What a novel idea. We should all pay some portion of our dollars to a government we feel is doing right by us. This would be far more efficient then letting them run loose for 2-6 years doing as they please.
Of course this kind of goes hand in hand with greater state government power and less federal.
Skip the personal remarks while posting in this forum, please.
Right, and if that kid does fuck all for 12 years and drops out before graduating, do I still benefit?
Your statement gives the impression that all these kids get an education and go on to do great things. Prove it.
I’m watching more and more kids reach grade 12 barely able to read, and think dinosaurs and cavemen lived together.
What is our return on investment?
As a reasonable individual, can you see a cross over point where declining results means it stops making sense to have public schools?
“And why is it considered whining for me to express a view you don’t share?”
I was making a failed attempt at a joke, and I apologize.
I think this is more strawman arguing. I used an example to show that you can benefit from public schools even if you don’t send your kids there. I did not say all children become doctors. :rolleyes: But that’s okay, since you may also benefit if they become cops, lawyers, or construction workers.
If you say so. I’m not seeing it.
I think if you got rid of public schools, you would end up with fewer people who have a minimal education, and more who get home schooled and actually do believe that thing about cavemen and dinosaurs. I don’t see that outcome satisfying you.
In the interest of fairness, if he gets a semi-warning for that, I might deserve one too for post #180, though I stand by my assessment of what turns complaining turns into whining and I feel vindicated by emac’s later posts which suggest to me that his stance won’t change despite any arguments we might make.
ETA: I started composing this post at a time when Marley’s #242 was the most recent.
I’m sure someone else has expressed this view by now, but;
The use of public assets by those who consider taxes to be theft, is theft.
All? Of course not. Heck, I speculated on figures earlier that said 25% college education for a decent public school, 2% for a crappy one. I don’t know exact numbers but I’m confident that there is quite a disparity.
Stretch it out further - maybe one kid in a thousand from a decent public school becomes a doctor, while one in twenty thousand from a crappy school manages it. It’s not rocket science that better schools mean more doctors. Heck, this doctor-kid doesn’t even have to treat you personally to be useful to you. Because he was on shift at the hospital that night, he took some patients and eased the burden on the doctor who did end up treating you.
I can picture diminishing returns where throwing more money at a school to buy better laptops and gadgets for the students yields no further benefit, but also as a reasonable individual, I accept that some percentage of the population is always going to believe stupid things. Further, someone who believes in the coexistence of dinos and humans could still be a perfectly competent and productive member of society. It’s only a relatively small handful of the population for whom accurate knowledge of evolution is all that important.
I think is is strawman arguing. I’m not advocating we get rid of schools, or stop educating children.
What I would like to know is if in fact we would get that worst case scenario you describe by switching to a pay for use system.
If instead of collecting taxes for schools, each person paid per child, how bad would things get?
Those parents that care about their children’s education would make paying for it a priority, just like all those that put their kids into private school, and pay for extra activities. And having a child would mean having the income to provide for their education, just like we expect parents to feed and clothes their children.
The parents who don’t care about their kids, won’t bother to invest in their education, and they’ll be in the same place they are now–except they didn’t bother wasting my taxes.
Basically, the number of high school kids that think cavemen and dinosaurs co-existed is unacceptably high considering what we’re paying. I’ll willing to tolerate, let’s say, 10% of kids don’t believe in (or understand) evolution. When it crosses the 40% mark our money has been wasted, and if it ever reaches 55% I want my money back.
And don’t forget that without the extra tax burden, I can choose to support charities that provide scholarships, bursaries, and loans. Those that think every child has the potential to become a doctor can make that investment, and reap the rewards.
I’d love to see a program where you sponsor a child through school, and in return he pays you back from his salary. If that was the case, wouldn’t you take more time to make sure you pick the right kid? And wouldn’t you then have a personal interest in his success? (yes, this is retarded and wouldn’t work) If your investment was based on his income, would you take the safe road and push towards engineering, a nice modest return? Would you push for medshool and hope you aren’t left with another biology degree. Or would you take the risk and push for sports/acting/music?
The government provides services. They support the Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative bodies. They provide an army ,navy and air force for out defense. They supply police, fireman ,roads and all kinds of regulative bodies. They provide schools and regulate them.
Anyone who thinks they should not be expected to chip in for the benefits the government provides is a thief at heart. You would have to be pretty selfish to think the other citizens should provide for you.
Yes, it was made, and shot down. I take great enjoyment doing it again.
How is it theft if I’m paying my taxes? Are you not aware of the free-parking-fallacy? I think we should have highways funded by tolls instead of taxes. As long as I’m paying my taxes, there is nothing wrong with my using the highways. If they put up the tolls, I will pay them.
As an example, Canada does not allow the private purchase of medical care, that is to say, if I don’t want to wait 6 months I am not allowed to directly pay a doctor to stitch me up. Instead, we have a single-payer mediocre socialist system that requires I pay taxes and wait in line. I can advocate we switch to a pay per use all I want, and never be allowed to pay for my use because that is against the law.
Note that I wouldn’t never argue that because pay per use medical care is fucking retarded.
I want to pay more directly for the public assets I use. And let you pay for the public assets that YOU use.
Now to turn it around, do you think it’s theft is someone uses public assets without paying taxes? Is it theft to go to an amusement park without paying the admission?
How much do you think you would save, percentage-wise, if you just paid for the services you use?
I see. Insurance is the answer to everything.
Well, as long as we’re off in fantasy land, let’s expand the story into the big picture.
You’re now advocating “crime insurance.” Except everyone can’t possibly afford to purchase “crime insurance” considering that crime is inevitable and premiums for said insurance would be astronomical due to the fact that the insurance company is now fully funding the police, the entire judicial system, and the penal system. So when most people can’t afford said insurance, when they are inevitably the victims of criminals, their victimizers must go free because no one can foot the bill for their arrest, prosecution or incarceration, which increases the overall crime rate, and further increases your insurance rates. Who are you proposing to fill that gap? The- the- the government?! There is no government because there are no taxes. Since no one is paying their crime bill, the police department closes, and the entire judicial system collapses along with society in general.
Or, we could have everyone pay a share of their income and get all of these things for the comparatively small sum of just $380 a year.
I don’t see a point where eliminating the public school system is going to result in a better level of education across society than having a public school sytem. I think your comments about illiterate public school graduates have a strong ring of “damn kids today…”
I don’t know how you would measure that, the same way I don’t know how you would measure your individual use of highways or national defense.
One of the recurring themes here is that you keep asking “why should I have to pay for this social program?” without considering the cost of what happens if it ceases to exist, which is a distinct possibility. Right now, you say kids don’t get a good enough education from public schools. If the schools don’t exist (because people with enough money will send their kids elsewhere and those without money can’t afford it), the kids who were not educated enough are going to be totally uneducated. How does that benefit you? You’ve saved some money while creating more unproductive members of society.
Good for you. Of course without public education we’re going to need a lot more charities, and they’re not cheap to set up. Some will fail.
The potential, yes. Obviously only a tiny minority are going to do it.
Well, you’re correct it’s a terrible idea and wouldn’t work. Buying the child and putting him to work for you immediately would be a smarter investment.
Right, so the question is what gets us better schools? 30 years ago all these arguments were made, now we have 30 years of data, how does it look?
We spent a lot of money on public education, are we getting a good return on our investment? Or is the tax burden actually doing harm?
I need to put this more bluntly to make a point, please forgive me:
We have two kids, from two families, one middle class and one low income. 30 years ago we said, if we take some money from the rich family to help pay for the poor kid society is better. This is the argument you’re making in simplistic terms. Giving the poor kid a chance means he’ll be a literate and productive member of society and we’re all better off.
Although it sounds like I’m whining, what I’m really doing is putting my foot down and asking for proof before I cough up more money.
It is my contention (as with previous examples like mortgage and military) that we might actually be making thing worse. Taking money from the rich family deprived their kid of things that would have helped him be better. They couldn’t afford piano lessons, or the junior medical club, SAT prep courses, MCAT courses, because of their tax burden. Taking that money from them meant that he doesn’t get to become a doctor.
So what about the other kid, did he become a doctor? Statistically speaking, no. Like you said it could be as low as 2% vs 25% for the rich kid.
Your goal was to make us all better off, the carrot was supposed to be more/better doctors (as an example).
Except with so many of these situations, the stats show public schools suck, so people demand more money. More money is always the answer. If only those schools had more tax revenue, the kids would more likely to be productive. Sometimes more money doesn’t solve your problem.
Please note that I’m trying to use this as an example. I am not personally advocating with throw the poor kid to the wolves, nor am I suggesting that being poor translate into poor performance. It’s based on the discussion we’re having.
Right, if we were to plot the money we put forward through taxes, against percentage of stupid people, we get a long flat line with a steep rise at the low end (no money lots of stupid), and to
the right we get an asymptote (lots of money, still stupid people).
Depending on where we are on the graph more money isn’t necessarily helping, less money probably won’t make things much worse.
Well, if starting a conservative version of wikipedia, or offering anti-evolution tours of local museums is considered productive then sure. That’s where I see things starting to be COUNTER productive, now we’re basically paying for kids to be stupid, so that they can go out to make other people stupid. Is that where you want your tax dollars spent?
None of that is necessarily true, though.
Does it work out well for society if there are a bunch of doctors from rich families and a bunch of kids who can’t do much more than bag groceries?
Is it a strawman argument to speculate that this is wrong and provide an attempt to reason out why this is wrong? If so, that’s what I’m about to do, though it’s not a “strawman” by any definition I’m aware of.
The kids won’t be in the same place they are now, at least not collectively. Figure they all have parents who don’t care. Under the current system, the kids get jammed by law into public schools, some significant percentage drop out some percentage graduate, some minority goes on the college or the military or whatever. Under your proposed system, I can only assume schooling is not mandatory at all (it’s the parents’ choice, and if they choose not to pay for schooling, there will be no schooling). Is it fair to say that whatever the percentage of dropouts was in the public-school system (and the results - more teen crime, illiteracy, drug addiction and pregnancy), it can only be worse under a system where there is no schooling at all?
If we’re engaging in serious thoughtful cost/benefit analysis, first I’d want to establish that understanding of evolution was a good litmus test of productive citizenship. Personally, I think basic financial knowledge (how to file a tax return, build a retirement plan, manage a checking account and credit cards and a mortgage) is far more important for most students, with evolution-understanding only being critical for those students pursuing careers in the sciences. It pains me personally to think of a majority of the electorate being this ignorant, but I have to admit other priorities.
You could, but will you? Personally, I’d rather have a solidly-funded educational system that didn’t depend on private generosity, because having an educated population is a worthwhile state interest.
Doesn’t that sort-of already exist, with one’s own children? Granted, the picking process is somewhat randomized, but if you maintain a good relationship with your kids, it’s fair to expect them to help you out when you’re old. A form of what you propose for unrelated children actually does exist, in the form of contracts where a community pays (or partly-pays) for someone to go through medical school, in exchange for a certain term of service in that community. Heck, the military operates in a similar fashion - get training in some useful skill, “pay it off” by agreeing to a six-year (or similar) hitch.
Probably most of your reasonable ideas are already in practice in some form because somebody has already recognized their value, while your unreasonable ideas aren’t because they have no value.
I personally think I would break even. The money I save not paying for foreign wars and stupid kids in school would be spent paying for higher minimum wages and toll highways. The way I see it, the $20,000 I pay in federal taxes would get applied more directly to each project.
The cost of the FDA would show up as a fee on medication, medical devices, and inspected food. If I felt that the FDA was a corrupt bunch of political appointees, I could choose to by food from Bob’s Inspection Service. Sure it costs more but I get fewer cases of salmonella, and a free hat.
And what’s more significant, when we remove the “freeloaders” that weren’t paying for highways, the cost of maintenance goes down. We also get fewer highways being built through congressional districts that don’t go any where. The decision to build and fund new highways isn’t based on a majority vote, it’s based on a cost benefit analysis of where a road should go.
Or you end up trying to treat your cancer with ginseng. But hey, you get what you pay for.
If you want to argue for some kind of voucher system that makes it easier for families to put kids in private schools, or some other ideas that might improve education, fine. Jumping from there to “taxation is theft” is beyond Olympian, though.
If we’re still only talking about education then, yes, you deserve to know the results. I don’t know that knowledge of evolution is a good metric, but graduation rates and literacy and comparative SAT scores (2009 results vs. the 1994 results, say) might be more useful. If you’re unsatisfied, it behooves you to start going to board of education meetings and demand answers, perhaps even running for a spot yourself (or sponsoring someone who seeks election on a platform you agree with).
Does that actually happen, a rich family taxed into the middle-class bracket? By your own arguments, everything (except taxation) is a matter of choice, so if the rich family really wants their kid to be in the junior medical club, maybe they should get by with their five year-old luxury car instead of replacing it, or some other discretionary choice.
My numbers are purely speculative by admission, but I’d suggest that the point isn’t to make the poor kid into a doctor (though it would be nice if he became one) but to increase the odds that he will become a productive member of society (even if not a doctor) and reduce the odds that he will become a criminal. There are no guarantees, of course.
What stats are those? And true enough, money doesn’t solve the problem. Utter lack of money can certainly aggravate a problem, though.
Is that how you think non-evolution-believers spend their time? For all I know, the guy who fixed my car is a Young-Earth Creationist, but I don’t care because my car got fixed. That some small percentage of the group is annoyingly aggressive in their ignorance is tragic, but it’s a minor concern in Canada (albeit quite a significant one on the U.S., where religious structures are far more blatant about seeking power and more of the population is stupid enough to encourage them) so I don’t see it alone justifying trying to opt out of the tax system.