School Taxes

how bout why do those people who dont have children have to pay out of control school taxes???

Poconoeagle wrote:how bout why do those people who dont have children have to pay out of control school taxes???

My wife and I have discussed this issue many times
Our town collects 18 million in property tax each year...... 8 million of that goes to the public school system
Well....... WE DON'T HAVE KIDS! Down town is loaded with welfare folks riding the gravy train. It's their kids that WE pay for

Now I know this is a ridiculous thought on the old farmers part,but, if you can't afford kids, don't have them--don't just have have them because welfare will give you more money this would be possible to control if people would get thier heads out of thier butts--in fact--neutering seems like a pretty good plan drug testing--there's a bunch of things that need to be implimented to cut some of this welfare money out put--put the bums to work cleaning highways or sidewalks,or something Plus--poor doesn't mean dumb,usually in my world--lazy means uneducated

Richard S. wrote:The fact is poor people would not be able to educate their children, we have enough dummies in this country, we don't need anymore.

Well gee, what all did everyone do before 1965 and the DoE?

All them "dummies" managed to use slide rules and logic to put a man on the moon.

It's incorrect to believe the government is providing superior service. Hell, I'd almost settle for barely adequate!

Bumper sticker: "If you think education is expensive....try ignorance."

freetown fred wrote:Now I know this is a ridiculous thought on the old farmers part,but, if you can't afford kids, don't have them--don't just have have them because welfare will give you more money this would be possible to control if people would get thier heads out of thier butts--in fact--neutering seems like a pretty good plan drug testing--there's a bunch of things that need to be implimented to cut some of this welfare money out put--put the bums to work cleaning highways or sidewalks,or something Plus--poor doesn't mean dumb,usually in my world--lazy means uneducated

Fred, I completely agree with every word.
I know people on disability who have absolutely nothing wrong with them other than being lazy.
And many of them work under the table. The same goes for the welfare folks!
I know one scumbag who's got disability for herself and both her kids! There's a dish rag who can really work the system.
And how much money is spent on private detectives to spy on folks who are on workers comp?
Lets spend a few bucks and watch these people on welfare and disability. catch em and throw them off the system.
If they're legitimate, make them earn that monthly check, free housing and food stamps. Oh, and in Mass, FREE CELL PHONES

Richard S. wrote:To clarify my above post I meant to say "afford to educate".

jpete wrote:Well gee, what all did everyone do before 1965 and the DoE?

Publicly funded education has been with us longer than that, my 92 year old Grandmother went to public school.

She went to a LOCAL school that was run by the immediate area in which she lived. She didn't go to an NEA dominated, DoE mandated mish mash of stupidity.

Richard S. wrote:I'd agree and I didn't suggest the service was superior, PA has a good plan in the works. They are going to allow the students to apply to any school public or private, with them goes their state funds which is probably half of the funding. Companion legislation will allow a school district to layoff a teacher for fiscal reasons which they can't do right now. As I posted I'd like to see it expanded and remove the school districts as taxing bodies and collect more at the state level so each student gets ALL the funds. This will introduce competition for students, poorly performing schools will lose students and funding....

Our school districts aren't taxing bodies and I can assure you it doesn't work any better.

Just pulled this off a search
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.

Who collects the taxes doesn't matter but who spends them does. And since the inception of the DoE, that's not you.

I don't know where a public school student costs $6k, around here it's more than twice that. And if the student is "special needs", you can add $6k on top of that.

And English as a second language counts as "special needs". Last I heard, there were 78 different languages spoken in the Providence Public School system.

How do you figure more money is going to solve that?

You can't have a free market where government is involved.

Because the cost is generally hidden, people tend to think of public school as "free".

And because they are paying so much for their "free" education, they don't have the money for a private education. No matter what cost.