5 ms·

> no taxes left to fund education which is why it's really a stupid policy decision to fund schooling via local taxation. There should be federally funded scho

by chii 4y ago

> no taxes left to fund education which is why it's really a stupid policy decision to fund schooling via local taxation. There should be federally funded schools.

newswasboring 4y ago
It is probably stupid, but I don't think that can ever change. The US political system is not set up to encourage nationalization, or even state based control, of anything. edit: It also rewards the wrong people. The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. In fact with people moving out they get less and less money to improve themselves. Even in the most individualistic view of the system, the wrong individual is being rewarded.
- chii 4y ago
  > The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. as it should be - the school should not be able to capture the output of its students, while at the same time, getting "free" funding. If the school would capture some of the output of the students in the future (aka, the successful ones), then the school would need to invest in the students via equity (aka, pay the students while they're being taught!). The school _could_ get reputational reward for producing great students. That's about as far as a return a school can get.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think this is the exact wrong direction. California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. This lead directly to capping property taxes in the state.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  > California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. Was there a reason given by these people for this? Or was it just "I don't want to pay for someone else". Because that is the core issue with US politics. Everything will improve if that goes away.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    That was the reason. Nobody wants to pay a high tax to support schools when only a small fraction of that goes to their children's local school. Better to minimize the tax, have shitty public schools, and pay for private schools. It makes sense from a certain perspective. It was essentially the no child left behind policy for schools. No public schools are allowed to be better funded than the worst schools, so people look for alternatives to the system.

by chii 4y ago

> no taxes left to fund education which is why it's really a stupid policy decision to fund schooling via local taxation. There should be federally funded schools.

newswasboring 4y ago

It is probably stupid, but I don't think that can ever change. The US political system is not set up to encourage nationalization, or even state based control, of anything. edit: It also rewards the wrong people. The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. In fact with people moving out they get less and less money to improve themselves. Even in the most individualistic view of the system, the wrong individual is being rewarded.

chii 4y ago
> The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. as it should be - the school should not be able to capture the output of its students, while at the same time, getting "free" funding. If the school would capture some of the output of the students in the future (aka, the successful ones), then the school would need to invest in the students via equity (aka, pay the students while they're being taught!). The school _could_ get reputational reward for producing great students. That's about as far as a return a school can get.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think this is the exact wrong direction. California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. This lead directly to capping property taxes in the state.

newswasboring 4y ago
> California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. Was there a reason given by these people for this? Or was it just "I don't want to pay for someone else". Because that is the core issue with US politics. Everything will improve if that goes away.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That was the reason. Nobody wants to pay a high tax to support schools when only a small fraction of that goes to their children's local school. Better to minimize the tax, have shitty public schools, and pay for private schools. It makes sense from a certain perspective. It was essentially the no child left behind policy for schools. No public schools are allowed to be better funded than the worst schools, so people look for alternatives to the system.