7 ms·

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" It is possible to have compassion without "a soc

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" It is possible to have compassion without "a social network of interpersonal support". An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Yes its not as helpful as active volunteering. But the general mindset of "This is everyone's problem" is much more globally beneficial than always thinking "It's not my problem".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
>"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" We hear a variation of this in FL all the time from retirees. Their children are grown and they've already paid for schools in their previous state! Ok, thanks for moving here, then.
- vernie 10y ago
  But they're perfectly content to bankroll their incarceration down the line.
- branchless 10y ago
  And they will be having their care bills paid in 10 years time by ... the same teenagers going through school now. What goes around should come around.
  - velodrome 10y ago
    I think you correctly identified the symbiotic relationship. If seniors expect their benefits to be fulfilled, they need to invest (jobs, education, etc.) in very people who are paying their entitlement. Stan Druckenmiller gave a talk about this very subject called "Generational Theft": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc The chart from that talk showing the reversal of investing in the young vs the old: http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generational-theft-2013-9#druckenmiller-says-the-problem-is-the-baby-boomers-moving-into-retirement-that-population-is-about-to-explode-he-says-he-points-out-that-the-old-now-consume-a-lot-more-in-their-70s-than-they-did-in-their-20s-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generat...
    - branchless 10y ago
      If only it were symbiotic. It's parasitic.
JoeDaDude 10y ago
My usual answer to that statement is that the quality of the local school system has a direct relation to property values. Consider school taxes as a form of home improvement!
- derekp7 10y ago
  Another answer: you aren't paying for the current kid's education, you are paying back (with interest) the cost of your own education.
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?
    - zanny 10y ago
      Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.
      - fjdlwlv 10y ago
        Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.
        zanny 10y ago
        Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate. I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.
benji-york 10y ago
Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  Additional issues arise if we consider the problem from the standpoint of the child rather than the family. Most families can afford to pay for schooling their children, but very few children can afford to pay for schooling themselves. A private system depends, for almost all children, on parents caring enough about the welfare of their children to be willing to pay the cost of their education. Most parents, in most societies, do care for the welfare of their children. In part this may be explained by altruism, itself explainable on evolutionary grounds, and in part by the desire of parents to have children capable of supporting them in their old age. These incentives are not perfect-there are parents who sacrifice the welfare of their children to their own welfare. But the alternative to allowing parents to make decisions for their children is not, as a general rule, having the decisions made by the children-five year olds lack not only income, but information and political power as well. The alternative to having a child's parents make decisions for him is having other adults-school administrators, politicians, voters-make those decisions. Parents may not always be altruistic towards their children, but a child's parents are, of all adults, the ones most likely to be. The argument against letting the parents make the decision is an even stronger argument against letting anyone else make it instead. Here again, the empirical evidence is striking. Under circumstances of poverty difficult for most of us to imagine, British parents of the early 19th century managed to send almost all of their children to school-not for as long as our children go to school, but for long enough to acquire at least minimal skills. In this country a century later, immigrant parents routinely sacrificed themselves to promote the education of their children. We have yet to see any similar level of altruism on the part of those who control the government schools-say a teacher strike aimed at lowering teacher wages in order to leave more money to pay for books. I'm not sure this guy actually lives in the real world. Surely there is a stronger case against public schools than this hogwash?
- omginternets 10y ago
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
The point of schools isn't to benefit children, it's to instill certain traits that are in the state's best interest for their future citizens to have.
- fjdlwlv 10y ago
  Little of column a little of column b. The state, it's made of people, including those children.
anigbrowl 10y ago
A lot of this stems from the Calvinist strain of religious thought that holds earthly wealth or poverty to be a sign of God's favor (or not). If I find myself in discourse with someone who holds to draconian economic views, I often slip in a few casual questions/references to see what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions). In my experience, dealing with someone who thinks the divine will is manifested in earthly affairs is better avoided. Or to quote William Burroughs' more colorful version of the same advice: if you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing,* his word ain't worth shit - not with the good Lord telling how to fuck you on the deal.* Please note that my criticism is directed as a particular subset of religious thought rather than religion in general. Every belief system has the potential to manifest in good and bad ways.
- phd514 10y ago
  That kind of religious thought is not Calvinist in the least. Here's an actual quote from one of Calvin's sermons on the topic: "The good things given by God are but a path to lead us to him, a ladder to ascend on high, not a tomb in which to bury ourselves. We should not cling to happiness or greet its passing with a hollow laugh, for it is fleeting. Nor should we exult when men applaud us, as if we had already attained our reward for a virtuous life on earth. No, we are determined to press on through good report and bad. Such is the measured and moderate path pursued by the believer. We do not get drowsy, still less intoxicated, when times are good. And we are always willing to abandon everything if God requires. This is not how it is with unbelievers. Prosperity goes immediately to their heads, fills them to bursting; they are so befuddled that not once do they spare a thought for God or the spiritual life. In time they grow hard, and when misfortune comes they grind their teeth and blaspheme against God."
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    You seem to know what your are talking about. So let me ask you, if it was not Calvin who was the source of this idea, then which religious leader was?
analog31 10y ago
"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" Because an educated populace is necessary to support their prosperity. Those kids will enter the workforce, provide social stability, demand goods and services, and pay taxes that support other people including retirees. Actually, I estimate that I do pay a fairly high percentage of my kids' education. My house is among the most highly taxed, and my kids are among the cheapest to educate. In reality, I'm also paying to educate other peoples kids. But it amuses me to think of a system where I pay 100% of their education, but reap 100% of the economic benefits stemming from that education. One idea is a deal, where you agree to pay 100% of your kids' educational costs, and in return, their future payroll taxes are paid directly to you. It's actually a horrifying idea, but it lets people think about the relative amounts of money that we're talking about: A few thousand dollars per year for 13 years, followed by many more thousands of dollars per year for four decades.
- photojosh 10y ago
  I'd never thought about it like that before; excellent point.
derefr 10y ago
I don't know how "direct" this is, but I generally see my taxes as going to making the strangers I see on the street happier and nicer to be around, because they have fewer problems to deal with. Maybe this is because my city's main "export" is tourism, so large amounts of everyone's taxes here get spent on parks and cleaning up litter/graffiti and etc., rather than on things that the locals would prioritize. I don't see that as a bad thing: there are a lot of tourists here, and when they're unhappy, they can be awful people. If my city government spends my money to make them happy, then that's a bunch of potential assholes that are instead nice, friendly people! (I can only imagine how much more I would care about this if I worked in hospitality.)
- test1235 10y ago
  A better way of looking at the results of the tax spending is the money brought in by the tourists (who like to visit nice, clean places) which in turn helps the local economy.
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  Perhaps one thing to consider is that the person who isn't happy paying for others may not themselves be benefiting from society. Perhaps by a purely financial view they are better off, but that is but one metric of their life. What is going on in their life that makes them prefer every man for himself?
prostoalex 10y ago
> An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Property tax (and subsequent education funding) is semi-voluntary. One can always downgrade to a smaller/cheaper abode and [somewhat] opt out of the system. This makes even more sense if one is childless. Let's say two people have a net worth of $1,000,000 each. Person A has a $950,000 house and $50,000 in the bank. Person B has a $200,000 house and $800,000 in the bank. 80% of B's possessions are not subject to property tax.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

>"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" We hear a variation of this in FL all the time from retirees. Their children are grown and they've already paid for schools in their previous state! Ok, thanks for moving here, then.

vernie 10y ago
But they're perfectly content to bankroll their incarceration down the line.
branchless 10y ago
And they will be having their care bills paid in 10 years time by ... the same teenagers going through school now. What goes around should come around.
- velodrome 10y ago
  I think you correctly identified the symbiotic relationship. If seniors expect their benefits to be fulfilled, they need to invest (jobs, education, etc.) in very people who are paying their entitlement. Stan Druckenmiller gave a talk about this very subject called "Generational Theft": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc The chart from that talk showing the reversal of investing in the young vs the old: http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generational-theft-2013-9#druckenmiller-says-the-problem-is-the-baby-boomers-moving-into-retirement-that-population-is-about-to-explode-he-says-he-points-out-that-the-old-now-consume-a-lot-more-in-their-70s-than-they-did-in-their-20s-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/stan-druckenmiller-on-generat...
  - branchless 10y ago
    If only it were symbiotic. It's parasitic.

JoeDaDude 10y ago

My usual answer to that statement is that the quality of the local school system has a direct relation to property values. Consider school taxes as a form of home improvement!

derekp7 10y ago
Another answer: you aren't paying for the current kid's education, you are paying back (with interest) the cost of your own education.
- jimmyk 10y ago
  Then why does the bill change depending on the assessed value of my property?
  - zanny 10y ago
    Because property tax is an awful, dreadful way to fund public education. A progressive percentage of earned income above given thresholds (either poverty or happiness) would make much, much more sense.
    - fjdlwlv 10y ago
      Property tax is progressive because rich people purchase more property, and real property tax is critically important because real estate is a permanently finite resource.
      - zanny 10y ago
        Progressive taxes are not linear, they are at least quadratic. The way many property taxes are set up now in the states, they are flat taxes by zoning - ie, residential pays a fixed rate. I would absolutely argue for progressive property taxes, and that you either need steep progressive property taxes or homesteading rights to avoid the current bubble of land hoarding by the rich, but we don't have those now, and they should fund other things (and at a much less granular scale) than public education.

benji-york 10y ago

Your comment reminded me of this, which you might find interesting (if only to understand an opponent's thoughts): http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/Public_Schools1.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Public%20Schools/P...

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Additional issues arise if we consider the problem from the standpoint of the child rather than the family. Most families can afford to pay for schooling their children, but very few children can afford to pay for schooling themselves. A private system depends, for almost all children, on parents caring enough about the welfare of their children to be willing to pay the cost of their education. Most parents, in most societies, do care for the welfare of their children. In part this may be explained by altruism, itself explainable on evolutionary grounds, and in part by the desire of parents to have children capable of supporting them in their old age. These incentives are not perfect-there are parents who sacrifice the welfare of their children to their own welfare. But the alternative to allowing parents to make decisions for their children is not, as a general rule, having the decisions made by the children-five year olds lack not only income, but information and political power as well. The alternative to having a child's parents make decisions for him is having other adults-school administrators, politicians, voters-make those decisions. Parents may not always be altruistic towards their children, but a child's parents are, of all adults, the ones most likely to be. The argument against letting the parents make the decision is an even stronger argument against letting anyone else make it instead. Here again, the empirical evidence is striking. Under circumstances of poverty difficult for most of us to imagine, British parents of the early 19th century managed to send almost all of their children to school-not for as long as our children go to school, but for long enough to acquire at least minimal skills. In this country a century later, immigrant parents routinely sacrificed themselves to promote the education of their children. We have yet to see any similar level of altruism on the part of those who control the government schools-say a teacher strike aimed at lowering teacher wages in order to leave more money to pay for books. I'm not sure this guy actually lives in the real world. Surely there is a stronger case against public schools than this hogwash?
omginternets 10y ago

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

The point of schools isn't to benefit children, it's to instill certain traits that are in the state's best interest for their future citizens to have.

fjdlwlv 10y ago
Little of column a little of column b. The state, it's made of people, including those children.

anigbrowl 10y ago

A lot of this stems from the Calvinist strain of religious thought that holds earthly wealth or poverty to be a sign of God's favor (or not). If I find myself in discourse with someone who holds to draconian economic views, I often slip in a few casual questions/references to see what sort of religious tradition they gravitate towards (which has nothing to do with belief, even atheists have attitudinal religious positions). In my experience, dealing with someone who thinks the divine will is manifested in earthly affairs is better avoided. Or to quote William Burroughs' more colorful version of the same advice: if you are doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing,* his word ain't worth shit - not with the good Lord telling how to fuck you on the deal.* Please note that my criticism is directed as a particular subset of religious thought rather than religion in general. Every belief system has the potential to manifest in good and bad ways.

phd514 10y ago
That kind of religious thought is not Calvinist in the least. Here's an actual quote from one of Calvin's sermons on the topic: "The good things given by God are but a path to lead us to him, a ladder to ascend on high, not a tomb in which to bury ourselves. We should not cling to happiness or greet its passing with a hollow laugh, for it is fleeting. Nor should we exult when men applaud us, as if we had already attained our reward for a virtuous life on earth. No, we are determined to press on through good report and bad. Such is the measured and moderate path pursued by the believer. We do not get drowsy, still less intoxicated, when times are good. And we are always willing to abandon everything if God requires. This is not how it is with unbelievers. Prosperity goes immediately to their heads, fills them to bursting; they are so befuddled that not once do they spare a thought for God or the spiritual life. In time they grow hard, and when misfortune comes they grind their teeth and blaspheme against God."
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  You seem to know what your are talking about. So let me ask you, if it was not Calvin who was the source of this idea, then which religious leader was?

analog31 10y ago

"I don't have any children, why do I have to pay property tax to fund my towns schools? I'm being ripped off!" Because an educated populace is necessary to support their prosperity. Those kids will enter the workforce, provide social stability, demand goods and services, and pay taxes that support other people including retirees. Actually, I estimate that I do pay a fairly high percentage of my kids' education. My house is among the most highly taxed, and my kids are among the cheapest to educate. In reality, I'm also paying to educate other peoples kids. But it amuses me to think of a system where I pay 100% of their education, but reap 100% of the economic benefits stemming from that education. One idea is a deal, where you agree to pay 100% of your kids' educational costs, and in return, their future payroll taxes are paid directly to you. It's actually a horrifying idea, but it lets people think about the relative amounts of money that we're talking about: A few thousand dollars per year for 13 years, followed by many more thousands of dollars per year for four decades.

photojosh 10y ago
I'd never thought about it like that before; excellent point.

derefr 10y ago

I don't know how "direct" this is, but I generally see my taxes as going to making the strangers I see on the street happier and nicer to be around, because they have fewer problems to deal with. Maybe this is because my city's main "export" is tourism, so large amounts of everyone's taxes here get spent on parks and cleaning up litter/graffiti and etc., rather than on things that the locals would prioritize. I don't see that as a bad thing: there are a lot of tourists here, and when they're unhappy, they can be awful people. If my city government spends my money to make them happy, then that's a bunch of potential assholes that are instead nice, friendly people! (I can only imagine how much more I would care about this if I worked in hospitality.)

test1235 10y ago
A better way of looking at the results of the tax spending is the money brought in by the tourists (who like to visit nice, clean places) which in turn helps the local economy.
BearGoesChirp 10y ago
Perhaps one thing to consider is that the person who isn't happy paying for others may not themselves be benefiting from society. Perhaps by a purely financial view they are better off, but that is but one metric of their life. What is going on in their life that makes them prefer every man for himself?

prostoalex 10y ago

> An example of this is recognizing the importance of costs (like schools) from which I receive no direct benefit (if I do not have children in those schools). Property tax (and subsequent education funding) is semi-voluntary. One can always downgrade to a smaller/cheaper abode and [somewhat] opt out of the system. This makes even more sense if one is childless. Let's say two people have a net worth of $1,000,000 each. Person A has a $950,000 house and $50,000 in the bank. Person B has a $200,000 house and $800,000 in the bank. 80% of B's possessions are not subject to property tax.