Quoting:
What's your opinion on homeowners having to pay school tax, even if they do not/never have children?
End Quote

I am against property tax being used to pay for schools. The schools should be funded by a state tax and distributed to districts based on how many students they enroll. The problem with property tax for funding schools is as follows: In a rich community where houses are over $300,000 each, and a family has one child on avarage, the school will be funded very well. In a city where an apartment has a value of $50,000 and there are three or four kids living there, that school will not be funded well. Since the kids did not chose who gave birth to them, or the value of the house they live in, the least we can do is give them equal funding. The other problem with property taxes is it discourages people from buying homes. My childhood home had a yearly property tax bill of $2,400. That is an additional 200 a month in addition to a mortgage for someone buying the house. The education should be funded as income tax for the top 20% of wage earners and be free for the bottom 80% as a method of evening out the playing field. After all, eventually we will end up working for them anyways, so they might as well offer us a good education.

Quoting:

I am against property tax being used to pay for schools. The schools should be funded by a state tax and distributed to districts based on how many students they enroll.End Quote

I agree in part.  In some places - Vermont I think - property taxes are equalized, with a state-wide property tax providing the basic per student funding, and towns using local property taxes and a sharing pool to suplement that, but a penny of tax generates the same amount in every town.  That way, there is still local control of the local schools.

Quoting:

I am against property tax being used to pay for schools. The schools should be funded by a state tax and distributed to districts based on how many students they enroll. The problem with property tax for funding schools is as follows: In a rich community where houses are over $300,000 each, and a family has one child on avarage, the school will be funded very well. In a city where an apartment has a value of $50,000 and there are three or four kids living there, that school will not be funded well. Since the kids did not chose who gave birth to them, or the value of the house they live in, the least we can do is give them equal funding. The other problem with property taxes is it discourages people from buying homes. My childhood home had a yearly property tax bill of $2,400. That is an additional 200 a month in addition to a mortgage for someone buying the house. The education should be funded as income tax for the top 20% of wage earners and be free for the bottom 80% as a method of evening out the playing field. After all, eventually we will end up working for them anyways, so they might as well offer us a good education.
End Quote

Actually, in Illinois, school funding by the state is based on enrollment.  Additional funding is provided by property taxes.  Property taxes do not discourage home ownership.  After all, someone owns the home.  Do you honestly think if their property taxes increase, they don't increase the rent?  As far as "evening out the playing field" that's just ridiculous.  You say that everyone should be treated equally, but your statement is contradicting that theory.  If you use your previous example, obviously the person who owns the $300000 home makes more money than the person renting the $50000 apartment.  Therefore, they already pay more in taxes than the apartment dweller.  Now, you are saying the apartment dweller shouldn't have to pay anything?  Isn't that reverse discrimination?  My husband works his tail off to provide a good life for us, now you are saying that he should also have to provide for someone who doesn't make as much money?  Sorry, I don't think so.

Quoting:

My husband works his tail off to provide a good life for us, now you are saying that he should also have to provide for someone who doesn't make as much money?  End Quote

Yep, that's socialism for you, in a nutshell!

Quoting:


Actually, in Illinois, school funding by the state is based on enrollment.  Additional funding is provided by property taxes.  Property taxes do not discourage home ownership.  After all, someone owns the home.  Do you honestly think if their property taxes increase, they don't increase the rent?  As far as "evening out the playing field" that's just ridiculous.  You say that everyone should be treated equally, but your statement is contradicting that theory.  If you use your previous example, obviously the person who owns the $300000 home makes more money than the person renting the $50000 apartment.  Therefore, they already pay more in taxes than the apartment dweller.  Now, you are saying the apartment dweller shouldn't have to pay anything?  Isn't that reverse discrimination?  My husband works his tail off to provide a good life for us, now you are saying that he should also have to provide for someone who doesn't make as much money?  Sorry, I don't think so.
End Quote

Here is the fundamental problem. If someone else had a $300,000 dollar home and a great income and their kid started falling behind academically, they can spend extra money to tutor and help their child. The people who rent the $50,000 dollar apartment can not spend the same money to help their own kid with academic help. Why should quality of education be based on how much money the parents make? Shoudn't all kids have an equal oppertunity? The work you do should not decide if your kid gets the basic needs met. Everyone works, and just because your hubby got blessed with a great job does not mean the other kid whos dad is struggeling should get screwed.

Quoting:


Here is the fundamental problem. If someone else had a $300,000 dollar home and a great income and their kid started falling behind academically, they can spend extra money to tutor and help their child. The people who rent the $50,000 dollar apartment can not spend the same money to help their own kid with academic help. Why should quality of education be based on how much money the parents make? Shoudn't all kids have an equal oppertunity? The work you do should not decide if your kid gets the basic needs met. Everyone works, and just because your hubby got blessed with a great job does not mean the other kid whos dad is struggeling should get screwed.
End Quote

Assuming that both kids go to the same school, they ARE getting the same quality of education.  All the schools I know of DO offer additional help to those who are struggling.  Even in the inner cities.  My husband went to college for 5 years to get 2 degrees and has worked his a$$ off to get where he is today.  He was not "blessed" with a great job, he earned it.  We already pay more taxes than someone who does not make as much money.  What you're suggesting is that we not only pay for our children's education, we should pay for someone else's too?  Why should WE be "screwed" because someone else's dad is struggling?  

Quoting:

Which brings me to private schools.  Should parents with children in private schools have to pay the property taxes that support the public schools?  This means that they are paying for a public education that they are not using plus the private education.  Of course, they should pay the taxes, but I am strongly in favor of some kind of voucher system that would reimburse them for all or part of the private school expenditures.  In private schools, parents are free to select the school that meets their criteria and typically they feel more connected to the school and the students get more out of their education.
End Quote

I have mixed feelings about the voucher program.  I agree that they should some sort of credit, maybe a % of their property taxes that go to the school district.  However, if you look at your tax bill (which I am) you pay for alot of things you don't use.  We contribute to pension funds for employees of the county, city, college, schools, forest preserves, etc.  We also contribute to the county forest preserve and local community college, which we will probably never use.  They are still there, though, for us to use, if we choose.  Should we still have to pay for them even though we aren't using them?

Quoting:

 Why should WE be "screwed" because someone else's dad is struggling?  
End Quote

Sadly, I call it "preemptive education". Everyone seems to think that education is about the children... it isn't. IT'S ABOUT THE ADULTS THEY TURN INTO. Adults that will be a part of society. Now, which is going to cost me personally more; paying taxes for educating a child I don't know, or getting carjacked so some undereducated adult can score a fix?

The fact is, an uneducated individual will cost you up to, (Market Research) thirty times the amount of money paying taxes to educate that child would have. Welfare, uninsured medical needs, prison costs, and all of the other things advanced civiliztions offer their less-blessed members will all cost more than just sending them to school so they can get jobs and buy the stuff themselves. Or not need it in the first place.


Little fact...

Financial returns on

-educating a child through the seventh grade: 13%
-investing well in the stock market: 7%
-putting in a new stadium: 0% at best

More market research.

Quoting:


We also contribute to the county forest preserve and local community college, which we will probably never use.  They are still there, though, for us to use, if we choose.  Should we still have to pay for them even though we aren't using them?

End Quote

Again, I ask you to think wider. Have you ever employed anyone trained by the community college? Used the services of one of their grads? Thought that maybe somebody who went to college there might have otherwise ended up stealing your television? The ramifications go far beyond whether or not you and yours actually use the facilities.

As for the forrest preserve... how far do you eventually want to have to drive to show your child a tree? Natural preserves are a huge house of cards. As soon as one goes, soon they pave Paradise and put up a parking lot. Oooooooh la la la.

Quoting:


Sadly, I call it "preemptive education". Everyone seems to think that education is about the children... it isn't. IT'S ABOUT THE ADULTS THEY TURN INTO. Adults that will be a part of society. Now, which is going to cost me personally more; paying taxes for educating a child I don't know, or getting carjacked so some undereducated adult can score a fix?

The fact is, an uneducated individual will cost you up to, (Market Research) thirty times the amount of money paying taxes to educate that child would have. Welfare, uninsured medical needs, prison costs, and all of the other things advanced civiliztions offer their less-blessed members will all cost more than just sending them to school so they can get jobs and buy the stuff themselves. Or not need it in the first place.

End Quote

I agree.  However, I think it should be additional taxes for EVERYONE, not just those in the top 20% (as John said).  As screwball pointed out, many of those who are in school on government money don't care as much as those who are paying themselves (or their parents.)  Just like many people who are on welfare don't care about bettering themselves because they know that the government is going to support them and their families.  

Quoting:Again, I ask you to think wider. Have you ever employed anyone trained by the community college? Used the services of one of their grads? Thought that maybe somebody who went to college there might have otherwise ended up stealing your television? The ramifications go far beyond whether or not you and yours actually use the facilities.

As for the forrest preserve... how far do you eventually want to have to drive to show your child a tree? Natural preserves are a huge house of cards. As soon as one goes, soon they pave Paradise and put up a parking lot. Oooooooh la la la. End Quote

You misunderstood this part of my post.  The point I was trying to make is that these services ARE there, should I choose to use them.  Just as the public school system IS there, should the parents who utilize private schools choose to use them.  Once you start allowing the parents who don't use the public school system to not pay taxes towards it, then you have to allow people who don't use the forest preserves or community colleges, etc (what other parts of your property taxes support) to not pay.  However, I still don't think I should be contributing to the pension funds of these entities on top of my regular taxes.  I have no problem with the rest of my taxes.  Sure, I would like them to be lower, but who wouldn't? ;)

Quoting:
I do want to point out as others have that people who are educating their kids in any school system should have a higher debt towards education.  Children cost money and that is a factor on Mrs. Race and myself deciding on when to have a child. We've decided that our child(ren) will be going to a private school to some degree if not throughout thier education, which brings me to school vouchers.  Originally when this was a hot topic I thought it a waste to take funds from public schools with facilities with an infrastructure and move them elsewhere and I still have some concerns with it, but If it is public money I think there is good reason to allow the parents of their children to channel their money towards and educations sytem that better fits the children and if they want to kick in more towards a better program than good for them.End Quote

Thanks Race.

people who are educating their kids in any school system should have a higher debt towards education

That seems fair to me.

I feel bad for you and Mrs. Race paying so much $ out, almost as if your were somehow being penalized for being a decent incomed, childless couple. You don't seem to get a break.


there is good reason to allow the parents of their children to channel their money towards and educations sytem that better fits the children and if they want to kick in more towards a better program than good for them.

I agree here too.

Quoting:



You misunderstood this part of my post.  The point I was trying to make is that these services ARE there, should I choose to use them.  Just as the public school system IS there, should the parents who utilize private schools choose to use them.  
End Quote

Cool beans, you're right, I did misunderstand. I totally agree with that.
;) back at ya!

Quoting:Posted by: Rice Cube Posted on: March 11th, 2003, 10:04am
I believe all citizens of a society have an obligation to ensure quality education in that society.  Whether they choose to use that education is up to them, but in the long run, everyone will benefit.End Quote

This sounds like socialism.  

I'll add:

Don_Carlos, I believe "return to the law of the jungle" is a bit strong.

I just believe in fairness.

I hope I'm not called uncivilized for having my opinion.

Quoting:
I hope I'm not called uncivilized for having my opinion.
End Quote

Why, Hairspray, you uncivilized heathen, you!!  :D :P ;)

Quoting:
  And I think its our responsibility to help others who for whatever reason have been less fortunate.  End Quote

Sorry, I don't agree with this.  If it is someone who is truly trying to help themselves, I don't have a problem with helping.  It is the people who do nothing but pop out kids like a candy machine and expect the government to take care of them that really tick me off.  Or, those who are just too darned lazy to work and are on permanent disability because of bogus "problems."

I do contribute to charities and food pantries, etc.  I realize that I am very fortunate to live the lifestyle I do.  And, I'm sure there are people who take advantage of the charities I support.  It's not going to stop me, but it just upsets me that people will take "charity" for no reason other than they think they "deserve" it.

Quoting:

Why, Hairspray, you uncivilized heathen, you!!  :D :P ;)
End Quote

;D  :)  8)

Quoting:


Sorry, I don't agree with this.  If it is someone who is truly trying to help themselves, I don't have a problem with helping.  It is the people who do nothing but pop out kids like a candy machine and expect the government to take care of them that really tick me off.  Or, those who are just too darned lazy to work and are on permanent disability because of bogus "problems."

I do contribute to charities and food pantries, etc.  I realize that I am very fortunate to live the lifestyle I do.  And, I'm sure there are people who take advantage of the charities I support.  It's not going to stop me, but it just upsets me that people will take "charity" for no reason other than they think they "deserve" it.
End Quote

I totally agree.  When I was younger I had a friend who was always on welfare.  When it came time to either go to work or school, she would pop out another kid.  She called her welfare check a "paycheck".  I couldn't stand to be her friend anymore because of this.  I wish I could have seen her face when they passed the "You can only get state help for 3 years in your life" law.  

I don't mind helping people, but I do mind when my help goes to people who think that the world owes it to them.