American Public Schools. Should they continue to be funded?

I've read everything you said. Your parents did not pay property taxes to send you to public school, the premise of your claim you should not pay taxes to fund your local education system because you don't have children. And you would be paying for that public education system with a sales tax instead of a property tax so there goes your complaint. In fact I would PREFER more of a sales tax than a tax on real property, but that is not what we have been discussing.

And what exactly do you think is my "viewpoint" about what?

 

My parents paid property taxes which had the effect of supporting public schools. This was fair and equitable precisely because I was enrolled in the public schools, and I received the direct benefit of being educated in them.

I have no children at all, in public schools or anywhere else. Therefore, it is completely unfair and inequitable that my private property should be taxed to pay for public schools. THAT is my position, whether you agree with it or not. Please stop distorting it. It is a simple restatement of QUID PRO QUO....

Now, do you think that property taxes should be levied on the population-in-general to send my dog to obedience school? If not, why not?! Isn't society improved by having well-behaved animals in it that obey their owners' commands...? My guess is that, once again, you'll dodge this surprisingly relevant question....

 

Economic growth benefits everyone. That's basic stuff.

 

I'm a bit confused by your post. You cite "international dominate concepts of accepted standards and knowledge" as a core problem with the world today, but you fail to define exactly what you mean. What dominate concepts or accepted standards are you concerned about?

Also, what do you mean by "those who are in control of media always push a theme of inclusion of moral decay and degeneracy"? Do you see inclusion as a problem? Can or will you define your vision of moral decay and degeneracy?

 

They didnt pay those taxes because they were parents, they paid because they were citizens and property owners. They would have paid them regardless had they had a little Pollycy attending the public school system. Had they had a little baby brother of little Pollycy their property taxes would not have doubled had they a dozen little munkins their property taxes would not have increased twelve fold because they were not being taxed to pay for YOUR specific education. They were being taxed to have a system of education for everyone and the community because of the social and economic advantages of having an educated populace.

Doesn't matter whether you have children or not and your position is not being distorted its being refuted.

Give me a relevent question......

 

I could not help but to respond here.

I have no children in the school system where I live, but I pay the property taxes that support that school system. I don't have an issue with that, as the value of that school system will bolster the value of my home when the time comes to sell it. The general educational level of the children in our school area improves the overall value of homes in the area.

Primary education, be it a one room school house, or a multi-regional complex, benefits everyone in the area, no matter if they have children in that system or not.

 

And what about those of us who bought our homes to LIVE in, and not as 'investment vehicles'? What about those of us who never had any offspring, bought a house, live in it, AND, are quite willing to pay taxes for government services that we actually have a demonstrable benefit from? Police! Fire Departments! Transportation infrastructure! What about those of us who simply want to own a place to live in and be left alone by taxing authorities who want to take money away from us to fund things that people-without-offspring have no interest in and derive no tangible benefits from?! We just get rolled over because we're powerless to stop this tyranny!

I read all this stuff about how higher property taxes for public schools increase the value of houses -- so that when you sell the house, you'll get more money. Oh, really?! So the government jacks the valuation on your house upward (because you're so willing to pay higher taxes to the school systems), and then jacks up the mill-rate causing you to pay a hell of a lot more in the property taxes themselves! Then, after owning your house for, say, 20 years, you sell it and make a 200% profit... maybe. Happy, happy, joy, joy! BUT, if you paid vastly more in property taxes because of the public school districts you were commanded to support, where did so much of your profit really go...?! You want to speculate? Try the stock market. But property taxation should not (NOT) be structured to accommodate "house-flippers".... That didn't work so well ten years ago, did it...?!

But, again, the overriding point is one of fairness, and the complete lack of it in the way we tax private property to support a public institution that does not (NOT) provide anything of direct benefit to all the people-without-offspring who also must pay the tax. One last time, to all who disagree with me on this -- Should the state begin taxing everyone's private property to send my dog to obedience school? If not, WHY NOT!

There's nothing equivocal about 'EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW'. Either we have it, or, we have a rotten, totally unjust situation with the way we tax property in the United States!

 

And what will happen when you no longer trod terra firma? Will the house go to another family member, be liquidated for your estate? Ah, but you do derive 'tangible benefits' from supporting the school system. If you don't have a decent school system, how are the neighborhood children supposed to read your "STAY OFF MY LAWN' signs?

 

Everyone benefits from publicly funded education. That's an economic fact.

 

You like to make absolute statements. How will you respond to this absolute question?

"Everyone benefits"...(blah, blah). So, AFM, where the hell is MY benefit? Show it to me, with your 'absolute' certainty. I have missed seeing it in my bank account so far.... Under what column-header in a financial statement will I find it...?

What happens after I'm dead is not (NOT) relevant to the clear and present issue of how my personal, private property is taxed while I am alive!

As for what measures I can use to keep the neighborhood children "off the lawn"... well, that's the least of my concerns.... If that ever becomes a problem I'll find a way to take remedial action without needing to have my personal property taxed thousands of dollars per year to get it done....

As I've said about a thousand times already, I have nothing against education for a person's children. All I ask is that if someone wants to have children that THEY pay the lion's share of the cost of that education -- not me! Nobody asks for my permission to bring their offspring into this world, or into my 'neighborhood', because it's none of my business. Fair enough! By the same token, what these parents do with or about their offspring is also NONE OF MY BUSINESS, and I shouldn't have my personal, private property taxed because of their decisions, either!

. "So, why don't you people levy property taxes to pay for MY education...?"

 

Economic growth and the prosperity it brings is your benefit.

 

While the puppy picture gets the 'awww' for the day, I don't recall animal obedience training being part of the taxation process for the betterment of Mankind. Rover there, while likely proficient in retrieving the newspaper, cannot READ the paper.

The valuation of a house is not based on what you're likely resale would be, at some point in time while you are pushing up daisies, someone will need to either reside in or resell that abode, and while taxation of that property INCLUDES support for the schools, which have an effect for the valuation of the property, it is not the only thing property taxes support.

You may not use the fire department, but it is there in case you need it.
You may not drive every road in your town/city/county, but they are there if you need them.
You may not need the road department to fix potholes on your road, but they are there if you do.
Animal Control may never be called to your house to trap and remove Rocky Raccoon, Petey Possum or that lovely snake pit, but they are there if you do need their services.

Do you wish to pick which services you will pay for? What happens if you do need a service that you haven't paid for?

 

I've never had to use the police or fire and never had a direct personal benefit from them so why should I pay taxes for them?

 

What does that have to do with our, society's, children getting an education so we have an educated populace?

Again you seem to keep ignoring the fact that your parents did not write a check to the school system with your name it to pay for your education. Nor did they pay additional taxes for your brothers or sisters if you had any. They like everyone else pay taxes so your community has an education system for all children because of the vital necessity to have an education society and populace. YOU benefitted directly from that system.

 

Aaaaaaagh! I'm exhausted... and I've changed nothing (as usual). So, I'll go on seeing approximately 80 cents out of every tax dollar I pay being shoveled into the bottomless pit of the People's Publik Skool Systems -- while the police departments, and fire departments go begging, and our streets, highways, and bridges crumble away....

But, the teachers' unions love higher and higher property taxes, and they're a lot more powerful than some one-off schlub 'property-owner', like me. Fairness in taxation -- American-style! It would almost be endurable but for the fact that so many of these children exit the public school system after having learned almost nothing of any value or use in the 'real' world.

But, that's not my problem -- and they can't tax me on the basis of what these kids don't know, and weren't taught.... Sorry I wasted everyone's time. I'll just go away and bitch to the night sky... it does about as much good as crying out for FAIRNESS in the taxation of private property..

 

FAIR and REASONABLE is a non-equator when dealing with too many people in modern-day America, I say. Most people who are for out of control government, this includes taxation policy really do not accept or respect living in a society supposedly based on freedom and liberty. Clearly, this is the result of years of government propaganda.

 

You are confusing funding of public education with the method public education is delivered. Those are two very different discussions.

 

Pure vacuous, unsubstantiated, fictional bullshit! Show me in my personal finances today (not after I'm 'dead') exactly how much I 'benefit' from having my personal property taxed heavily to pay to send other people's children to a public school! If you can't, you have no (NO) credibility.... You're just mouthing the baseless assumptions and worn-out phrases the liberal Left has used to browbeat the entire property-owning population of the United States for decades. And some of us are really getting sick of this unending injustice, while all the time property taxes continue to soar skyward -- without much benefit at all to those of us who don't have children in public schools!

 

That's absurd. You and everyone else in this country has benefited from the investment in public education made by the elected representatives of the people of this country over the decades. That is based on fact - no assumptions are necessary. Your opinion is moronic.

 

You don't believe that free education you got benefits you today?

 

If you do not have an educated populace where are the firemen and police and designers of infrastructure and bulilders going to come from? You seem to want the benefit of an educated populace but don't want to pay for it including your own educational benefit.

 

He prefers to live somewhere worse than the worst urban ghettos where educational achievement is so low. Imagine somewhere with no plumbers, no electricans, no stores, nothing but a bunch of people cooing about how they don't fund a education system. That is if even they would stick around.

 

Good point - there is very limited actual education in those places - what could go wrong - plenty.

 

The way public education benefits those who insist it doesn't benefit them is simple and direct.


Economic prosperity is increased the more education is furthered at all levels. This is a cumulative reality. The more education in a society, of any form, the better that society is for it on all levels, crime, money, health, +++++++.


The people saying it doesn't benefit them aren't doing a basic equation in their heads that they very much should be doing (luckily enough rich people at the top ARE doing this equation in their heads so that we will never have public education cut).

If you don't like your gorgeous daughter being raped to death in an alley, if you don't like being robbed at gunpoint out of your Mercedes or BMW at a stop sign, if you don't like the idea of being robbed at least once or twice a year, if you don't like the idea of every time you go outside of your walled/gated zone being robbed, raped, or murdered or threatened verbally with all three by masses of poor, unemployed people with zero options in life, then funding public education is a mission priority for you at all costs.

 

PROVE that an individual property owner always benefits by having property taxes levied against him to fund a public school system in which he has no (NO) offspring! Until you can do that, everything you've written is mere assumption and unsubstantiated speculation. Hint: the parents should pay the lion's share of school taxes, not just every poor schlub that dares to buy a piece of property somewhere....

The "education" wasn't "free"! My parents paid property taxes to support public schools, and TA-DAH! -- I went to them. This was completely fair and above-board taxation. None of you seem to GET that....

I'm not railing against education, but rather, who is tasked with paying for it! One last time -- THE PARENTS, who have kids in school (or who have ever had kids in a public school) should be the ones who, at the very least, should pay the MOST, because it is their family members who enjoy the lion's share of the benefit of "Little Johnny" and "Little Suzy" getting an education. Therefore, PARENTS should PAY the lion's share for public school education.

You can mash the issue up, make wild, unproven assumptions, and distort it beyond recognition -- I defy anyone who disagrees with me to PROVE to me in tangible, demonstrable terms that taxing all property owners to fund public schools is fair -- especially if those property owners don't have kids in the schools, and never have had any in these schools! And please, no more of your one-liners about how "but, everybody knows that everybody benefits...." I've read too much old Communist and Socialist propaganda to be influenced by unproven claims about what "everybody knows"....