4 ms·

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.62e31ec15029 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-...). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here.

jimmy1 8y ago
> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-...). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here. It's a little more nuanced than that, and not necessarily an either/or as you have described it. More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere. While Vermont does rank high in K-12 (4th), it is ranked 36th in higher education. Vermont is also the 2nd least populated state in the country, so it remains to be seen how scale will impact the education system there.
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  > More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient [...] spender The government is made up of people. In my experience, it isn't the funding amount that correlates with inefficiencies, it's the distance from accountability that does. So one can reduce the taxes all one likes, a 30% wasteful department is still going to waste 30%. I'd rather target the inefficiencies themselves.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere." People say that, but then they privatize functions of government, and if they're lucky, they end up with the same level of service. And then now there's a middleman involved who needs to get profit, meaning wages and service get cut.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    I ran across an interesting book on that topic, which describes pitfalls of privatization in a balanced way: You Don't Always Get What You Pay For The Economics of Privatization by Elliott D. Sclar http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100290390 http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010029039...
ddingus 8y ago
Agreed. And income is one thing. Should those taxes add value, the actual difference in effective buying power, or ability to save may be marginal.
dahdum 8y ago
It depends heavily on how the money is spent, Illinois spends half the education budget on funding pensions alone [1]. 89% of all education budget increases went straight to pension funding, with only 11% to the classroom. They already spend far more than other midwest states, with outcomes that lag behind Montana, Minnesota, and other frugal states. So while I agree that education spending is critical to our future, money alone is not the magic wand. [1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-schools/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-schools/
swebs 8y ago
And yet the neighboring state of New Hampshire, which has some of the lowest taxes in the country (0% sales tax, 0% state income tax), beats Vermont handily in SAT scores. https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-stated-adjusted-for-participation-rate https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-s... What does Vermont have to show for its higher spending? Why do you see higher spending as an automatically good thing if it doesn't have any evidence of having a beneficial effect?
- rhcom2 8y ago
  Possibly because until recently NH had all high schoolers take the SATs to be used in statewide assessments. It would follow teachers would then spend classroom time preparing their students for it.
  - kerkeslager 8y ago
    When a metric becomes the target, it becomes subject to manipulation and the metric becomes no longer useful.
  - swebs 8y ago
    New Hampshire also has higher ACT scores as well. Is there any metric that shows Vermont's education system beating New Hampshire's?
  - enolan 8y ago
    That should bias it downward, compared to only college-bound students taking it.
- tclancy 8y ago
  I would be very careful about touting NH's approach. We fund schools entirely on property taxes, so rich towns have good schools and poor towns do not. I'd guess part of the disparity is that in NH's poorer towns kids aren't even taking the SATs. Not paying taxes is cool but the annual discussion of "Which completely normal public service will we forgo or curtail this year?" isn't so awesome.
- 8y ago
MikeGalt 8y ago
Just spending money on education is meaningless unless it is used wisely. This is a common political tactic to talk about how much a politician authorized or increased spending on a program that is important to his or her constituents but it says nothing about the results. President Obama started the military down the path toward "smarter, not more expensive" weapons programs. That thinking should be expanded into everything.

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.62e31ec15029 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-...). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here.

jimmy1 8y ago

> notoriously high-tax state Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-...). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here. It's a little more nuanced than that, and not necessarily an either/or as you have described it. More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere. While Vermont does rank high in K-12 (4th), it is ranked 36th in higher education. Vermont is also the 2nd least populated state in the country, so it remains to be seen how scale will impact the education system there.

0xfeba 8y ago
> More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient [...] spender The government is made up of people. In my experience, it isn't the funding amount that correlates with inefficiencies, it's the distance from accountability that does. So one can reduce the taxes all one likes, a 30% wasteful department is still going to waste 30%. I'd rather target the inefficiencies themselves.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere." People say that, but then they privatize functions of government, and if they're lucky, they end up with the same level of service. And then now there's a middleman involved who needs to get profit, meaning wages and service get cut.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I ran across an interesting book on that topic, which describes pitfalls of privatization in a balanced way: You Don't Always Get What You Pay For The Economics of Privatization by Elliott D. Sclar http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100290390 http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010029039...

ddingus 8y ago

Agreed. And income is one thing. Should those taxes add value, the actual difference in effective buying power, or ability to save may be marginal.

dahdum 8y ago

It depends heavily on how the money is spent, Illinois spends half the education budget on funding pensions alone [1]. 89% of all education budget increases went straight to pension funding, with only 11% to the classroom. They already spend far more than other midwest states, with outcomes that lag behind Montana, Minnesota, and other frugal states. So while I agree that education spending is critical to our future, money alone is not the magic wand. [1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-schools/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-schools/

swebs 8y ago

And yet the neighboring state of New Hampshire, which has some of the lowest taxes in the country (0% sales tax, 0% state income tax), beats Vermont handily in SAT scores. https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-stated-adjusted-for-participation-rate https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-s... What does Vermont have to show for its higher spending? Why do you see higher spending as an automatically good thing if it doesn't have any evidence of having a beneficial effect?

rhcom2 8y ago
Possibly because until recently NH had all high schoolers take the SATs to be used in statewide assessments. It would follow teachers would then spend classroom time preparing their students for it.
- kerkeslager 8y ago
  When a metric becomes the target, it becomes subject to manipulation and the metric becomes no longer useful.
- swebs 8y ago
  New Hampshire also has higher ACT scores as well. Is there any metric that shows Vermont's education system beating New Hampshire's?
- enolan 8y ago
  That should bias it downward, compared to only college-bound students taking it.
tclancy 8y ago
I would be very careful about touting NH's approach. We fund schools entirely on property taxes, so rich towns have good schools and poor towns do not. I'd guess part of the disparity is that in NH's poorer towns kids aren't even taking the SATs. Not paying taxes is cool but the annual discussion of "Which completely normal public service will we forgo or curtail this year?" isn't so awesome.
8y ago

MikeGalt 8y ago

Just spending money on education is meaningless unless it is used wisely. This is a common political tactic to talk about how much a politician authorized or increased spending on a program that is important to his or her constituents but it says nothing about the results. President Obama started the military down the path toward "smarter, not more expensive" weapons programs. That thinking should be expanded into everything.