic.

healthpellets
08-24-2010, 04:12 PM
It's delicious, delicious irony that, generally, the same segment that's against extending UI benefits and other government "handouts" are for government subsidization of their private school tuition.

i assume you mean unemployment benefits? not familiar with the term UI otherwise.

Applying your education tax dollars to the school which your children attend is NOT goverment subsidy.
But you know that.

you beat me to it.

point is simply that i pay property taxes to fund education. why not fund the education that i choose?

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:22 PM
When governments allocate tax dollars to build schools and to pay all of the ongoing expenses, and when they allow the public to attend these schools, those schools are by definition public schools.
Yeah....so? Nothing new here.

It should be understood by all taxpayers that those schools are the schools that the government will pay for.
This sounds authoritarian as in telling everyone how it has to be with those paying for it having no say.

You may decide that the public schools suck. You may be 100% correct in that assessment. And you may decide to send your kids to private schools instead. That's certainly your right.
We've had numerous education arguments in this forum....and at pain of reposting a repost....I don't necessarily feel all or just any private school is better either.

I think public schools are mediocre—not that they suck ( that's reserved for lower level reading and arithmetic). While I think there can be some improvement as they were better at one time,a large-scale public sausage-making system will never be excellent. It just can't. It has to be geared to averages. That doesn't mean smart kids won't still do better though but they may not be challenged on never be able to move onto more appropriate material for their abilities. It's a system that has to take everyone and it's workers are union.

But to expect the government to pay for the private schools that you choose will inevitably result in the shifting of funds from the public schools to the private schools. When you do that, the public schools will suck even more. That's not a solution.
I didn't say the government was expected to pay for private schools. I asked for a tuition tax credit was all. It's MY money—not the govt's.

If public schools suck, the only real solution that a government should implement is to change things so that they don't suck.
That will NEVER happen. Witness how many times we've heard the words "reform" which has always ended being window dressing for more dumbing down and pc correct curriculums so everybody thinks alike which is believing only govt can do certain things and there is no other way. Like this post and others like it.

The government can't simply give tax credits to everyone who wants to pull their kids out of the public school system and enroll them in private schools. That would cause the public schools to fail.
I disagree. It's just mind over matter.
I get the impression you depend on the public school for a living.

Nobody is telling anyone that they MUST send their kids to public schools. It's your choice in a free society to send them to any school you want. But since we don't have an infinite supply of tax dollars, it's perfectly reasonable to say that tax dollars will be spent on public schools only. To spend tax dollars on private schools is a subsidy of the private schools, no matter how you twist the argument and change it to a discussion of who owned the money in the first place. It really doesn't matter where that money came from. As a general rule all tax dollars go into one general fund, and all expenses come from the same fund.
Again, I asked for a tuition tax credit to do what the state does without my having a say in it. That's more freedom and less authoritarian.

Whether or not you are over-taxed and whether or not the government should be taxing you in the first place is a completely different topic.
'Er NO...not really. I don't believe I made any argument about being overtaxed on my property or that it taxes me in the first place. It's just that it's through property tax that education is paid for. So it's relevant to this debate. Since it is, then I would like a tuition tax credit, Lenin.

What will you ever do should a local area try a new way and it works out? Trust me competing for a living ain't all THAT bad.

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 04:30 PM
Public schools are like roads -- available for, and for the benefit of, the entire society. Whether you own a car or not, whether you choose to drive the car you ahve or not, or whether you only drive it up and down your own private driveway, you must pay for the roads.

And there's no use, or alternative use, discount. First, because it unnecessarily complicates the system. Second, becaues there's no more fairness in giving vouchers for private schools than in giving a discount for use-avoidance by not having children. Third, because a school system has high fixed costs, which are nto dependent on the number of children enrolled, so that the unenrollment of a few children does not result in much/any appreciable savings in cost to the school system. Fourth, because your local property taxes, which are the main source of public education costs, are a direct result of the town/city in which you CHOSE to live. Fifth, because using public funds to subsidize private schooling -- usually by the comparatively wealthy -- makes very little sense. Sixth, because employing a voucher system will increase the net tax burden on all other non-private school utilizing residents in the community.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but it comes down to this -- if you want to use private schools, you have every right, but that doesn't somehow result in a right to get some kind of tax credit any more than getting a tax credit for never having the fire department come to your house because it never catches on fire, or never using the roads because you're a public transit maven, or.....


Yep. Amnorix is correct.

If a person wants to avoid paying for public schools because they send their kids to private school, then a person who doesn't have kids shouldn't have to pay any taxes to fund schools. Is that really a good thing for society?

healthpellets
08-24-2010, 04:34 PM
Yep. Amnorix is correct.

If a person wants to avoid paying for public schools because they send their kids to private school, then a person who doesn't have kids shouldn't have to pay any taxes to fund schools. Is that really a good thing for society?

i dunno. would it be a bad thing if public schools were again one room schoolhouses due to lack of funding? probably not.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:35 PM
Yep. Amnorix is correct.
No that's his opinion which is neither correct or incorrect. I say it's incorrect as it's not apples to oranges quite.

If a person wants to avoid paying for public schools because they send their kids to private school, then a person who doesn't have kids shouldn't have to pay any taxes to fund schools. Is that really a good thing for society?

Well, yeah my ideal is that they'd all be private and each pays as they use.

But using your argument, the collectivist one that our system is based on and which most have bought into, no one here that I saw, at least not I, argued for "avoidance" in paying for public schools should they send their kids to a private school. It was just a tuition tax credit while their child was in a private school, NO different than those green credits that are so in vogue right now. I see this as a good thing for society as it introduces competition which makes the schools strive to deliver better service with better results. How can that harm society?

How does it harm society when those same parents continue to pay before their children use the schools or after? I know I didn't make that case.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:39 PM
i dunno. would it be a bad thing if public schools were again one room schoolhouses due to lack of funding? probably not.

That's how I feel. I think if more people read up on how public education really came into existence in America, the higher literacy level of people at one time before mass public education, and the fact that non publically funded schools had extra seats that were given to those who could not afford to attend they'd be surprised. I feel assured that the people can organized and develop systems to get their children educated still. In fact it really is the parent's responsibility—not the state's.

Hell, I think even the apprenticeship system with some post secondary or even secondary education combined would produced better quality. It's more hands on and real world. I think of those famous painters that were trained that way. If education is highly desired and valued those that desire and value it will find a way. Just look at how the home schooling movement has evolved with umbrella's schools and entering college and doing well there. In fact a homeschooler won a National Merit Scholarship this year.

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 04:39 PM
i dunno. would it be a bad thing if public schools were again one room schoolhouses due to lack of funding? probably not.

I'm all for small schools and think they're better for kids, but small schools cost more per pupil, not less. Cutting per-pupil funding will lead to larger public schools unless you're talking about a one-room school with 300 kids in it.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 04:40 PM
It's delicious, delicious irony that, generally, the same segment that's against extending UI benefits and other government "handouts" are for government subsidization of their private school tuition.

Absolutely. People can generally find a way to rationalize why they're entitled to something that no one else should be. And the fact that they already have more than most of the people they're railing against has no bearing either. It's another perfect example of why we're nothing more than animals. Evolved due to nothing but thumbs.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:43 PM
Absolutely. People can generally find a way to rationalize why they're entitled to something that no one else should be. And the fact that they already have more than most of the people they're railing against has no bearing either. It's another perfect example of why we're nothing more than animals. Evolved due to nothing but thumbs.

No one is rationalizing something no one else is entitled to. They all are entitled to do the same. They just have to decide to.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 04:43 PM
I'm all for small schools and think they're better for kids, but small schools cost more per pupil, not less. Cutting per-pupil funding will lead to larger public schools unless you're talking about a one-room school with 300 kids in it.

ROFL

Mr. Flopnuts
08-24-2010, 04:47 PM
No one is rationalizing something no one else is entitled to. They all are entitled to do the same. They just have to decide to.

I was relating it to people who rail against welfare queens, and UI extensions such as the OP had stated, all while asking for their own handout pertaining to their kids private education.

And I know enough about you to know that if you had it your way, you would pay for all of your kids education and I would pay for none. So the statement wasn't even remotely directed at you.

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 04:50 PM
Well, yeah my ideal is that they'd all be private and each pays as they use.

I'm as pro-privatization as they come, but I simply don't think it works for education. The cost is simply going to be too high for a significant portion of society, which means their child is going to be deprived of opportunities, which will then cause the cycle to repeat. I don't really think a permanent underclass is good for society.

But using your argument, the collectivist one that our system is based on and which most have bought into, no one here that I saw, at least not I, argued for "avoidance" in paying for public schools should they send their kids to a private school. It was just a tuition tax credit while their child was in a private school, NO different than those green credits that are so in vogue right now. I see this as a good thing for society as it introduces competition which makes the schools strive to deliver better service with better results. How can that harm society?

So your argument is that you don't think they should avoid taxes, but they should get a tax credit that lowers their taxes? I don't understand the difference.

How does it harm society when those same parents continue to pay before their children use the schools or after? I know I didn't make that case.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the taxes paid by parents don't make a difference? How is their tax money different from those paid by non-parents? If they can get a 12-year exemption because they choose to spend their money differently, then I should get a 12-year exemption because I chose to buy a big TV instead of having children.

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 04:53 PM
As an aside, I was going to say, "If people who choose private schools don't have to pay public school taxes because they make different consumer choices, then people who buy cars shouldn't have to pay for public transportation because they make different consumer choices." But then I realized that the latter statement makes a lot of sense, so I had to delete it.

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2010, 05:07 PM
you benefit from a good public school vs a bad public school even if you dont use it.

YOu are missing the point. If you can get a better education and tax payers save money that's a win/win. Only a die hard socialist would be against that.

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2010, 06:01 PM
Yep. Amnorix is correct.

If a person wants to avoid paying for public schools because they send their kids to private school, then a person who doesn't have kids shouldn't have to pay any taxes to fund schools. Is that really a good thing for society?

A small tax credit would be a good thing. We need to encourage privatizing schools.

vailpass
08-24-2010, 06:31 PM
Yep. Amnorix is correct.

If a person wants to avoid paying for public schools because they send their kids to private school, then a person who doesn't have kids shouldn't have to pay any taxes to fund schools. Is that really a good thing for society?

In AZ we get tax credits for private tuition. Admittedly the public schools suck but we get state tax credit.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 06:34 PM
YOu are missing the point. If you can get a better education and tax payers save money that's a win/win. Only a die hard socialist would be against that.

That's it.

Saulbadguy
08-24-2010, 06:35 PM
I think they should get a small tax credit, because their kids will likely end up being more productive members of society than children who go to public schools.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 06:43 PM
I'm as pro-privatization as they come, but I simply don't think it works for education. The cost is simply going to be too high for a significant portion of society, which means their child is going to be deprived of opportunities, which will then cause the cycle to repeat. I don't really think a permanent underclass is good for society.
That's only if one thinks inside a box. I think people will create solutions. I believe in the people more than the state. You never know what you would have had had the govt not crowded out other options. I mean if the Catholics in Europe could build universities which were open to all for free for all, the poor even women, then I don't see how something could not be done by the private sector. People tend to get together and group their efforts on a volunteer basis too.

So your argument is that you don't think they should avoid taxes, but they should get a tax credit that lowers their taxes? I don't understand the difference.
I don't understand what you're unable to understand about what I said. They'd still be paying taxes when their child is done with school. They'd have paid taxes before their kid went to school. It's not permanent....it's just a credit off their taxes for when their kid is in their school years. It by no means would pay for a private education. I gave an example earlier. If I got all my property taxes back it would only make a small dent in the private tuition costs. It simply helps. I mean what's the difference between paying for the public school and paying something for the private school in the end? Nothing. Some folks want CONTROL over education is all.


I don't understand. Are you saying that the taxes paid by parents don't make a difference? How is their tax money different from those paid by non-parents? If they can get a 12-year exemption because they choose to spend their money differently, then I should get a 12-year exemption because I chose to buy a big TV instead of having children.
Somehow, I think your really making statements and are not really asking real questions. Comparing education to buying tv? Pluh-eeese. No one made such an argument.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 06:46 PM
I was relating it to people who rail against welfare queens, and UI extensions such as the OP had stated, all while asking for their own handout pertaining to their kids private education.
It's not apples and oranges though. It's not a handout to try and get a portion of your tax money kept in your own pocket.

And I know enough about you to know that if you had it your way, you would pay for all of your kids education and I would pay for none. So the statement wasn't even remotely directed at you.

Okay, floppy, Cool! :)

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 07:15 PM
I don't understand what you're unable to understand about what I said. They'd still be paying taxes when their child is done with school. They'd have paid taxes before their kid went to school. It's not permanent....it's just a credit off their taxes for when their kid is in their school years. It by no means would pay for a private education. I gave an example earlier. If I got all my property taxes back it would only make a small dent in the private tuition costs. It simply helps. I mean what's the difference between paying for the public school and paying something for the private school in the end? Nothing. Some folks want CONTROL over education is all.



My question is why you should get a tax credit because you have children and don't use public schools when I don't get a tax credit because I don't have children and use public schools.

And that's aside from the fact that you already get tax exemptions because you have kids. I already pay a higher tax rate than you do to help you raise your kids. If you want to be completely fair, there shouldn't be exemptions for children, or otherwise you're already benefitting from biased tax laws.

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 07:18 PM
That's only if one thinks inside a box. I think people will create solutions. I believe in the people more than the state. You never know what you would have had had the govt not crowded out other options. I mean if the Catholics in Europe could build universities which were open to all for free for all, the poor even women, then I don't see how something could not be done by the private sector. People tend to get together and group their efforts on a volunteer basis too.



The Catholics have universities that are free to everyone? I'm not familiar with that.

If there's a model that's successful in providing education to all children without taxes and public intervention, I'm all for it. Can you explain how the model works? And does it currently exist somewhere?

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:17 PM
Wrong.
In AZ we get a $1000/year tax credit from the state taxes we pay towards our private school tuition.
Now all that is left to do is raise that amount to reflect today's tuition rates.

http://www.catholictuition.org/default.aspx

Arizona (and any other state) can have whatever dumbass policy they want. I know you could post a litany of stupid policies. This wouldn't make your list, but it would make mine.

Why not give a similar credit to those who are childless?

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:20 PM
Except not everyone uses them unlike roads or wants to use them...and most are forced to.

Using your argument one could say everyone uses food therefore food should be subsidized.

Home schooling isn't a viable alternative for any dual income family, which is many these days, and private schools aren't affordable for many. And don't tell me that the cost of private schools would be affordable if only we eliminated private schools, as that's absurd.

The current system has everyone subsidizing the costs of educating school age children, because we have determined that that is in the best interests of our country.

I know you'd prefer to have whatever system we had in 1820, but what worked then doesn't work very well now for a number of reasons.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:21 PM
I'll bet if we actually got some value for what we spend on public education we wouldn't be discussing it now.

We get plenty of value. We just don't get all that we could hope for. An imperfect system isn't necessarily a dysfunctional or broken system.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:24 PM
Disagree....it's a typical socialist outlook. In fact, this is one way I would think Ds and Rs, conservatives and liberals could agree as a reasonable compromise.
I've see some Ds support it here even.

Everything is socialist in your eyes.

Obviously we decided, LONG ago, that educating our children is a worthy goal, and that we as a society will collectively (yes, evil words -- "society" and "collective") fund that worthy goal. And as a result a far larger percentage of our children are educated than they were before we had public schools.

And yet that doesn't make us Communists or Socialists. So sorry.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:27 PM
Except for the fact that public schools are nothing like roads. It's children we're talking about, not apshalt. My kids are not your social experiment.

I'm talking about my son's education, not about the best access to get to Walmart.

A lot of middle income families would love to send their kids to private schools, and are just under the economic borderline to do so. They should be able to apply their tax money towards their own children. Period.

And further, the better schools should be receiving this money.

What about those families who are not "just under the economic borderline" to send their kids to private schools?"

And why, if we have decided, pursuant to the systems established in our Republic, to collectively fund a public school system, should it be the public's responsibility to subsidize those who are "just under the economic borderline" so that their kids can go to private schools? And why does it make sense to give a tax break to thsoe who send their kids to private schools versus those who do not make any use of public or private schools at all, because they are either childless or their children are not of school age?

Zebedee DuBois
08-24-2010, 08:30 PM
If you think our population is plagued with dumb idiots now, just remove the public education system and see what you get. You might as well sign the USA up to be a third world country.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:31 PM
Yep. Amnorix is correct.

If a person wants to avoid paying for public schools because they send their kids to private school, then a person who doesn't have kids shouldn't have to pay any taxes to fund schools. Is that really a good thing for society?

There's no such thing as "society". Just ask TJ.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:33 PM
i dunno. would it be a bad thing if public schools were again one room schoolhouses due to lack of funding? probably not.

Welcome to 1820, when America's population density wasn't 1/10th of what it is now except in the most rural of rural areas. That system isn't going to work anymore. Your "one room schoolhouse" would have to be bigger than a football field....

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:40 PM
Well, yeah my ideal is that they'd all be private and each pays as they use.

What about the many, MANY that can't, or won't, pay? Do those kids just go uneducated?

But using your argument, the collectivist one that our system is based on and which most have bought into, no one here that I saw, at least not I, argued for "avoidance" in paying for public schools should they send their kids to a private school. It was just a tuition tax credit while their child was in a private school, NO different than those green credits that are so in vogue right now. I see this as a good thing for society as it introduces competition which makes the schools strive to deliver better service with better results. How can that harm society?

Private schools are already better than public schools. Providing state subsidization for private schools isn't going to improve public school performance. That's fairly inherently absurd.

I would gladly vote in favor of breaking teacher's unions. Unfortunately, with or without public subsidization of private schools, that isn't going to happen. So how are you going to get this nirvana of competition between public and private schools that will improve public school performance? You're not. All you're really going to do is reduce public school enrollment, reduce funds available for public schools, while not greatly decreasing public school fixed costs, which is more than likely going to result in decreased performance, not improved performance.

How does it harm society when those same parents continue to pay before their children use the schools or after? I know I didn't make that case.

You're removing alot of tax dollars from the system without a corresponding decrease in costs. You're just giving a break to the upper middle class -- those who are "just below the economic borderline" to afford private schooling, as TJ said.

You can give tax breaks to whomever you want for whatever reason youw ant, but don't argue it's logical. The logic would be consistent only if you gave tax breaks to those who are childless also.

Should we also give tax breaks to people who are just shy of being able to buy a BMW, but insead use commuter rail every day? It's the same (il)logic.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:42 PM
That's how I feel. I think if more people read up on how public education really came into existence in America, the higher literacy level of people at one time before mass public education, and the fact that non publically funded schools had extra seats that were given to those who could not afford to attend they'd be surprised. I feel assured that the people can organized and develop systems to get their children educated still. In fact it really is the parent's responsibility—not the state's.

Hell, I think even the apprenticeship system with some post secondary or even secondary education combined would produced better quality. It's more hands on and real world. I think of those famous painters that were trained that way. If education is highly desired and valued those that desire and value it will find a way. Just look at how the home schooling movement has evolved with umbrella's schools and entering college and doing well there. In fact a homeschooler won a National Merit Scholarship this year.


I love your universe, where everything was better in 1830. Oh to have Jacksonian Democracy again! All was perfect!!!

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:48 PM
A small tax credit would be a good thing. We need to encourage privatizing schools.

If you could quantify the cost savings to the school for each kid removed (which is far less than the cost to educate due to high fixed costs) then that wouldn't be too horrific, but hte issue is you're still not giving any logical reason for giving a tax break to those who send their kids to private schools versus those who don't have kids at all.

I suppose you could have a system where the taxes are X for parents without kids in the public school system, and X plus for parents with kids in the public school system. It's a different way to get to the same result. In general, however, parents already have higher costs in a number of areas and I'm not sure we want to dissuade people from having kids.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 08:54 PM
The Catholics have universities that are free to everyone? I'm not familiar with that.

If there's a model that's successful in providing education to all children without taxes and public intervention, I'm all for it. Can you explain how the model works? And does it currently exist somewhere?


:popcorn::popcorn:


Not to be snide....well, actdually, to be totally snide....if you spend enough time on this board you'll soon learn that BEP's idealized "solutions" to whatever problems are being discussed have never actually be tried anywhere in the world at any point in history. Much like the Austrian school itself, she operates off of (her concept) of pure logic and doesn't allow the nasty, inconvenient real world to get in the way of things.

I'm eager to hear if this one is any different.

Rain Man
08-24-2010, 09:33 PM
I'm thinking that the tax-breaks-for-those-with-kids-in-private-school camp is actually trying to propose a user fee system of funding education, but they aren't quite understanding that there are two groups that subsidize public schools: people with kids in private school (proportionately small numbers) and childless households (proportionately large numbers). A user fee system would produce the same number of kids with probably 30 to 50 percent of the original funding.

I actually like the concept of user fees for many government services. In essence, gas taxes are a proxy user fee for road construction, and that's fine by me. Funding new road construction via tolls on the roads being constructed is another good model, assuming that there are slower-moving "free" roads for those who would rather expend money than time. Make national and state park fees high enough that they cover their own costs, and don't subsidize them with general fund money? I think that's fine, though it raises the interesting question of whether a citizen can be denied the right to access government property solely because he or she can't afford the $75 entrance fee. (Doesn't government property belong to the citizens?)

But there are other areas where I don't think user fees work very well. If we made public schools a user-fee only institution (or did away with them and went completely private), let's say the cost goes to a typical private school cost of $10,000 per year. There are going to be people who make minimum wage and have four kids. There just are. You can't legislate them from breeding, as much as we may like to. If their income is $20,000 a year and they have four school-age kids, how are you going to get $40,000 a year out of them? I really don't think the private-sector or the church will give out that many "scholarships". Will you send non-complying parents to jail? Are you going to change the law so that education isn't compulsory for children? Are we better off if poor kids don't have access to the 6th grade? If the government funds it, then we just have public school with a different name. We can have different opinions on this, but school taxes are one of the few taxes that I'll gladly pay, because I think all of us benefit from kids getting educated.

luv
08-24-2010, 10:13 PM
My question is why you should get a tax credit because you have children and don't use public schools when I don't get a tax credit because I don't have children and use public schools.

And that's aside from the fact that you already get tax exemptions because you have kids. I already pay a higher tax rate than you do to help you raise your kids. If you want to be completely fair, there shouldn't be exemptions for children, or otherwise you're already benefitting from biased tax laws.

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking earlier. Don't think I expressed it this clearly (or maybe I thought it, but decided not to type it). People with kids already get tax breaks just by having them. I help pay for public schools, even though I don't plan on having children (stating that as a fact, definitely NOT a complaint). To see people ask for tax breaks because they feel what I'm helping to provide isn't good enough, especially when they already get tax breaks that I don't, just put me in awe. Yes there are people who can't afford private schools who would like for their kids to go to one. I would like to do a lot of things that I'm restricted from doing due to finances. Free public education is available.

RJ
08-24-2010, 10:55 PM
I voted no. I send my daughter to private school and I'm perfectly happy to leave the gubment out of it. I don't want a voucher, I don't want a tax break - once they start, then they'll want more control over the school.

Amnorix
08-24-2010, 10:57 PM
I'm thinking that the tax-breaks-for-those-with-kids-in-private-school camp is actually trying to propose a user fee system of funding education, but they aren't quite understanding that there are two groups that subsidize public schools: people with kids in private school (proportionately small numbers) and childless households (proportionately large numbers). A user fee system would produce the same number of kids with probably 30 to 50 percent of the original funding.

I actually like the concept of user fees for many government services. In essence, gas taxes are a proxy user fee for road construction, and that's fine by me. Funding new road construction via tolls on the roads being constructed is another good model, assuming that there are slower-moving "free" roads for those who would rather expend money than time. Make national and state park fees high enough that they cover their own costs, and don't subsidize them with general fund money? I think that's fine, though it raises the interesting question of whether a citizen can be denied the right to access government property solely because he or she can't afford the $75 entrance fee. (Doesn't government property belong to the citizens?)

But there are other areas where I don't think user fees work very well. If we made public schools a user-fee only institution (or did away with them and went completely private), let's say the cost goes to a typical private school cost of $10,000 per year. There are going to be people who make minimum wage and have four kids. There just are. You can't legislate them from breeding, as much as we may like to. If their income is $20,000 a year and they have four school-age kids, how are you going to get $40,000 a year out of them? I really don't think the private-sector or the church will give out that many "scholarships". Will you send non-complying parents to jail? Are you going to change the law so that education isn't compulsory for children? Are we better off if poor kids don't have access to the 6th grade? If the government funds it, then we just have public school with a different name. We can have different opinions on this, but school taxes are one of the few taxes that I'll gladly pay, because I think all of us benefit from kids getting educated.

The proverbial "this x eleventy billion".

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2010, 11:34 PM
Everything is socialist in your eyes.

Obviously we decided, LONG ago, that educating our children is a worthy goal, and that we as a society will collectively (yes, evil words -- "society" and "collective") fund that worthy goal. And as a result a far larger percentage of our children are educated than they were before we had public schools.

And yet that doesn't make us Communists or Socialists. So sorry.

I want you to go back and and read what you just posted Mr. It Takes a Village to raise a child. BTW, time line has nothing to do with logic. Apply that same standard to racism. Your socialistic value system are oozing out of your pours. Heaven forbit people are empowered with choice even if it is a value added proposition to the tax payer from two different angles, those being less tax burden and a better education with a more productive new citizen.

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2010, 11:41 PM
I voted no. I send my daughter to private school and I'm perfectly happy to leave the gubment out of it. I don't want a voucher, I don't want a tax break - once they start, then they'll want more control over the school.

Who is they, parents?

BIG_DADDY
08-24-2010, 11:50 PM
What about the many, MANY that can't, or won't, pay? Do those kids just go uneducated?



Private schools are already better than public schools. Providing state subsidization for private schools isn't going to improve public school performance. That's fairly inherently absurd.

I would gladly vote in favor of breaking teacher's unions. Unfortunately, with or without public subsidization of private schools, that isn't going to happen. So how are you going to get this nirvana of competition between public and private schools that will improve public school performance? You're not. All you're really going to do is reduce public school enrollment, reduce funds available for public schools, while not greatly decreasing public school fixed costs, which is more than likely going to result in decreased performance, not improved performance.



You're removing alot of tax dollars from the system without a corresponding decrease in costs. You're just giving a break to the upper middle class -- those who are "just below the economic borderline" to afford private schooling, as TJ said.

You can give tax breaks to whomever you want for whatever reason youw ant, but don't argue it's logical. The logic would be consistent only if you gave tax breaks to those who are childless also.

Should we also give tax breaks to people who are just shy of being able to buy a BMW, but insead use commuter rail every day? It's the same (il)logic.



You are missing the entire point. Creating competition is always good instead of accepting the feeding of the bureaucratic moster that is $1,000 nuts and bolts. You seem much more concerned about taking care of the government leaches than you are about the kids, their education and empowering the citizens of the republic. Your metaphores are falling far short of the bottom line. I respect most of your left wing propositions but your not even close in this situation IMO.

luv
08-24-2010, 11:56 PM
Who is they, parents?

Seriously? How would you get they as being a pronoun for parents in that sentence? Or were you trying to make a point that government providing tax breaks surely wouldn't want some kind of control over the schools?

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:02 AM
Seriously? How would you get they as being a pronoun for parents in that sentence? Or were you trying to make a point that government providing tax breaks surely wouldn't want some kind of control over the schools?

It's not an issue now and thanks for avoiding all the points I just made.

luv
08-25-2010, 12:20 AM
It's not an issue now and thanks for avoiding all the points I just made.

Why should you get a tax break because you choose to send your child to an institution that is not financed by the government? You're trying to get away from government involvement, but yet you want benefits from it.

luv
08-25-2010, 12:26 AM
If people who send their children to private schools don't have to pay the school tax, then why would anyone who doesn't have kids going to school have to pay it?

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:30 AM
Why should you get a tax break because you choose to send your child to an institution that is not financed by the government? You're trying to get away from government involvement, but yet you want benefits from it.

Heaven forbid I want to save taxpayers money, give my kid a better education and create a better citizen in the process Ms. Stalin. Easy to see where your value system is based.

luv
08-25-2010, 12:31 AM
Heaven forbid I want to save taxpayers money, give my kid a better education and create a better citizen in the process Ms. Stalin. Easy to see where your value system is based.

So, you want to make all schools private? Screw the people who can't afford it? I'm failing to see how I, as a taxpayer, will benefit from your child going to private school instead of public school otherwise.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:33 AM
If people who send their children to private schools don't have to pay the school tax, then why would anyone who doesn't have kids going to school have to pay it?

Quit pretending that was the issue. A small tax credit was what we were talking about. Spin away and keep avoiding the bottom line which you still are avoiding naturally.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:34 AM
So, you want to make all schools private? Screw the people who can't afford it? I'm failing to see how I, as a taxpayer, will benefit from your child going to private school instead of public school otherwise.

Spinning the subject again, NICE!!!!

luv
08-25-2010, 12:37 AM
Spinning the subject again, NICE!!!!

People who send their children to private schools should get a tax credit. This is the subject, correct?

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:40 AM
People who send their children to private schools should get a tax credit. This is the subject, correct?

That was the proposition we were discussing when you came in and the subject in the title was a tax refund of sorts correct? I don't care if people want to spen $200 a month or 20k if they are relieving the tax burden and supplying a better education/citizen that should be welcomed unless your value system is seriously fucked up.

luv
08-25-2010, 12:42 AM
That was the proposition we were discussing when you came in and the subject was a tax refund of sorts correct?

And you said it would benefit taxpayers. Create better citizens, etc?

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:46 AM
And you said it would benefit taxpayers. Create better citizens, etc?

Even Amnorix said private education is better so it goes without saying you are getting a student with a better eduacation and society would benefit from that. A tax break instead of having to fully fund a student would have obvious benefits for tax payers. What are you missing here?

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:48 AM
Even Amnorix said private education is better so it goes without saying you are getting a student with a better eduacation and society would benefit from that. A tax break instead of having to fully fund a student would have obvious benefits for tax payers. What are you missing here?

Silly me, it's what I am missing. Socialistic values and supporting the leaches.

luv
08-25-2010, 12:49 AM
Even Amnorix said private education is better so it goes without saying you are getting a student with a better eduacation and society would benefit from that. A tax break instead of having to fully fund a student would have obvious benefits for tax payers. What are you missing here?

By taxpayers, do you simply mean those who have children in private schools?

luv
08-25-2010, 12:53 AM
Silly me, it's what I am missing. Socialistic values and supporting the leaches.

You know what? Never mind. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, and you're doing NOTHING but calling me a socialist.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:54 AM
By taxpayers, do you simply mean those who have children in private schools?

OMG, The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole. Thanks for wasting my time tonight and refusing to acknowledge the blatantly obvious.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 01:03 AM
You know what? Never mind. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, and you're doing NOTHING but calling me a socialist.

I am sorry, I was making a point. Taxes are collected from the masses for education. If a parent can relieve a good portion of that burden and supply a better education/citizen (future tax payer because of a higher income) why would anyone be opposed to that unless their value system was all about supporting the leaches of the bureaucratic montrosity we call our public education system and not about the children, their education and the obvious benefits to society fromm a taxation standpoint on both ends.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 01:21 AM
luv,

Even more simpified, if a parent is willing to pay to relieve tax payers of their burden of fully funding the education of their child by coming out of pocket to create a citizen with a better education and income potential for the benefit of all society by their future income potential why would you deny them a small token of appreciation for doing that with a small tax credit?

BIG DADDY

Not expecting an answer.

Amnorix
08-25-2010, 07:26 AM
You are missing the entire point. Creating competition is always good instead of accepting the feeding of the bureaucratic moster that is $1,000 nuts and bolts. You seem much more concerned about taking care of the government leaches than you are about the kids, their education and empowering the citizens of the republic. Your metaphores are falling far short of the bottom line. I respect most of your left wing propositions but your not even close in this situation IMO.

Believe me, I don't care about taking care of any "government leeches", so to speak. I honestly think we'd be better off if teachers couldn't unionize.

But what you're talking about, effectively, is giving a government subsidy to (1) the wealthy, who already put their kids in private schools, and (2) the nearly wealthy, who don't put their kids in private schools, but would (or might) if they could get a tax break.

I'm sorry that I'm not seeing the burning need for this tax break, especially when all levels of government are already dealing with massive budget problems.

You suggest that a tax break, standing alone, will somehow increase competition between public and private schools. Feel free to provide any evidence in the world that that is the case because I don't see it. Most public schools already get outperformed by private schools -- though there are a number of reasons for that and tracking cause/effect is tricky -- so what is giving a tax break going to achieve?

Amnorix
08-25-2010, 07:31 AM
Even Amnorix said private education is better so it goes without saying you are getting a student with a better eduacation and society would benefit from that. A tax break instead of having to fully fund a student would have obvious benefits for tax payers. What are you missing here?

Let me clarify, without writing a book.

I freely admit that kids generally get a better education in private than public schools, but alot of that is due to the inherent structure we currently have, such as smaller class sizes.

I'd be open to redesigning our entire school system, but as I don't see/understand how a tax break to the wealthy and nearly wealthy is going to improve public schools at all -- and since there is no "fairness" in giving such a tax break to those people but not giving one to childless taxpayers or taxpayers whose children are not of school age -- I don't agree with the concept.

Amnorix
08-25-2010, 07:37 AM
luv,

Even more simpified, if a parent is willing to pay to relieve tax payers of their burden of fully funding the education of their child by coming out of pocket to create a citizen with a better education and income potential for the benefit of all society by their future income potential why would you deny them a small token of appreciation for doing that with a small tax credit?

BIG DADDY

Not expecting an answer.

You and the child are already getting the benefit, which is why (presumably), you are paying for it.

I don't have some huge philosophical belief against giving back what would be the small incremental decrease in the public schools' cost for not having a particular child enrolled, but the issue is that I don't see any logic for giving parents of school age children who don't use the schools a tax break over taxpayers who have no children.

It's not that your position is illogical, it's just that in the face of other taxpayers who don't send kids to public schools (because they don't have any), I don't find your position to be consistent.

Your position is that you're doing the public school system a favor by removing the kid from the system. But you decided to have the kid, and you decided that he would be better off going to private schools, and you believe the benefits of that outweigh the costs of funding the private schooling. I don't see any need for the public schools to effectively subsidize all these benefits you already perceive your child as getting.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 07:49 AM
The Catholics have universities that are free to everyone? I'm not familiar with that.

If there's a model that's successful in providing education to all children without taxes and public intervention, I'm all for it. Can you explain how the model works? And does it currently exist somewhere?

"Had" in Europe during the Medievil era. In fact the first university in the New World was built by the Catholics in Mexico. Harvard was created to compete with it but they got it from the Catholics. When the Catholics came to Maryland their parishes educated their children as well. This struck fear into the hearts of Protestants in America—including Jefferson. Hence, the move toward publically funded schools.

We're all used to it being done this way now. It's the "Sacred Cow" that must not be touched. That's why I just recommend people take their kids out because it will never reform. I used to belong to a group that advocated getting your kids out and how. The Exodus out of them is continuing. That's a " Good Thing."

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 07:50 AM
But what you're talking about, effectively, is giving a government subsidy to (1) the wealthy, who already put their kids in private schools, and (2) the nearly wealthy, who don't put their kids in private schools, but would (or might) if they could get a tax break.

now let's be honest. not only the wealthy have children in private schools. my in-laws sent each one of their children to private school, because they stayed in missouri and had no choice. sending their children to Center HS was simply not an option.

they are by no means wealthy. they applied for and received scholarships, and paid out of pocket for the rest. they pull in 55k combined. that's sure as hell not wealthy.

but they've done without. they haven't been on a vacation in forever. they drive a car that is 20 years, and another that is 15 years old. they buy new clothes once a year, at christmas. they only got a flatscreen tv when we gave them one for christmas last year.

so it's not only the wealthy, its for those that choose to make the commitment. and i'm sure they'd appreciate a tax break.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 07:51 AM
I voted no. I send my daughter to private school and I'm perfectly happy to leave the gubment out of it. I don't want a voucher, I don't want a tax break - once they start, then they'll want more control over the school.

That's a valid point that they could still exert control even through a tuition tax credit.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 07:54 AM
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post

But what you're talking about, effectively, is giving a government subsidy to (1) the wealthy, who already put their kids in private schools, and (2) the nearly wealthy, who don't put their kids in private schools, but would (or might) if they could get a tax break.
The Class Warfare rhetoric is so 20th century.

What about wealthy families that are USING the public schools? Who, I might add, have kids failing in them too.

BTW, there was a black single mom who worked three jobs to keep her kid in my daughter's former school. She had started in public and didn't do well....and she loved how he got turned around so she worked for it. She probably didn't even own property either.

If you were really interested in fixing the public schools without tax credits etc....you'd be making a case for teacher education being reformed. They're just as much a victim of the system too. If the methods weren't so bad public school wouldn't be in the shape it's in. It's declined. There's a reason for that. Left wing egalitarianism was taken too far. I am not just talking money but all the way down the line.

Private schools still have teachers that were trained in the same changed methods as public school teachers. Not all are good and have to be watched. I've seen kids from Montessori in remediation too. A parents best bet is to find out how and what each school teaches and the values they teach. Some private schools put their younger teachers, those under 30, into classes that retrain some methods. My kids K did that. They had to be educated out of what they got their degree in. LMAO

patteeu
08-25-2010, 08:30 AM
How so? It's already 100% subsidized for public schools. Why wouldn't competition make it less expensive as private schools vie to provide more value?

I'm specifically talking about private schools.

Based on my observations, the price of anything that the government gets heavily involved in funding grows substantially faster than prices in general. Healthcare (medicare & medicaid) and higher education (student loans and government grants) are two prime examples.

When government money is available, someone is going to soak that money up.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 08:56 AM
When something is other peoples money you get more waste and failure. When one uses their own money they're more particular. People, generally, don't waste their own money as easily.

Brainiac
08-25-2010, 10:05 AM
I get the impression you depend on the public school for a living.

Really? Why? Because I don't think we should implement a policy that would inevitably lead to public schools being even worse than they are today?

That's weak. And for what it's worth, your impression is wrong.

I get the impression you depend on the private school for a living. :p

Brainiac
08-25-2010, 10:09 AM
When something is other peoples money you get more waste and failure. When one uses their own money they're more particular. People, generally, don't waste their own money as easily.
Now this makes sense. If you would frame your argument to say public schools are horrible, that it makes no sense to try to save them, and that the private sector could do a better job of educating everybody and do it for less money, then I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.

Mile High Mania
08-25-2010, 10:13 AM
Here is how my wife and I addressed this one...

About 11 years ago, when we were first married (no kids) and looking to build our first house, we made the decision to go outside of the city Dallas. We decided that private school would be too expensive, so we picked a growing suburb with newer schools that had great reputations. After a few years, we "outgrew" the house we built, so we moved again... and again, we picked another suburb with newer schools that have great reputations.

Our kids now attend a public elementary school with exemplary ratings... and it's in a great school system. So as they advance through the grades, we don't appear to have any concerns about poor education.

Is it perfect? No. Are there are number of slightly better private schools? Sure, but if we're supporting the schools via taxes, etc... we figured it's wise to make the most of it and choose wisely.

I realize that it's difficult for everyone to do this ... but if you have concerns about public schools and expensive private options, just do your homework on where you are living and see if you can improve the situation.

I have friends that live in Dallas and they pay nice sums of money for private schools... they live about 20 minutes from us and while their homes are older, bigger lots and trees... they're paying out the nose for it when it comes to schools. That's something I just can't wrap my arms around and really understand.

Mr. Kotter
08-25-2010, 10:17 AM
Here is how my wife and I addressed this one...

About 11 years ago, when we were first married (no kids) and looking to build our first house, we made the decision to go outside of the city Dallas. We decided that private school would be too expensive, so we picked a growing suburb with newer schools that had great reputations. After a few years, we "outgrew" the house we built, so we moved again... and again, we picked another suburb with newer schools that have great reputations.

Our kids now attend a public elementary school with exemplary ratings... and it's in a great school system. So as they advance through the grades, we don't appear to have any concerns about poor education.

Is it perfect? No. Are there are number of slightly better private schools? Sure, but if we're supporting the schools via taxes, etc... we figured it's wise to make the most of it and choose wisely.

I realize that it's difficult for everyone to do this ... but if you have concerns about public schools and expensive private options, just do your homework on where you are living and see if you can improve the situation.

I have friends that live in Dallas and they pay nice sums of money for private schools... they live about 20 minutes from us and while their homes are older, bigger lots and trees... they're paying out the nose for it when it comes to schools. That's something I just can't wrap my arms around and really understand.

100% spot on. End of thread.

:clap:

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 10:17 AM
You and the child are already getting the benefit, which is why (presumably), you are paying for it.

I don't have some huge philosophical belief against giving back what would be the small incremental decrease in the public schools' cost for not having a particular child enrolled, but the issue is that I don't see any logic for giving parents of school age children who don't use the schools a tax break over taxpayers who have no children.

It's not that your position is illogical, it's just that in the face of other taxpayers who don't send kids to public schools (because they don't have any), I don't find your position to be consistent.

Your position is that you're doing the public school system a favor by removing the kid from the system. But you decided to have the kid, and you decided that he would be better off going to private schools, and you believe the benefits of that outweigh the costs of funding the private schooling. I don't see any need for the public schools to effectively subsidize all these benefits you already perceive your child as getting.

You are desperately trying to prop up your socialized education here. I spent my whole life not having kids until recently. I would have gladly voted for a small tax break for people who are taking care of their own kids education because in the end I know this will reduce the amount of our total tax burden in general. As far as tracking the amount of families who would take advantage of those tax breaks and send their kids to private schools it's really hard to track something that doesn't exist.

As far as unions are concerned I don't think that any government employee should be allowed to unionize.

Mile High Mania
08-25-2010, 10:24 AM
100% spot on. End of thread.

:clap:

It's funny because I think that people in the past have called this "white filght" when you look at big cities, but I live in a very diverse neighborhood... I think in the 20 houses near us, we have at least 5 different nationalities and about 6 different types of religion. My kids are exposed to a lot of different things and I think it's great.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 10:26 AM
100% spot on. End of thread.

:clap:

The private school I am sending my kid to had the entire senior class moving onto college exception of 3 kids. Many had schlorships to top colleges. The public school I would send my kid to is probably about as good as it gets here but they're not within light years of of producing those numbers. For the record most of those kids leaving for college already have a lot of college credit. My cousins kid already had 2 years worth of college credit completed before he went his first day. He also had scholorships offered to him from Stanford and Harvey Mudd. For the record all of the teachers there make less than they would in a public school system. Yea, thread over Kotter.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 10:26 AM
100% spot on. End of thread.

:clap:

why do i get the impression that your views change with the wind?

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 10:31 AM
The private school I am sending my kid to had the entire senior class moving onto college exception of 3 kids. Many had schlorships to top colleges. The public school I would send my kid to is probably about as good as it gets here but they're not within light years of of producing those numbers. For the record most of those kids leaving for college already have a lot of college credit. My cousins kid already had 2 years worth of college credit completed before he went his first day. He also had scholorships offered to him from Stanford and Harvey Mudd. For the record all of the teachers there make less than they would in a public school system. Yea, thread over Kotter.

while i agree with that, you have to admit that the public school may produce a bit better results if they were able to choose their students.

luv
08-25-2010, 10:35 AM
You are desperately trying to prop up your socialized education here. I spent my whole life not having kids until recently. I would have gladly voted for a small tax break for people who are taking care of their own kids education because in the end I know this will reduce the amount of our total tax burden in general. As far as tracking the amount of families who would take advantage of those tax breaks and send their kids to private schools it's really hard to track something that doesn't exist.

As far as unions are concerned I don't think that any government employee should be allowed to unionize.

Simply asking a question here. In a socialist country, would citizens have the choice to send their kids to private schools? Again, I'm asking this because I'm not that familiar with socialist countries.

Amnorix
08-25-2010, 10:35 AM
now let's be honest. not only the wealthy have children in private schools. my in-laws sent each one of their children to private school, because they stayed in missouri and had no choice. sending their children to Center HS was simply not an option.

they are by no means wealthy. they applied for and received scholarships, and paid out of pocket for the rest. they pull in 55k combined. that's sure as hell not wealthy.

but they've done without. they haven't been on a vacation in forever. they drive a car that is 20 years, and another that is 15 years old. they buy new clothes once a year, at christmas. they only got a flatscreen tv when we gave them one for christmas last year.

so it's not only the wealthy, its for those that choose to make the commitment. and i'm sure they'd appreciate a tax break.

Granted. So I'll amend my statments to "mostly wealthy" or a vast majority of wealthy or something. I think your in-laws are outliers.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 10:40 AM
Granted. So I'll amend my statments to "mostly wealthy" or a vast majority of wealthy or something. I think your in-laws are outliers.

i guess we need to define wealthy...

because, at least at my wife's school, at least half were one income families. but i wouldn't consider a 100k total income wealthy. or even 200k wealthy.

then again, maybe it's because i view wealth as the sum of the parts, not just the income.

Mr. Kotter
08-25-2010, 11:02 AM
The private school I am sending my kid to had the entire senior class moving onto college exception of 3 kids. Many had schlorships to top colleges. The public school I would send my kid to is probably about as good as it gets here but they're not within light years of of producing those numbers. For the record most of those kids leaving for college already have a lot of college credit. My cousins kid already had 2 years worth of college credit completed before he went his first day. He also had scholorships offered to him from Stanford and Harvey Mudd. For the record all of the teachers there make less than they would in a public school system. Yea, thread over Kotter.

And taxpayers ought to subsidize that because why? :shrug:

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 11:05 AM
"Had" in Europe during the Medievil era. In fact the first university in the New World was built by the Catholics in Mexico. Harvard was created to compete with it but they got it from the Catholics. When the Catholics came to Maryland their parishes educated their children as well. This struck fear into the hearts of Protestants in America—including Jefferson. Hence, the move toward publically funded schools.

We're all used to it being done this way now. It's the "Sacred Cow" that must not be touched. That's why I just recommend people take their kids out because it will never reform. I used to belong to a group that advocated getting your kids out and how. The Exodus out of them is continuing. That's a " Good Thing."


So you're advocating copying the educational system of medieval Europe as a model because of the wide access that medieval peasants had to formal education opportunities?

I'm not sure that system will advance science a lot, but at least we would more readily be able to identify witches.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 11:06 AM
And taxpayers ought to subsidize that because why? :shrug:

getting back the taxes that would otherwise support the public education your child is not using and applying them to your child's education at a private institution IS NOT a subsidy.

it's using the same money for the same purpose.

and moreover, no one is asking for taxpayers as a whole to provide for the private education of my child. simply allow me to use my dollars to do so. but thanks for trying to argue a non-issue.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 11:07 AM
but at least we would more readily be able to identify witches.

most married men have already mastered that skill.

oh wait, you said witches...

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 11:09 AM
i guess we need to define wealthy...

because, at least at my wife's school, at least half were one income families. but i wouldn't consider a 100k total income wealthy. or even 200k wealthy.

then again, maybe it's because i view wealth as the sum of the parts, not just the income.


We can discuss the definition of wealth, but I think the bottom line is that a fully private or fully user-pay system requires that EVERYONE be able to afford sending their kids to private school and that EVERYONE will make the sacrifices to do so. Does everyone here think that EVERY parent is a good parent and will make those sacrifices? Does everyone here think that a kid with a lazy, uncaring parent shouldn't go to school?

Maybe I have little faith in humanity, but I think there are a lot of parents who wouldn't even think about taking a second job to send their kid to school. They'd just park the kid in front of the TV all day and 18 years later we'd be paying more for police and prisons.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 11:12 AM
We can discuss the definition of wealth, but I think the bottom line is that a fully private or fully user-pay system requires that EVERYONE be able to afford sending their kids to private school and that EVERYONE will make the sacrifices to do so. Does everyone here think that EVERY parent is a good parent and will make those sacrifices? Does everyone here think that a kid with a lazy, uncaring parent shouldn't go to school?

Maybe I have little faith in humanity, but I think there are a lot of parents who wouldn't even think about taking a second job to send their kid to school. They'd just park the kid in front of the TV all day and 18 years later we'd be paying more for police and prisons.

and those are points worth discussing.

do you think that we're better off forcing kids to attend school and not work if working would help support their family more than going to school does?

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 11:20 AM
And taxpayers ought to subsidize that because why? :shrug:

I'm not going to keep saying the same shit over and over because you showed up now.

vailpass
08-25-2010, 11:45 AM
I have friends that live in Dallas and they pay nice sums of money for private schools... they live about 20 minutes from us and while their homes are older, bigger lots and trees... they're paying out the nose for it when it comes to schools. That's something I just can't wrap my arms around and really understand.

You can't understand paying tuition to send your kids to the best school available?
What's so hard to understand?

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 11:48 AM
I'm willing to entertain the thought of a fully private system if people can convince me that it'll serve society. Can you answer the following questions for me?

Here are the number of households with children under 18 in the U.S., by income level. (It excludes households where the children are not related, but that's a tiny number.)


With own children under 18 years: 34,727,021
Less than $10,000 2,208,953
$10,000 to $14,999 1,362,332
$15,000 to $19,999 1,474,991
$20,000 to $24,999 1,634,378
$25,000 to $29,999 1,536,629
$30,000 to $34,999 1,636,575
$35,000 to $39,999 1,538,813
$40,000 to $44,999 1,534,283
$45,000 to $49,999 1,387,862
$50,000 to $59,999 2,742,690
$60,000 to $74,999 3,796,903
$75,000 to $99,999 4,869,660
$100,000 to $124,999 3,313,893
$125,000 to $149,999 1,847,434
$150,000 to $199,999 1,883,097
$200,000 or more 1,958,528

Here are two other key facts we need:

These households have on average 2.12 children under 18.

These households represent 30.7 percent of the nation's 113 million households.

(This information is from www.census.gov.)

The median tuition for an independent day school (excluding boarding schools) is $17,166 for members of the National Association of Independent Schools. http://www.nais.org/files/PDFs/NAISMemFactsNoSalaries_200809.pdf

So with 2.12 kids each, the cost per household to afford private school is $36,541 per household with kids. That is more than the annual income of 33 percent of American households with kids, or about 11.4 million households.

If we privatized, we'd certainly eliminate property taxes. While roughly 35 percent of Americans rent, let's assume that their rents would go down in the same proportion as property taxes. What's the average school tax? I think (not sure) that I pay about $3,000 a year. Others can correct me if I'm skewed from the average.

As a sanity check, if we assume $3,000 a year on average for 113 million households and divide it be 73 million kids, we get a figure of about $4,600 per child as a cost for public education, which seems about right. I suspect they're cheaper than private school. Anyone have any major heartburn with these estimates?

Okay, so this is the part I like. We all stop paying school taxes, so YAY! I no longer get charged $3,000 a year. Let me repeat - YAY! For simplicity, let's assume that the death of the public school system makes every household $3,000 a year richer regardless of their property taxes or their incomes or whether they have children.

So now we can bump up everyone's income by $3,000. I know the math isn't perfect, but let's just bump the table up by $3,000 for those households with kids.

With own children under 18 years: 34,727,021
Less than $13,000 2,208,953
$13,000 to $17,999 1,362,332
$18,000 to $22,999 1,474,991
$23,000 to $27,999 1,634,378
$28,000 to $32,999 1,536,629
$33,000 to $37,999 1,636,575
$38,000 to $42,999 1,538,813
$43,000 to $47,999 1,534,283
$48,000 to $52,999 1,387,862
$53,000 to $62,999 2,742,690
$63,000 to $77,999 3,796,903
$78,000 to $102,999 4,869,660
$103,000 to $127,999 3,313,893
$128,000 to $152,999 1,847,434
$153,000 to $202,999 1,883,097
$203,000 or more 1,958,528

Eh, it really doesn't make much difference, so I won't mess with it. You're still going to have about 33 percent of households where tuition is more than their entire income, and another 27 percent where tuition is more than half their income. Given that housing and food and taxes are probably more than half of the typical household's income, that means that at least 60 percent of households can't pay tuition. So we need to figure out how those kids can get schooling in our new private system.

How much are they short? If 33 percent need full scholarships at the average cost above, another 27 percent need half scholarships, and the top 40 percent pay their own way, you're short $589 billion. Right now, this is paid by the households without children (in part - public school is cheaper so the number is lower), but thanks to the new system we no longer get taxed. (Yay!)

Raise your hand if you think the private sector and/or the church is going to pony up $589 billion of free services every year. Even if there are efficiencies that cut the cost to the same level as public schools, the shortfall would be $158 billion, and then you're cutting out 75 percent of the cost and presumably much of the "value added" (the price difference) of private schools and most likely you've simply recreated the public school system.

So let's assume that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Private schools get really efficient and via competition they cut half the price difference between them and public schools, so you need to cover only $344 billion (($589+$158)/2) for those who can't even come close to affording it.

Who's got an answer for me? Convince me that your system will work and that poor kids will get to go to school, and I'll gladly be on your side and will spend my $3,000 on a nice cruise every year. I genuinely want to be on your side because I like cruises and hate taxes and love privatization, so I seriously want you to come up with a solution.

patteeu
08-25-2010, 11:48 AM
We can discuss the definition of wealth, but I think the bottom line is that a fully private or fully user-pay system requires that EVERYONE be able to afford sending their kids to private school and that EVERYONE will make the sacrifices to do so. Does everyone here think that EVERY parent is a good parent and will make those sacrifices? Does everyone here think that a kid with a lazy, uncaring parent shouldn't go to school?

Maybe I have little faith in humanity, but I think there are a lot of parents who wouldn't even think about taking a second job to send their kid to school. They'd just park the kid in front of the TV all day and 18 years later we'd be paying more for police and prisons.

There's a lot more educational(ish) TV on these days than there was when we were kids.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 11:49 AM
It's funny because I think that people in the past have called this "white filght" when you look at big cities, but I live in a very diverse neighborhood... I think in the 20 houses near us, we have at least 5 different nationalities and about 6 different types of religion. My kids are exposed to a lot of different things and I think it's great.


Funny how peoples priorities are different. When I think of great I think about not seeing your neighbors but knowing them well and looking out for each other. I think about living in the mountains where my kid can get out of school and ride his dirt bike until dinner. Where appreciation for diversity is understanding what fish are in which lakes and how to catch them. Where the only important thing to know about god is your relationship with him. A place where you can produce a good portion of your own food and your biggest worry is keeping the deer from eating your vegetation. Great is actually being able to see the sky at night while you listen to the crickets or hear the wind blowing through the trees. When I think of the top things I want for my kid/s making sure they are raised in a diverse ethnic and religious melting pot doesn’t even enter my mind.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 11:56 AM
and those are points worth discussing.

do you think that we're better off forcing kids to attend school and not work if working would help support their family more than going to school does?

Well, yeah, I do. It's not invalid to hold the opposite opinion, but I think compulsory schooling to the age of 16 is a very good thing. It may indeed cause hardship for the nuclear family, but it sure helps future generations.

Now, college is a different story, because I think a lot of sustainable careers don't require college. But reading and writing and arithmetic are pretty much core skills that everyone should have, in my opinion.

vailpass
08-25-2010, 11:58 AM
[QUOTE=Rain Man;6954036]
The median tuition for an independent day school (excluding boarding schools) is $17,166 for members of the National Association of Independent Schools. http://www.nais.org/files/PDFs/NAISMemFactsNoSalaries_200809.pdf QUOTE]

What the hell kind of private schools are you talking about? And what grade level?

High quality private elementary tuitions can be found for under $10k.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 11:59 AM
There's a lot more educational(ish) TV on these days than there was when we were kids.

Maybe all TV shows could have that "If you'd like to learn more about...visit your local library" message that Quantum Leap used to have. If that could replace the formal educational system, we'd all be winners. Maybe we should try it as an experiment in some place like West Virginia.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 12:01 PM
The median tuition for an independent day school (excluding boarding schools) is $17,166 for members of the National Association of Independent Schools. http://www.nais.org/files/PDFs/NAISMemFactsNoSalaries_200809.pdf QUOTE]

What the hell kind of private schools are you talking about? And what grade level?

High quality private elementary tuitions can be found for under $10k.


(Shrug.) That's a national association and that's what their members charge on average. I'm sure there are cheaper ones and more expensive ones, but that was the most official-looking number I could find in two minutes of googling. I used their figures for all grade levels.

vailpass
08-25-2010, 12:02 PM
(Shrug.) That's a national association and that's what their members charge on average. I'm sure there are cheaper ones and more expensive ones, but that was the most official-looking number I could find in two minutes of googling.

Thanks, got it. The $17k figure is one I'm not prepared to face until high school so you scared me a little.

chiefsnorth
08-25-2010, 12:14 PM
I am strongly in favor of vouchers. My child will go private whether they exist or not when she is old enough, however. The contrast between the two candidate schools is stark indeed.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:15 PM
[QUOTE=Rain Man;6954036]
The median tuition for an independent day school (excluding boarding schools) is $17,166 for members of the National Association of Independent Schools. http://www.nais.org/files/PDFs/NAISMemFactsNoSalaries_200809.pdf QUOTE]

What the hell kind of private schools are you talking about? And what grade level?

High quality private elementary tuitions can be found for under $10k.

The current school fees for the one I described earlier. BTW this reflects a full athletic and music program.
Middle School-1st student
(6th-8th grade)
$525.00 Mo.
$4,995 Annual
High School First Student $5,995.00 Annual

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 12:21 PM
CATO institute>

American schools are failing because they are organized according to a bureaucratic, monopolistic model. A school voucher of $3,000 per student per year would give more families the option of sending their children to non-government schools. However, many people believe that such a small amount could not possibly cover tuition at a private school; they may be thinking of such costly schools as Dalton, Andover, and Exeter and concluding that all private schools cost in excess of $10,000 a year.

In fact, Education Department figures show that the average private elementary school tuition in America is less than $2,500. The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857. A survey of private schools in Indianapolis, Jersey City, San Francisco, and Atlanta shows that there are many options available to families with $3,000 to spend on a child's education. Even more options would no doubt appear if all parents were armed with $3,000 vouchers.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 12:27 PM
[QUOTE=vailpass;6954065]

The current school fees for the one I described earlier. BTW this reflects a full athletic and music program.
Middle School-1st student
(6th-8th grade)
$525.00 Mo.
$4,995 Annual
High School First Student $5,995.00 Annual


And it's a good school?

Now we're getting somewhere.

If we assume a cost of $6,000 per year for an average of 2.12 kids per household, then we now just have to cover the costs of about 7.6 million kids for whom tuition is higher than their parents' annual income, and about 9.9 million kids for whom it's more than half their parents' annual income. That means that there's a service shortage of about 12.6 million kids (7.6+.5*9.9) out of 73.9 million kids. If all private schools can go with a $6,000 price, and if they raise the price by $1,000 (coincidence on the math, but it's almost exactly $1,000) to $7,000 for all students whose parents make more than about $30,000 a year, then they can give scholarships to the poor kids. Everyone gets private schooling, all households stop paying school taxes, and the only difference is that private school tuition goes up $1,000 a year for those making more than $30,000.

Is this a viable solution?

luv
08-25-2010, 12:32 PM
And it's a good school?

Now we're getting somewhere.

If we assume a cost of $6,000 per year for an average of 2.12 kids per household, then we now just have to cover the costs of about 7.6 million kids for whom tuition is higher than their parents' annual income, and about 9.9 million kids for whom it's more than half their parents' annual income. That means that there's a service shortage of about 12.6 million kids (7.6+.5*9.9) out of 73.9 million kids. If all private schools can go with a $6,000 price, and if they raise the price by $1,000 (coincidence on the math, but it's almost exactly $1,000) to $7,000 for all students whose parents make more than about $30,000 a year, then they can give scholarships to the poor kids. Everyone gets private schooling, all households stop paying school taxes, and the only difference is that private school tuition goes up $1,000 a year for those making more than $30,000.

Is this a viable solution?

Not all people without kids are so due to not wanting them. Even at that, some childless people might want to help out with the future of our country by donating money to these scholarships for poor kids. So those without can still contribute, and could probably deduct the donation as charitable on their taxes.

Brainiac
08-25-2010, 12:43 PM
Who's got an answer for me? Convince me that your system will work and that poor kids will get to go to school, and I'll gladly be on your side and will spend my $3,000 on a nice cruise every year. I genuinely want to be on your side because I like cruises and hate taxes and love privatization, so I seriously want you to come up with a solution.
Great post.

Everybody keeps saying that they should be able to spend their tax dollars on whatever school they want, and they insist upon ignoring the fact that there simply isn't enough public money to pay for both public schools and private schools. If you give tax credits or vouchers to pay for private schools, you WILL shift public money from public schools to private schools. It's inevitable.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there really isn't a helluva lot of difference between expecting the government to subsidize private schools and expecting the government to provide everything you could possibly want, regardless of the cost.

Wait, I get it. If the Democrats want the government to provide government services that it can't afford, they are Socialists. But if the Republicans want the government to provide government services it can't afford, they are simply God-fearing taxpayers who want to control "their" money.

Using public money to pay for public schools and using private money to pay for private schools shouldn't be that difficult of a concept to understand.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 12:45 PM
Not all people without kids are so due to not wanting them. Even at that, some childless people might want to help out with the future of our country by donating money to these scholarships for poor kids. So those without can still contribute, and could probably deduct the donation as a charitable on their taxes.


That's a good suggestion. Perhaps one of those "give a dollar" things on tax forms, or tax-deductible donations to scholarship funds. I don't know the legalities of it, but I'm sure it could help raise some money.

Question to the parents: do private schools have facilities to handle all students? So if a kid is deaf or handicapped or autistic, can he be served at the same costs, or would private school tuitions need to increase since those students will be coming over?

It would appear to me that the key is being able to keep private costs low so that scholarships could be offered to the poorest kids. I think there is a model that would work, though, and as long as parents recognize that they're covering their kids' costs, the other 80 million households would be delighted to not have school taxes.

I've got to be missing something, though. Is there some hidden cost of universal education that I'm missing? Something where private schools aren't having to absorb some major cost?

Amnorix
08-25-2010, 12:46 PM
[quote=vailpass;6954065]

The current school fees for the one I described earlier. BTW this reflects a full athletic and music program.
Middle School-1st student
(6th-8th grade)
$525.00 Mo.
$4,995 Annual
High School First Student $5,995.00 Annual

No idea what is up there, but my kid's summer camp programs was more than that, and it was easily the cheapest we found after some fairly diligent research.

Obviously we're in one of the more expensive areas of hte country, but I thought you were in SF area, no?

Amnorix
08-25-2010, 12:52 PM
[quote=BIG_DADDY;6954104]


And it's a good school?

Now we're getting somewhere.

If we assume a cost of $6,000 per year for an average of 2.12 kids per household, then we now just have to cover the costs of about 7.6 million kids for whom tuition is higher than their parents' annual income, and about 9.9 million kids for whom it's more than half their parents' annual income. That means that there's a service shortage of about 12.6 million kids (7.6+.5*9.9) out of 73.9 million kids. If all private schools can go with a $6,000 price, and if they raise the price by $1,000 (coincidence on the math, but it's almost exactly $1,000) to $7,000 for all students whose parents make more than about $30,000 a year, then they can give scholarships to the poor kids. Everyone gets private schooling, all households stop paying school taxes, and the only difference is that private school tuition goes up $1,000 a year for those making more than $30,000.

Is this a viable solution?

I'm completely on board with your analysis. 100%.

But honestly, I don't understand where these numbers are coming from. We had the cheapest summer camp program we could find -- it was partially subsidized though I didn't know (or care) what the subsidy was about, and it was $190 per week per child.

That's for a summer camp.

In the woods.


Other summer camps here were substantially more expensive, ranging to $500 per week.

Couldn't find another at less than $300/week.

Can't fathom a $5K/year private education system. The people I have spoken with about it pay a VERY substantial amount more.

I haven't done any independent analysis, however, as we opted for the approach mentioned earlier -- moved into a very good school system so we could send hte kids to public schools.

Rooster
08-25-2010, 12:55 PM
So if you send your kids to private school (either religious or not), why should you not receive a tax refund or credit or something to offset the amount of property taxes you paid that directly fund the public schools?

Only if their hair is cut about shoulder length.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 12:59 PM
[quote=Rain Man;6954125]

I'm completely on board with your analysis. 100%.

But honestly, I don't understand where these numbers are coming from. We had the cheapest summer camp program we could find -- it was partially subsidized though I didn't know (or care) what the subsidy was about, and it was $190 per week per child.

That's for a summer camp.

In the woods.


Other summer camps here were substantially more expensive, ranging to $500 per week.

Couldn't find another at less than $300/week.

Can't fathom a $5K/year private education system. The people I have spoken with about it pay a VERY substantial amount more.

I haven't done any independent analysis, however, as we opted for the approach mentioned earlier -- moved into a very good school system so we could send hte kids to public schools.

Yeah, I don't know anything about private schools, but the ones I know about in Denver are definitely more than $10,000 and probably closer to the $17,000 average I posted earlier. Maybe there are cheap schools in the suburbs? The $17,000 average seemed high to my gut feel and Big Daddy's $6,000 figure (not to mention the really low figures in his subsequent post) seem low to my gut feel.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 01:08 PM
Well, yeah, I do. It's not invalid to hold the opposite opinion, but I think compulsory schooling to the age of 16 is a very good thing. It may indeed cause hardship for the nuclear family, but it sure helps future generations.

Now, college is a different story, because I think a lot of sustainable careers don't require college. But reading and writing and arithmetic are pretty much core skills that everyone should have, in my opinion.

i was thinking more along the age of 12. at that point, you have reading, writing and rithmatic under control.

Mile High Mania
08-25-2010, 01:14 PM
You can't understand paying tuition to send your kids to the best school available?
What's so hard to understand?

I guess if we were talking about "the best school available" it wouldn't be hard to understand. I said they're spending large sums to send them to private schools because they live in Dallas proper and the city schools (for the most part suck). I never said they were sending their kids to the best private school... private school does not always trump public.

healthpellets
08-25-2010, 01:25 PM
I guess if we were talking about "the best school available" it wouldn't be hard to understand. I said they're spending large sums to send them to private schools because they live in Dallas proper and the city schools (for the most part suck). I never said they were sending their kids to the best private school... private school does not always trump public.

nope, private doesn't always outperform public education.

however, even if two schools, one private one public, were both middle of the road and those were my two choices, i'd nearly always choose the private school for the environment.

Rain Man
08-25-2010, 01:28 PM
i was thinking more along the age of 12. at that point, you have reading, writing and rithmatic under control.

Philosophically, I have a hard time saying that this country should require less education. At the same time, the current requirement of age 16 is likely arbitrary. I suspect that someone could do, or has done, a study to assess the effects of those additional four years to see what skills are added during that time frame and what their lifetime value is.

It would take a mighty brave politician to propose lowering that age, though.

BIG_DADDY
08-25-2010, 01:35 PM
[quote=BIG_DADDY;6954104]

No idea what is up there, but my kid's summer camp programs was more than that, and it was easily the cheapest we found after some fairly diligent research.

Obviously we're in one of the more expensive areas of hte country, but I thought you were in SF area, no?

I moved my family to Southern Oregon and commute. I'm back in the mountains brother.

There has to be incentive to have more private schools and if there is there will certainly be more and they will become more reasonable. Grade School for a good catholic school is $5,600 here. I have no idea what high school costs are here. I think the most expensive was like 30k. It's already running tax payers 7k per student.

vailpass
08-25-2010, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=BIG_DADDY;6954104]


And it's a good school?

Now we're getting somewhere.

If we assume a cost of $6,000 per year for an average of 2.12 kids per household, then we now just have to cover the costs of about 7.6 million kids for whom tuition is higher than their parents' annual income, and about 9.9 million kids for whom it's more than half their parents' annual income. That means that there's a service shortage of about 12.6 million kids (7.6+.5*9.9) out of 73.9 million kids. If all private schools can go with a $6,000 price, and if they raise the price by $1,000 (coincidence on the math, but it's almost exactly $1,000) to $7,000 for all students whose parents make more than about $30,000 a year, then they can give scholarships to the poor kids. Everyone gets private schooling, all households stop paying school taxes, and the only difference is that private school tuition goes up $1,000 a year for those making more than $30,000.

Is this a viable solution?


How did my name get quoted on Big Daddy's post?

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 03:53 PM
nope, private doesn't always outperform public education.

however, even if two schools, one private one public, were both middle of the road and those were my two choices, i'd nearly always choose the private school for the environment.

An advantage a private school has is they have to respond to the parents complaints much more if they want to keep their business. Plus there isn't some of the hand-trying policies the govt puts on schools and on teachers.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 03:56 PM
So you're advocating copying the educational system of medieval Europe as a model because of the wide access that medieval peasants had to formal education opportunities?

I'm not sure that system will advance science a lot, but at least we would more readily be able to identify witches.
No I am not. I am simply pointing out how private individuals work together to create solutions outside of govt. Kinda like the spontaneous collaboration when our own west was pioneered and settles.

You're arguing with a strawman here.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 03:58 PM
Really? Why? Because I don't think we should implement a policy that would inevitably lead to public schools being even worse than they are today?

That's weak. And for what it's worth, your impression is wrong.

I get the impression you depend on the private school for a living. :p

Because I thought I saw you say you were a teacher when I first came here.

No I don't depend on a private school for a living.....I did when first here as an adjunct. However, I have worked as an adjunct at a state college too. Each time it was a part-time supplementary income rather than a dependence.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 04:00 PM
Now this makes sense. If you would frame your argument to say public schools are horrible, that it makes no sense to try to save them, and that the private sector could do a better job of educating everybody and do it for less money, then I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.

Well, I don't think they're horrible. I think they're mediocre. Horrible is several notches downward. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think the private sector in general does things for less money and a better job....I've said that hundreds of time in this forum already. That does not mean all private entities do an excellent job. Buyers still have to beware and do their homework. I think a private system would put more parents in the driver's seat on that if there were choices. Parents get complacent with public systems because it's all done for them and they assume it's done well. It's really just too convenient.

RJ
08-25-2010, 08:26 PM
Who is they, parents?


The gubment.

RJ
08-25-2010, 10:04 PM
After reading this thread I think one thing should be pointed out.....sending your child to most private schools is about more than money. Vouchers and tax credits make for good political debate but they won't do a darn bit of good for most students and families. That's just a plain, hard truth.

HonestChieffan
08-25-2010, 10:14 PM
need to find a way to tax people who have kids but dont own anything placing the entire burden on property owners.

Need to find a way to tax people with more than 2 kids more per kid in school.

People who are over 55 should get reduced taxes for schools.

People need to pay their own way.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2010, 10:27 PM
After reading this thread I think one thing should be pointed out.....sending your child to most private schools is about more than money. Vouchers and tax credits make for good political debate but they won't do a darn bit of good for most students and families. That's just a plain, hard truth.

Yep!

cdcox
08-25-2010, 10:50 PM
As far as the cost of private schools go, our church runs a K-8 school. Tuition for a first child runs $5500, while additional kids run $4500 each. That doesn't cover the facilities and the utilities, which are covered by the church. All the building maintenance is done with volunteer labor or is paid for by the church. The building isn't up to code and isn't handicap accessible. It is located in a neighborhood where there are homeless people walking by every hour of the day and occasionally entering the building. Starting teachers are paid about $5 to $10K less than starting teachers in the public schools in our area. We offer no bus service.

There are other church-run schools in our community that have well cared for facilities in nice neighborhoods. They run closer to $7 to 8K per year per student.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 01:20 PM
"Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past."
~ George Orwell, 1984 (1949)

"Take at hazard one hundred children of several educated generations and one hundred uneducated children of the people and compare them in anything you please; in strength, in agility, in mind, in the ability to acquire knowledge, even in morality – and in all respects you are startled by the vast superiority on the side of the children of the uneducated."
~ Count Leo Tolstoy, "Education and Children" (1862)

BIG_DADDY
08-26-2010, 01:33 PM
"Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past."
~ George Orwell, 1984 (1949)

"Take at hazard one hundred children of several educated generations and one hundred uneducated children of the people and compare them in anything you please; in strength, in agility, in mind, in the ability to acquire knowledge, even in morality – and in all respects you are startled by the vast superiority on the side of the children of the uneducated."
~ Count Leo Tolstoy, "Education and Children" (1862)

Not sure where you're headed with this. I agree with the top quote but could speculate with you on the second all day. I'm just going to let it go.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 03:08 PM
Not sure where you're headed with this. I agree with the top quote but could speculate with you on the second all day. I'm just going to let it go.

Just the idea that the grass-roots people have more common sense and real world knowledge than those who learn in only ivory towers or only book knowledge. Like today' s academics. Obama is surrounded by academics.

BIG_DADDY
08-26-2010, 04:30 PM
Just the idea that the grass-roots people have more common sense and real world knowledge than those who learn in only ivory towers or only book knowledge. Like today' s academics. Obama is surrounded by academics.

They are 2 different parts, book smarts and experience. Intelligence comes in the middle. To make a blanket statement about being superior in mind and in the ability to acquire knowledge is just goofy. My 2 cents.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 05:05 PM
They are 2 different parts, book smarts and experience. Intelligence comes in the middle. To make a blanket statement about being superior in mind and in the ability to acquire knowledge is just goofy. My 2 cents.

Intelligence is intelligence. It is innate. It has nothing to do with education. Education is a different thing. Wisdom is another thing as well. I'd say wisdom comes more from experience. Education can come from both. School of hard knocks has validity. I take the quote simply as acknowledging something the educated elite lack; that one can be educated in all the wrong things or falsehoods. Like the left....so many of them in academia but they have so much wrong. Things the common man is wiser about.

BIG_DADDY
08-26-2010, 05:07 PM
Intelligence is intelligence. It is innate. It has nothing to do with education. Education is a different thing. Wisdom is another thing as well. I'd say wisdom comes more from experience. Education can come from both. School of hard knocks has validity. I take the quote simply as acknowledging something the educated elite lack; that one can be educated in all the wrong things or falsehoods. Like the left....so many of them in academia but they have so much wrong. Things the common man is wiser about.

Totally disagree. That's why I didn't want to go down this road.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 05:12 PM
Totally disagree. That's why I didn't want to go down this road.

I'm just surprised, you in particular, don't agree. It just seemed like it's not understood the way I'm seeing it.

I'll make one more try. If not fair enough.
Example: Senator Max Baucus was the author of the Obamacare bill but he subcontracted out the details to "experts."

This is what he said to a constituent: "I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language. We hire experts."

Experts are educated usually. Are they always right? Or do the people have some innate wisdom on certain things?

BIG_DADDY
08-26-2010, 05:23 PM
I'm just surprised, you in particular, don't agree. It just seemed like it's not understood the way I'm seeing it.

I'll make one more try. Example: Senator Max Baucus was the author of the Obamacare bill but he subcontracted out the details to "experts."

This is what he said to a constituent: "I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language. We hire experts."

Experts are educated usually. Are they always right? Or do the people have some innate wisdom on certain things?

They are simply different parts of the brain. Left brain is education, right brain is experience. Genius is right in the middle of both of those. Just like conscience decision making is a left brain function and intuition is a right brain function. Wisdom is right in the middle. Pretty simple stuff actually

BIG_DADDY
08-26-2010, 05:33 PM
They are simply different parts of the brain. Left brain is education, right brain is experience. Genius is right in the middle of both of those. Just like conscience decision making is a left brain function and intuition is a right brain function. Wisdom is right in the middle. Pretty simple stuff actually

Here I actually found something on it.

The Ends of the Spectra
• The two ends of the spectrum for negative emotional energy are anger and
anxiety. The middle point is called neutrality.
• The two ends of the spectrum for positive emotional energy are well-being and
confidence. The middle point of perfection is called bliss, or perfect self-esteem.
• The two ends of the spectrum for intellect are education filling our Left-Brain and
experience filling our Right-brain. The middle point of perfection is called
genius, or intelligence.
• The two ends of the spectrum of our decision-making are conscience (ethics) and
intuition. The middle point of perfection is called wisdom.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 05:37 PM
That doesn't have much to do with what I was saying. The common people have brains, a left and a right side too.

BIG_DADDY
08-26-2010, 05:44 PM
That doesn't have much to do with what I was saying. The common people have brains, a left and a right side too.

Common people may indeed have both sides of their brain but one side is usually pretty dominant and not surprisingly they usually believe that side is of more value. That was the point. If you don't think it has any value great, I am already WAY too far down a road I didn't want to go down because there is really no point to me.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 05:46 PM
Common people may indeed have both sides of their brain but one side is usually pretty dominant and not surprisingly they usually believe that side is of more value. That was the point. If you don't think it has any value great, I am already WAY too far down a road I didn't want to go down because there is really no point to me.

I didn't say it had no value. I just didn't think it applied to the original quote's point. But fair enough.

WilliamTheIrish
08-28-2010, 03:43 PM
Many generations prior to this generation paid for the private school tuition of their children w/o asking for a voucher (handout).

You want that education for your kids bad enough? Do what you parents did: Work for it.

You can continue to work for change to vouchers. But be very careful what you wish for. With vouchers comes unwanted intrusion.

healthpellets
08-28-2010, 06:14 PM
Many generations prior to this generation paid for the private school tuition of their children w/o asking for a voucher (handout).

You want that education for your kids bad enough? Do what you parents did: Work for it.

You can continue to work for change to vouchers. But be very careful what you wish for. With vouchers comes unwanted intrusion.

why do you hate poor, black children?