4 ms·

If we take that argument to the extreme then people without kids shouldn’t pay school taxes at all. Fundamentally I don’t think that is how the system should wo

by TimPC 5y ago

If we take that argument to the extreme then people without kids shouldn’t pay school taxes at all. Fundamentally I don’t think that is how the system should work. There is something unfair about parents paying once through taxation and again through tuition but I think there is a reasonable case to be made that that is a lesser evil than programs that damage public education.

vba616 5y ago
>If we take that argument to the extreme then people without kids shouldn’t pay school taxes at all I don't see that as an argument or related. That is, it's obviously wrong, but doesn't reflect on the other thing, I don't think. People already got the benefit of schooling, whether or not they have kids, so it's just a matter of paying it back through taxes.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  Would you support lump sum payments to remove oneself from future tax obligations? It seems to me unlikely that a majority of people end up paying taxes back to the school district they attended. What about those who were homeschooled, etc.?
  - TimPC 5y ago
    Taxes are not a majority program though. The way something like this would end up working is the kids getting 90's in high school and going to top tier engineering programs would happily pony up the money along with a few other demographics that were confident in their earning potential. The vast majority of high income earners that pay the majority of taxes would disappear from the income system by having paid back just their costs. But the system needs the high income earners to pay more than one person's fair share. This would be a one time tax grab that would destroy the future tax base in a disastrous way.
rendall 5y ago
If childless taxpayers think it's expensive to send children to school, wait till they live in a society where children are not schooled.
- DiggyJohnson 5y ago
  Well put. The division between parents and non-parents grows each year, at least in America. I’m shocked by what my single 20-something friends can just spout off about kids or “people who have kids” and stuff. It’s bizarre.
  - rendall 5y ago
    Educating children is just part of the social contract, the cost of living in a stable society, like roads, water, prison, army, hospitals. Imagine saying "I've never committed a crime. I should not have to pay for the police." Same energy.
    - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
      Great comparison, I'll add that to my toolbox for future civil discourse.
- rglullis 5y ago
  That's a nice soundbite, but the problem is that we are paying the taxes and not educating our children properly. I'd rather take the tax money and choose how to spend it on the education of our kids.
  - rendall 5y ago
    You might disagree with the wars that your country prosecutes, or what the police do, but you cannot just "take the tax money and choose how to spend it" for military, nor police, nor any other commons. Why would you expect to do that for general education? Unlike, say, army, however, you are free to pay for private school. So, take the money that you have, and pay for private school, and be thankful that you live in a society that values education enough to make it available for all, because the alternative is dreadful. If you feel that general education is not up to high enough standards, this may well be true. Whatever the answer to that, it is not for people who don't have children, or choose private education for their children, to "take the tax money and choose how to spend it".
_aavaa_ 5y ago
I disagree. The original argument is about having the ability to dictate HOW the tax dollars are spent on education. > If we take that argument to the extreme then people without kids shouldn’t pay school taxes at all. This is not taking the above argument to the extreme, it’s introducing an extra proposition, mainly “if I don’t have kids I should pay taxes for schools”. This is about IF my tax dollars should be spent on education.

by TimPC 5y ago

vba616 5y ago

>If we take that argument to the extreme then people without kids shouldn’t pay school taxes at all I don't see that as an argument or related. That is, it's obviously wrong, but doesn't reflect on the other thing, I don't think. People already got the benefit of schooling, whether or not they have kids, so it's just a matter of paying it back through taxes.

hellojesus 5y ago
Would you support lump sum payments to remove oneself from future tax obligations? It seems to me unlikely that a majority of people end up paying taxes back to the school district they attended. What about those who were homeschooled, etc.?
- TimPC 5y ago
  Taxes are not a majority program though. The way something like this would end up working is the kids getting 90's in high school and going to top tier engineering programs would happily pony up the money along with a few other demographics that were confident in their earning potential. The vast majority of high income earners that pay the majority of taxes would disappear from the income system by having paid back just their costs. But the system needs the high income earners to pay more than one person's fair share. This would be a one time tax grab that would destroy the future tax base in a disastrous way.

rendall 5y ago

If childless taxpayers think it's expensive to send children to school, wait till they live in a society where children are not schooled.

DiggyJohnson 5y ago
Well put. The division between parents and non-parents grows each year, at least in America. I’m shocked by what my single 20-something friends can just spout off about kids or “people who have kids” and stuff. It’s bizarre.
- rendall 5y ago
  Educating children is just part of the social contract, the cost of living in a stable society, like roads, water, prison, army, hospitals. Imagine saying "I've never committed a crime. I should not have to pay for the police." Same energy.
  - DiggyJohnson 5y ago
    Great comparison, I'll add that to my toolbox for future civil discourse.
rglullis 5y ago
That's a nice soundbite, but the problem is that we are paying the taxes and not educating our children properly. I'd rather take the tax money and choose how to spend it on the education of our kids.
- rendall 5y ago
  You might disagree with the wars that your country prosecutes, or what the police do, but you cannot just "take the tax money and choose how to spend it" for military, nor police, nor any other commons. Why would you expect to do that for general education? Unlike, say, army, however, you are free to pay for private school. So, take the money that you have, and pay for private school, and be thankful that you live in a society that values education enough to make it available for all, because the alternative is dreadful. If you feel that general education is not up to high enough standards, this may well be true. Whatever the answer to that, it is not for people who don't have children, or choose private education for their children, to "take the tax money and choose how to spend it".

_aavaa_ 5y ago

I disagree. The original argument is about having the ability to dictate HOW the tax dollars are spent on education. > If we take that argument to the extreme then people without kids shouldn’t pay school taxes at all. This is not taking the above argument to the extreme, it’s introducing an extra proposition, mainly “if I don’t have kids I should pay taxes for schools”. This is about IF my tax dollars should be spent on education.