Yikes, exclude the middle much?
If you ask people to pay for their children’s education individually, then it would only be fair for them to then get a tax break once the kids are grown up, since their kids will now be the ones going out to work, funding pensions, being doctors, cleaning houses. etc. (Yes, there will be a few who don’t contribute anything, but only a small minority).
Did you go to school?
In general, I concur with you on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Far too many policy arguments run aground on slippery slope arguments which presume that if A is permitted, people will automatically become free to enter into a menage a trois with a poison toad and their toaster oven.
However, when someone seriously proposes one extreme, there becomes some value in the stating of the opposite extreme or the exploration of the implications of the proposed extreme, by way of a reductio ad agsurdam argument. Although it can be and often is done far too often, the occasional use of such an argument is or can be a constructive force.
A hypothesis:
Henry graduated from college at 22 with a simply amazing skill set and the academic record to prove it. For the last eight years, he has been rapidly advancing up the pay scale of his firm, which regards him as the goose that regtularly lays golden eggs and has been rfewarding him accordingly. A man of simple tastes, he has squirreled away and invested most of his income. He has just met Olivia and fallen head over heels in love with her. She too is a career woman who has saved/invested most of her ample income. But Olivia has one great regret – when she was 15, a bout of severe endometriosis led to a radical hysterectomy, and she can never give birth. When in a teary scene she tells Henry this, it awakens his dormant paternal instincts, and together they vow to adopt as many children as possible. With their investment income, wealth, and Henry’s enormous salary, they are able to adopt a dozen children aged 1-4, almost all of them special needs, over the next two years, It is now the second of those two years, and Henry and Olivia have a dozen preschoolers, and with the special needs situation, their children alone will call for an additional teacher when they enter school next year.
Do Henry and Olivia owe school taxes this year, under Fireclown’s scenario? Why or why not?
If I can ask a slightly assholish rhetorical question, why should we tax parents’ for their own children’s education? After all, it’s not the parents getting the direct benefit, it’s the children!
The aspiration of public education is, IMHO, to give all future citizens a relatively fair start. All children are provided a public education*, and in return, they pay for the next generations’ education when they are adults. The parents really don’t matter to that equation. Indeed, we consider the aspiration of universal education (or at least its pragmatic outcome, i.e. a more productive society) so important that we require children to go to school!
ETA: Actually, let me formalize that a bit. You could argue that education is not a public good, since not everybody is receiving its benefits directly at a given moment; but it certainly isn’t a private good, since the people consuming it don’t buy it (or necessarily even want it.) In civilized nations, the state regards providing children with some basic needs as its responsibility — so naturally it uses taxes to do so, not a sale model.
*Obviously, parents are allowed to provide an alternative. Depending on what country you’re in, that alternative may be closely regulated.
What is the difference between taxing someone with kids that don’t go to public school and simply taxing people regardless of whether or not they have kids?
I understand that education is different than other public goods but like I said, its not just a matter of having a more enriched society. Those educated brats grow up to be taxpayers and the additional taxes they pay over their lifetime more than makes up for the taxes spent on their education through at least high school (and I believe the first two years of college).
A lot of middle class neighborhoods have very good schools. You just need a critical mass of parents that give a shit.
Give me an example of a country without public education that doesn’t have abysmal literacy rates.
As I see it a good educated person does a lot for a society wither one has children or not. We need the doctors, teachers,scientists etc. who through the years have helped advance our society. My children and grand children are now grown, but can contribute to the health and welfare of others(with or without children) because of their education.
I don’t know if it is true or not, but I have read (and heard talk on TV) that a lot of the problems in Pakistan,Aphganistan, and such countries was due to the fact that so many are uneducated.
Look at it from a different angle. You aren’t paying for my children to go to school, you are repaying the cost of your own education. If you don’t make much money you don’t pay much tax to the schools - blame your own education. If you make a lot of money you pay a lot of taxes - credit your education.
I am continually amazed that people receive a 100% free education in America and then feel like they are somehow being stolen from when asked to pony up a share. The rest of us have been nice enough to wait until you have a home and an income before we ask you to pay back. If you really don’t want to pay for school then retire from society, live in the woods and earn no money. Problem solved.
Absolutely. I went to public schools K-12, then went to college thanks largely to taxpayer-funded grants and loans. Nowadays I have a successful engineering career with a pretty high salary, so I pay high taxes. I don’t begrudge a cent of that going towards education.
I was about to say this, but you did it first. 
Public education and taxes are NOT quid pro quo. Taxes are not tuition for public schools, on a deferred basis, on a shared basis or on any other basis.
There is nothing more unfair about paying real estate taxes to pay for public education than there is about paying real estate taxes to subsidize public transportation when I drive everywhere or paying for national parks when I hate the outdoors.
Which is why I asked Fireclown if he went to school.
The system is arranged very fairly. Every person is offered a chance at a public education. Then they grow up, become a taxpayer, and they pay their share for public education. It seems like a very fair system to me.
The notion that a person with no children is somehow absorbing fewer resources than a person with four children is a hopelessly stupid way of looking at it. The CHILDREN use the resources, not their parents. The children then grow up and become productive members of society, thus paying for the education they used.
Of course, there is the odd exception. Some people never become productive members of society (though of course they also, conveniently, tend to go to school the least.) Immigrants who arrive as adults never get the education they pay for, but in fairness it’s their choice to come here, so, that’s just one of the sacrifices you have to make for the privilege of being invited in. But for the most part it’s one education, one taxpayer.
I don’t see the problem.
I looked up information on whether there are countries without free public eduction, and it was hard to find data. But as far as I can tell these countries don’t provide public eduction:
Cote D’Ivorie
Sudan
Chad
Nepal
The Democratic Republic of Congo
Would anyone really want to join this list?
If you don’t pay for their education now you’ll likely be paying for their prison cell in the future. Which would you prefer?
I like this idea in a fucked up sort of way, turns children into investment vehicles. You get a kick back from the government based on what your child earns. Have enough [successful] kids and you could earn a nice little salary. Kind of like joining Melaleuca.
Although, if your kid ends up in jail it only seems fair that you should chip in for the cost of incarceration.
(bolding mine)
Can you give me an example of a country with NO literacy? Even Somalia is at 37.8%, and lowest recorded rate is Mali at 26.2%.
Cote D’Ivorie has a lower Gini coefficient than the US.