That’s all true, but it gets into a different argument regarding what aspects of education should be included in state-run education. If it’s not being paid for by taxes in the first place, then it’s really not relevant to the OP’s argument.
That doesn’t mean someone with 0 children should pay nothing.
And, being childless, you’re going to be living off somebody else’s kids when you grow old and retire. Don’t you want the people who will be generating the wealth which makes it possible for you not to have to work when you’re old and decrepit to be as educated and productive as possible?
You’re all kind of ignoring this statement that we are educating individuals. If someone does have eleven kids they sure do cost more to educate but they also pay more through taxes, as adults, into the public education system.
Fireclown, anyone in your family ever use public education? Even if you don’t ever have children you probably benefited your whole life from the public school system.
Kinda hard to imagine how kids without pencils are supposed to learn to write, but OK.
They also flat-out buy* books, in some districts and at some ages.
I don’t know…according to that logic, I think it does.
You’re missing my point…I’m not supporting the OP, I’m saying that the stuff that isn’t paid for by taxes in the first place is outside the scope of the argument.
And as far as what BwanaBob is saying, his point is that parents with more children SHOULD be surcharged, and moreso that what you are saying they already are. I’m not supporting that argument, either…I’m saying that it doesn’t make logical sense.
I’m not advocating this position, just pointing out that there could be a system by which everyone pays some base rate for public education, plus an incremental amount for each child you have. It works that way for road construction: everyone pays for it through their income tax, etc., but on top of that, car drivers pay fuel tax as well.
That thought couldn’t be more “in the box” if it were Cheerios. Also, can you define “free”. If you mean the children themselves don’t pay for it, then my system is also “free”. Otherwise, someone is paying.
In what way? I will be paying them for whatever services they render to me-- such payment made with money I earned while working. If you mean Social Security, well I don’t expect to see a dime of that money, and have made plans for my retirement with that in mind.
But…but…I’m saying that people WITH children DO (sometimes) pay more. It’s not computing, I may need more coffee.
The OP’s examples don’t make sense anyway, since he’s comparing the benefits of a (mostly free, taxpayer subsidized) K-12 education with the benefits of graduate school, law school, and medical school, which are definitely NOT free. Taxpayers do support colleges, yes, but the recipient of that education also bears substantial cost.
Right. And BwanaBob is arguing that people with more children than others should pay even more additional than they already do, via higher taxes. And I am disagreeing with that. Is my point more clear now? Maybe I’m not expressing it well. My point is that his logic, I think, is similar to the OP’s, which in general I am disagreeing with.
Even if you’re living off a private retirement plan or fund, there will still have to be a next generation to do all the work necessary to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care and all else for you in your old age. If you have no children of your own, then the labor of somebody else’s children will have to provide for your needs, no matter where your money is coming from. If the next generation is not productive, you will suffer, no matter how you finance your retirement (unless perhaps you move to a country which wasn’t so foolish as not to educate its next generation adequately). Don’t you want the people who will be providing the labor which creates the wealth that makes your retirement possible to be highly productive? And won’t the working population be more productive the better-educated it is?
I’m not following this argument, since I’ve made it clear that I will paying for the services I receive. Are you saying that I have some sort of moral responsible to procreate? I don’t think that what you mean, but that’s how I’m reading your statement. If they don’t charge me a fee that helps recoup the cost of their education, then they should raise their prices (assuming their services are worth more money). But let’s leave that aside for now, because I don’t think it is relevant to this:
Well, if the next generation interested in their own survival, they will make sure that they are “being productive”. However, can you show me where I’ve said that I don’t want people to be productive? I’m even willing to concede the point that mandatory education (up to a certain point) is a good thing-- we’re just talking about how best to finance that.
Parents who cause their children to be malnourished are dealt with. If they are doing so because they are too poor to afford decent food, we give them the means to afford that food. If a parent is wealthy enough to provide decent food, but doesn’t, then we prosecute them for child abuse. I don’t see why education needs to be treated differently.
Now, I will state up front that I hold the concept of self governance above any particular stance I might have on a given issue. We set up the current system, and although people may gripe about it, there isn’t a big hue and cry to switch over to the system I am advocating. However, that doesn’t mean the system we have is by default the best one.
Let’s also recognize that the system has evolved over time, and the original “social contract” involved local communities setting up their schools, with the parents having a considerable say in the curriculum and the choosing of teachers. The more removed that process becomes from the local community, the more removed people feel from having a “social contract”, IMO. That is why local communities often resist interference from outside (whether from the state capitol or from Wash DC). By restoring more of the responsibility of education to the parents themselves, the more you get them involved in the whole process, and we’ve seen time and again that parental involvement is a big contributor to how how good a job a given school does in educating the children there.
That makes sense. Even if one stipulates that there is a diffused benefit to the population generally and that it should be paid for generally, the fact is that people who actually use the system directly get that diffused benefit and the direct benefit, and therefore should pay more than people who receive only the former.
Here. Here. Actually, I have no problem paying the tax and don’t want a refund but tax deductible tuition would be nice.
Well, you’re talking about school vouchers, which I personally have no problem with, but the NEA sees it as The End Of The World.
Ponder this: In Arizona around 50% of a school’s funding comes from property taxes. So, people purchase housing in the area knowing that they will be funding education. If you don’t want to pay property taxes, you don’t have to. You can rent a home or apartment or you can live in an unincorporated area. Boom - you just reduced your tax burden. I imagine the response to be “I should have the right to live where I want,” which is perfectly valid. Then you’re expected to pay the property taxes that fund education; it’s part of the deal.
I just wanted to say, auto insurance may be compulsory, but driving certainly is not. So, I don’t think the two compare.
If they’re raisng their prices to offset the costs of their no longer free education, how is that any different from the situation we have now? You’re paying for it either way.
Having Children is also not compulsory so its a better comparison then you think. You choose to either have kids or drive and then it is mandatory to either pay for insurance or education.
I just wanted to say that in general I think everyone should pay a base amount in a “good for society” tax and then your usage of what ever is good for society increases your payments. The costs that people have from extra uses can easily be passed on to their eventual consumer.
For instance you have eleven kids and so you have to pay extra taxes to educate them so like most people paying for education you get loans where you don’t have to make payments on until the kids are done with their education. The kids then charge more for their services to pay back those loans. Now people who didn’t pay for their education are now helping to pay off their loans by paying 5 bucks for a Big Mac or they are not benefiting from their services still and not going to McDonalds. Either way you pay based on choices you make.
Or in a more real world example you don’t drive but are still forced to pay a minimal tax for road upkeep. Now if you drive you pay a fuel surcharge to pay for the additional usage of the road. These costs are then passed on in what the driver charges when they get to their destination. You still pay based on how much you use it or how much the people you pay use the service.
You understand that money is valueless without labor, right? Somebody has to produce goods and services for money to have any value; and since you have not had any children, the people who will provided the labor that will make your retirement funds valuable will be other people’s children. It doesn’t matter whether your money comes from Social Security or a private investment fund. Somebody else will have to provide the labor that makes the money a useful means of storing value and a medium of exchange. It doesn’t matter where your money will come from when you retire. You will still be living on some one else’s labor. That being the case, it it entirely fair and reasonable to expect you to help pay for the education of other people’s children.
The declining birthrates that leave more and more elderly retirees trying to live on the labor of a shrinking work force have become a major problem for Western nations today. Such things as pensions and investment funds made it possible for some people to support themselves in old age without the bother of having children to take care of them; but obviously it becomes a serious problem when too many people try to do that. There’s been a good deal of talk about the birth dearth and the difficulties it’s causing, so I know I’m not the only one who sees the problem.
I am utterly at a loss as to why you seem unable to grasp this simple point. I am sorry, but your point of view seems very selfish and shortsighted to me. In an amusing bit of serendipity,today’s Prickly City strip satirizes what I’m talking about here.