What is "school choice" in the US?

It's rent that we pay to our State and Local government in exchange for them not stealing your home. A lot to most of it goes towards the costs of educating perfect stranger's children. It is ever increasing, and can never be paid off, and has driven many seniors out of their homes when it becomes more than they can handle. I hope I do not become one of them, we shall see.

I hate property taxes, because they are passive, permanent, and ever increasing. We should have allodial titles, but that is something I don't see happening.

 

What's your point?

 

And this is the primary reason people are unaware just how much they are paying, and frequently are surprised to learn in the rare case that they actually pay off their home that a paid off home is never paid off. It acts kind of like income tax withholding, which many people who don't pay attention to the fine print don't realize how much they are actually paying.

I don't know about property taxes, but if people had to save up what they actually owe in income taxes and write a check at the end of the year for that amount, they would instantly revolt against income taxes as a whole. Which is, of course, why we have withholding in the first place. It ensures Uncle gets paid FIRST, and it hides the true amount in paperwork most people don't read or understand.

 

The government IS the people, so 'it's the government's problem' is never true. They are spending our money, as they don't have any of their own, and it ends up being extreme for middle income people that are expected to pay the bills for so many complete strangers.

 

Not really, no, but maybe my upcoming response will clarify it for you.

Playing favorites by deciding which religion to brainwash kids with in schools has been deemed to be illegal and Unconstitutional, as it amounts to the Government 'playing favorites' and does amount to a defacto declaration of an official religion, at least at a regional basis. This was decided way the hell back in the 60s, but even when I was a grade-schooler in the late 70s and early-mid 80s, some teacher's hadn't gotten the memo, and were still pushing their religious views on students.

At the time, it matched what my parents (specifically, my mother) was brainwashing me with at home and on Sundays, and I didn't read Supreme Court briefs at that age, so it didn't seem odd to me at the time when we were expected to pray before a meal, or first thing in the morning or whatever. As I became an adult I realized what a bastardization organized religion was, and want nothing to do with it today. Since I have experienced death, at least part of a primer, I now know that I was correct with my assessment, as whatever is out there is not what is described by the xtian buybull, which is (or was) the default during those times, and of course in earlier times. I'm sure when my parents went to school themselves there was nary a difference in between a private religious school and a public one, except maybe for those who specifically wanted their kids to get a nice catholic edumacation.

 

That is why I added the "directly" condition. For all sorts of public services, people are elected, appointed or employed to actually carry out those services. That doesn't absolve any of us from our individual responsibilities (and rights) as part of society though.

Street cleaners and refuse collectors are employed to help keep our communities clean, but that doesn't mean we're free to drop litter or fly tip. Police, prosecutors and judges are employed to deal with criminals, but they still need public support and assistance to do that most effectively. Regulators are employed to ensure the safety of air travel, but we can (and should) care that they're doing that well, even if we never fly ourselves.

All of these things do only impact a subset of people alone but every one of us as part of the shared community, even if it's only indirectly for us personally. Schools are a clear example of that and so it is in our interests to ensure that the general education of al children is working as well as it can, regardless of whether we have any children of our own within that system.

 

Yes, but the people are not involved in the operational control of the moving parts of government.

 

By doing what?

 

No what it means, sir, is that our public schools are failing minority and other students. And increasingly minority parents are wanting their kids out of what are increasing dangerous hell holes in which kids are more likely to be killed than to learn anything of real value.

Which in turn means we are seeing laws that allow minority and other parents to take their education tax dollars and send their kids some place where they can learn something beyond how to kowtow to bullies and what gunfire smells like.

Note a thread appeared here talking about the decline in IQ among students, sadly what those scores really showed was a decline in American pedagogy, both methods and curriculum. The surest way to destroy a people is to convince them that everything wrong with their lives is someone else's fault.

 

It means that private education isn't publicly funded. School choice would have educational funding follow the student rather than the school. It would improve competition and competition is good for progress and improvement. If it were done on a national basis, though, it would put public schools out of business. I assume public education in Australia is better than in the U.S. Our public education is in trouble and getting worse.

 

Hi, chris 155au.

In the United States of America, we have in each state a public school system, administered by the state. We also have, in each state, laws which require children to attend school. For parents, there has always been the option of sending their children to a private school if they are willing to pay for it. Depending on the state, home schooling is acceptable, though there may be requirements for the capabilities of the parents to provide it.

So far, so good. Until recently, parents who opted to send their children to private school did not get a reduction in that portion of their state/local taxes that went to support the state educational system. 'School choice' is a recent concept, in which parents who wish to send their children to private school will receive money from the state to underwrite it.

There is also, again state dependent, parental choices available as to which school in the state system a child will attend.

Quite a mix. Not at all unusual in these United States, where our peculiar history and federal constitution sets up situations in which complexity is almost guaranteed. The brouhaha -- a continuing stench in the ear -- over the arms clause in the Second Amendment to the Constitution will serve as an example. It also illustrates nicely the effect of case law on the Constitution.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. "Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!"

PS. We in the states share something with you blokes down under. Both of our nations were initially settled by discontents. In that, we're perhaps closer to you than to the next door Canadians.

 

Thanks for the info. Depending on the details (where the devil lurks) I would likely have real problems with ESA, and since I live in Texas maybe I should suit up.

 

Two pieces are missing. One tax relief for parents who have to pay for public schools and pay again to send their kids to a private school. Two, there is the messy situation of having school choice within the public school district.

 

It is usually by far the largest portion of property tax that residents are assessed and pay each year on their house. For example in my Texas paying property tax of $5000 a year on real property is not uncommon and at least $3000 of that would go to the school district.

 

Very helpful, but you glossed over a tiny but important piece where Michelle Obama told all the schools what the should and could not serve in their cafeterias.

 

Actually, they are aware, generally. I get an annual letter about what my escrow is, which means my mortgage payment can stay the same, go up, or go down. In that escrow letter from the bank, if you are "short" in your escrow account, your choice is either to pay the amount that is short or your mortgage payment goes up to make up the difference in a year's time. Your escrow letter tells you what your homeowner's insurance would be and your property taxes.

Second, my county district sends me my proposed property tax bill for the year. I have 6 weeks from the date of that letter to challenge the assessed value. So I know what it will be the upcoming year. And if a property owner does not know, then they are not opening up their mail or reading the damn letter sent by the county, among other things. That would be an irresponsible homeowner IMO.

 

I am intentionally avoiding the politics for property taxes in this thread.

 

And, increasingly, they have little to no say in how it is controlled.

 

It is proposed law right now along with a whole bunch of other proposed laws in the state legislature. SB 3 and SB 5 were passed. The house has its version. The difference, mainly, is the house limits the valuation increase from 10% to 5% while keeping the exemptions the same and SB 3 and SB 5 raise the exemptions. So a compromise of a little of both may be what's in store.

for the education proposal, the school choice is in the House and pass the committee, so a vote is expected soon I think, like the first of April. But there are a couple of proposals out there. One is a voucher system of some sort, which would limit which types of private schools wish to accept the voucher. Bear in mind, not all private schools, like The Hokaday School or St. Marks Private School are probably not going to accept the vouchers, but private, Christian schools wills IMO. Then you have a proposal with ESAs paid for by property taxes. But I don't think this is getting much traction in the state legislature. So, we will see what comes.

 

I'll buy that.

 

Given the role of teachers unions and and not infrequently school superintendents all increasingly fruit of the same poisonous leftist tree firmly believe they are the only ones allowed to make changes and most of those changes over the last few years as shown by IQ testing in grade school have been failures if not unqualified disasters.

 

Anyone who participates in forums like this is smarter than the average bare, so you being aware of things doesn't mean Joe Six Pack is. Joe Six Pack takes their check, maybe deposits in a bank, or in many case, they cash it for, well, cash, but either way, they don't look at all the details contained in the stub, and don't know just how much difference there is in the amount of money they made, and the amount the received.

The same is true for property taxes, first, most people don't plan to ever pay off their homes, so what happens after the mortgage is paid for never even enters into their consciousness. Second, when they see those property tax statements, they figure that is the bank's problem, because that is who pays those taxes. In their eyes. IF they live in their homes long enough for the escrow to change, they don't give it too much thought, because "hey, it's just a few bucks, so what", which is how cable bills start out at $99, and the next thing you know they're $250, because these companies use the boiling frog method. They bump it by a few bucks a month, so little that nobody cares, and they turn around and they're paying way more than planned, but it doesn't register.

This applies to sooo many things. Withholding. Property taxes, and in some cases, property insurance. Tax increases. I mean if it goes from 15% to 17%, how much is that, $10 per paycheck for a lot of people, if that? Eh, no biggie. Even business taxes are the same, since they are not listed on the receipt like sales taxes are, it creates the fictional illusion that it's the businesses themselves paying those, when in reality, it's a certain percentage of every sale, just like sales taxes.

That's why seniors end up losing out on their homes, because they likely believe once that mortgage is gone, that $3,284/month they've been paying on it is gone, too. But... As you and I both know, it's not. And the debt they still owe can never be paid off, no matter how much you pay against it.

Joe Six Pack is a moron, flat up. And they don't visit places like this to become less of one. And yes, they do irresponsible things. It is what it is.

 

Reminiscent of decades ago when California passed the law that when gas stations posted big signs with the price per gallon they could not show how much was for state and federal taxes, which was a common practice way back when.

 

BINGO!!!

 

Even Joe Sixpack will be aware of what his mortgage payment is, how much is a principle, how much is interest, how much his property tax is, and how much his homeowner's insurance is., He may not understand how they calculated that amount, but he knows how much he as to pay and what it is used for. That is why Joe Six Pack is making one payment for all of it.

Now, Joe Six Pack will get his appraisal and then try to get is lowered. He will take pictures of the property and try to show them that it is not worth as much as th appraiser said it is. And he may just lose anyway and will begrudgingly suck it up. then he will demand his state legislature give him relief and how hard it is to keep up with the payments when his value goes up 10$ each year for the last 4 or five years. He is also counting down the days in which he can get a reverse mortgage, ask for higher pay, cut certain expenses, and complain, complain, complain, complain. But he is aware. And by law, all of this has to be presented in an 8th-grade education level in the letters I mentioned.

The problem is property tax is a double edge sword. If you live in a state where more people coming into the area, then the property value is going to go up to the state maximum. You have more economic opportunities because more businesses are moving in, more people are moving in, more demand for houses and rentals, which all result in higher prices for living in the area you are in. What you hope is your pay corresponds to the increase in your cost of living increases. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. And with all of that is an increase in equity in your home, which can ube used as an ATM if you are wise enough to manage your debt effectively. And home equity loans are generally "cheaper" finance charges than personal loans and credit cards, assuming everytying else is equal.

But of course, the reverse is true too. Bad economy, people moving out, and so forth means your home value goes down. What you hope is the home value does not go below the mortgage outstanding balance. And that means you are upside down in your home and at risk of foreclosure by the bank. That is what happened in 2007 when he had our mortgage banking crisis. New homeowners, ones who owned their homes in the last few years, had that predicament and could make up the difference because of the lack of economic opportunities and other factors.