5 ms·

Or maybe get vouchers or tax refund for that dumpster fire.

itake 4y ago
I think that's defeats the purpose of public school. As a society, we decided we need to collectively contribute to every child's education, regardless if they are own. I have no kids, but I pay my school taxes so that other people's children can have an education.
- oatmeal_croc 4y ago
  Paying for other children's education gives you benefits like lesser crime and will keep the value of your property high.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    And the continuation of modern civilisation to boot!
- SilasX 4y ago
  The parent wasn’t disagreeing with the collective payment responsibility (and I don’t know where you got that), only with the public school model that gives no choice as to which schools the money is spent at.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    Suggesting a tax refund is pretty clearly proposing they should not have to fund public schools.
    - pooper 4y ago
      I fully support a public education but in the US, the school system is massively overloaded. We blame schools for everything and schools are all too eager to accept responsibility for anything and everything. School athletics programs paying for huge multimillion dollar stadiums should not be possible. And on that topic, independent school districts should not exist. One state, one school district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Stadium_(Allen,_Texas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Stadium_(Allen,_Texas)
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Refund or voucher to the parent suffering it. Still not seeing how you went from that to “don’t you understand that non-parents should fund public schools?” The premise is that those hurt by it, parents, recover money to otherwise educate their kids. Nowhere in that was a claim that the childless should get money back for being childless, so I don’t see how addressing that is responsive.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        But I don’t care if their kids use it. They are not funding their child, they are funding the system of public education.
        SilasX 4y ago
        Which vouchers are. Why is this so hard to understand?
        lazyasciiart 4y ago
        No, they aren't. Perhaps you're having trouble telling the difference between people who don't understand your argument and people who disagree with it?
      - itake 4y ago
        I think you’re saying that If your kids are not using the service, then you should not pay the tax. This doesn’t sound any different from someone having no kids, not using the service, and expecting a refund.
        SilasX 4y ago
        No, they're hugely different. One of them accepts that the state should still be paying for education of children regardless of whether your personally have children -- just with better options than failed public schools. Which is why lectures about how "we should all be paying for kids' education" is very unresponsive. Which is why I said so. And have not yet gotten a substantive reply that addresses the criticism.
- conductr 4y ago
  You would not pay those taxes if they were optional. Most wouldn't anyways. Most people live in a paycheck to paycheck world and would love to get a free pass on that tax bill. "We" also have not really decided anything as a society but were born into the decisions of prior generations and it could be changed. See Roe v Wade, marijuana, etc.
- abigail95 4y ago
  The purpose of a public school is the opportunity to educate children at little to no out of pocket cost. It has nothing to do with specifics of the tax system, or whether a voucher program exists. Also, if you are American, voluntarily donating money without oversight to a local school has as much return as breast cancer awareness.
- Bud 4y ago
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  How is a voucher not collectively contributing to every child's education?
asdff 4y ago
If you give your kids a stable home they will do fine in public school
HWR_14 4y ago
I don't get a refund for having no kids in public school. Why would anyone else?

I think that's defeats the purpose of public school. As a society, we decided we need to collectively contribute to every child's education, regardless if they are own. I have no kids, but I pay my school taxes so that other people's children can have an education.

oatmeal_croc 4y ago
Paying for other children's education gives you benefits like lesser crime and will keep the value of your property high.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  And the continuation of modern civilisation to boot!
SilasX 4y ago
The parent wasn’t disagreeing with the collective payment responsibility (and I don’t know where you got that), only with the public school model that gives no choice as to which schools the money is spent at.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Suggesting a tax refund is pretty clearly proposing they should not have to fund public schools.
  - pooper 4y ago
    I fully support a public education but in the US, the school system is massively overloaded. We blame schools for everything and schools are all too eager to accept responsibility for anything and everything. School athletics programs paying for huge multimillion dollar stadiums should not be possible. And on that topic, independent school districts should not exist. One state, one school district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Stadium_(Allen,_Texas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Stadium_(Allen,_Texas)
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Refund or voucher to the parent suffering it. Still not seeing how you went from that to “don’t you understand that non-parents should fund public schools?” The premise is that those hurt by it, parents, recover money to otherwise educate their kids. Nowhere in that was a claim that the childless should get money back for being childless, so I don’t see how addressing that is responsive.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      But I don’t care if their kids use it. They are not funding their child, they are funding the system of public education.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        Which vouchers are. Why is this so hard to understand?
        lazyasciiart 4y ago
        No, they aren't. Perhaps you're having trouble telling the difference between people who don't understand your argument and people who disagree with it?
    - itake 4y ago
      I think you’re saying that If your kids are not using the service, then you should not pay the tax. This doesn’t sound any different from someone having no kids, not using the service, and expecting a refund.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        No, they're hugely different. One of them accepts that the state should still be paying for education of children regardless of whether your personally have children -- just with better options than failed public schools. Which is why lectures about how "we should all be paying for kids' education" is very unresponsive. Which is why I said so. And have not yet gotten a substantive reply that addresses the criticism.
conductr 4y ago
You would not pay those taxes if they were optional. Most wouldn't anyways. Most people live in a paycheck to paycheck world and would love to get a free pass on that tax bill. "We" also have not really decided anything as a society but were born into the decisions of prior generations and it could be changed. See Roe v Wade, marijuana, etc.
abigail95 4y ago
The purpose of a public school is the opportunity to educate children at little to no out of pocket cost. It has nothing to do with specifics of the tax system, or whether a voucher program exists. Also, if you are American, voluntarily donating money without oversight to a local school has as much return as breast cancer awareness.
Bud 4y ago
marcosdumay 4y ago
How is a voucher not collectively contributing to every child's education?

asdff 4y ago

If you give your kids a stable home they will do fine in public school

HWR_14 4y ago

I don't get a refund for having no kids in public school. Why would anyone else?