4 ms·
The wealthy do use public schools. They pay huge amounts to live in upper class neighborhoods with wealthy peers, where a lot of tax money goes into the schooli
by idrios 1y ago
The wealthy do use public schools. They pay huge amounts to live in upper class neighborhoods with wealthy peers, where a lot of tax money goes into the schooling system so the kids can take all sorts of extracurriculars and AP classes. It gets the same results as private school but the cost comes from living in that neighborhood rather than paying the school directly
- mystraline 1y agoThe underlying issue too is "Sorry Timmy, cause we're not rich and live in a poorer district, your schooling is worse and you have access to less choice." And that goes back to how taxes for public schools are driven. The problem seems too engrained and too massive to fix. And since schools are state controlled, you'd need 50 solutions, not 1.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoCalifornia actually has a pretty solid school tax-redistribition system that more or less solves this problem (of course districts still can and do fundraise for direct donations to the PTA/music fund and bond measures to upgrade facilities, but it's still vastly more fair). In a completely unrelated phenomenon, private schools are incredibly popular among Californians of means.
- nothercastle 1y agoI assume you forgot /s on the unrelated part
- gamblor956 1y agoMost wealthy people in CA don't send their kid to private school. That's a rarity even among the wealthy. There are plenty of good public schools in CA. There are only a handful of good private ones.
- talldatethrow 1y agoI am dating someone that has a child in private school. First grade costs $4k+ a month, maybe even 6k I forget. Nothing in the parking lot or talking even screams wealthy. Every person I've met in the social circle, also send their kids to private school in the SF bay area. I haven't even met another adult that sends their kids to public school. These are people that make $250k-$600k probably. But that's not "wealthy" in the SF bay area.
- DrillShopper 1y ago> These are people that make $250k-$600k probably. But that's not "wealthy" in the SF bay area. This is absolutely batshit to someone living in the midwest. I could save enough to retire in 5-7 years if I were making that much.
- talldatethrow 1y agoIt's all relative. Someone making $250k with a family in the SF Bay Area could be basically living paycheck to paycheck if they just try to appear casually financially well-off. Nice house, nice car, electricity is 4x more than Idaho for example so add bills, eat out a few times, and send one child to a $4k a month 1st grade and you're living paycheck to paycheck.
- gamblor956 1y agoNo, that's just bad financial management. Spending $48000 to send your kid to a private school is a choice that parents can make when they're wealthy enough to do so. "Living paycheck to paycheck" means that you just barely make enough to pay for food and rent, and don't have any spare money to cover unplanned costs like medical care. Spending a ton of money on vacation and private school is by definition not living paycheck to paycheck.
- talldatethrow 1y agoNo it doesn't. Living paycheck to paycheck means you don't have any left over each paycheck, and the worse version of it is that you don't even have emergency savings left over in case unforseen costs come up.
- treis 1y agoThis really isn't true anywhere in the US. The highest spending per pupil will be the city school district. The people who live there may be relatively poor but there's a lot more commercial real estate to tax.