4 ms·

From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund publ

by fdsary 12y ago

From a Scandinavian point of view this seems like such a detour. Why wait for billionaires to be so kind of fund schools when you could tax wealth and fund public and universal education? Why do the American people chose this way time after time?

samstave 12y ago
Brainwashing. The US is an illusion.
waterlesscloud 12y ago
The US has public and universal education.
- monochr 12y ago
  Just at a standard which would make many former soviet states cringe.
VeejayRampay 12y ago
(Fellow European here) Because: - Obama is a socialist - Trickle-down economics is the only thing that works - Taxing wealth is hating the rich (so basically being a nazi) - Taxing the wealthy doesn't give them a tax cut like donating money to schools or charities does - Because taxing job creators just encourages the moochers and takers (Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until it becomes a way of life)
- Ihmahr 12y ago
  I think people didn't get that your comment was a caricature / ironic.
  - VeejayRampay 12y ago
    Or maybe they did get it, found it heavy-handed and crass and chose to downvote it. I didn't exactly go for subtlety to be quite frank. Doesn't matter anyway, that's why Hacker News has +/- buttons to begin with :)
cynicalkane 12y ago
Sweden and Denmark have abolished their wealth tax. Also, Sweden uses a voucher system for schools.
VMG 12y ago
Because you don't have to rely on a political apparatus to spend the money wisely. By the way, nobody has to wait for billionaires anywhere, if you want to help out in education, get up and do it.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  By the way, nobody has to wait for billionaires anywhere, if you want to help out in education, get up and do it. That is so obviously not the point. Education needs a bunch of investment in teachers, buildings and equipment, and your volunteering is going to make minimal difference to that.
  - VMG 12y ago
    Salman Kahn would beg to differ. Anyways, you can also donate money to a educational institution yourself.
spindritf 12y ago
Americans spend over $14k/kid on education already, more than Sweden which is below $12k, and almost twice the OECD average.[1] I'm guessing that all developed countries have already reached a point of diminishing returns in their spending on education. The reason money from billionaires is interesting is because it's less limited by the regulations. It can be spent in ways public money cannot be used. It didn't work in Newark though, as others in the thread pointed out. [1] http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48630868.pdf http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48630868....
- guelo 12y ago
  That $14k average includes public and private schools, as well as college tuition. It also ignores the fact that US public school funding is provided via local property taxes, so wealthy neighborhoods have better funded public schools than the lower income neighborhoods, whose kids actually need more resources.
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    Per student spending at K-12 public schools is $13k. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 Also, per student spending is substantially evened out in some areas. For example, every public school in NYC has the same per student spending. More importantly, there is almost no correlation between per student spending and educational outcomes. Some of the states with the worst performing public schools also have higher spending. Moreover, many of the states that have higher revenue and higher public school spending also have higher costs of living. If you take the 5 highest and 5 lowest ranked US state public school systems and adjust their spending by the relative cost of living then order them from highest to lowest you end up with this list: 5th, 47th, 49th, 48th, 4th, 50th, 46th, 2nd, 1st. Spending is an easy issue to focus on, but it's not the right issue, and fixing it won't fix outcomes. Fixing education is a complicated problem, imagining that we can fix it by just throwing money at it is, frankly, lazy. It's like a disengaged father sending his child to the most expensive private school without understanding anything about their child's educational desires or needs. The problem with the system is that it's bureaucracy bound and married to perverse incentives. We need to fix the incentives, to do so within the existing system is a monumental task.
alandarev 12y ago
Why such a huge accent put on taxing wealthy people? Large portion of tax already goes into public education. Money is never enough, thus someone donating more money to education never hurts. But I fail to see connection between 'if we need more money, tax all those wealthy citizens'.
- jchung 12y ago
  I believe the answer you're looking for is "because that's where the money is"
- fdsary 12y ago
  If you have a tax %, the wealthiest will automatically give more money but it will still be proportionally. Also, not having too rich and too poor people is a goal in itself - to move wealth from rich to poor creates a society where everyone is equal. Equal people are more happy and peaceful, and that is what it's all about.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
Because that would be SOCIALISM! /s
wturner 12y ago
As a U.S. citizen I can give my perspective, although I don't know the real 'reasons' for anything people do. People in roles like Zuckerberg are not only required to fulfill Machiavellian responsibilities to the companies they operate but they also need to do everything they can to counter the day-to-day reality with a strong likable public image. When Zuckerberg throws money it kind of acts as a bit of an inoculation to things like privacy concerns or the undermining of the middle class through the false culture of 'openness'. If Zuckerberg really cared about bad schools he would have dedicated a year ( or some meaningful amount of time) to teaching at one of them while learning about all the internal granularity and interacting pieces that truly are fucking up kids lives. Just throwing money is nice and I'm sure there is a ton of data behind his decision, but I can't help but think that a first hand perspective is something Zuckerberg has no desire to even begin to entertain. In fact I get the feeling that like most people ( admittedly myself) ), he would rather avoid it all together.
fantomass 12y ago
Honestly, I don't like this kind of condescending comments. I'm european too and I hear this kind of statements all the time. We Europeans in general and particular Scandinavians have it very easy to judge in our warm and cuddly nests. A lot of what is wrong in the U.S. today goes back to our own absolutely unparalleled failure in the roughly 40 years between 1940 until 1980. I think the American people could be far more powerful and demanding if they weren't hindered by their absurd notion of "socialism". And the reason why the politians can pull this term out of the cage in order to scare and control their folks is rooted in our continent.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > A lot of what is wrong in the U.S. today goes back to our own absolutely unparalleled failure in the roughly 40 years between 1940 until 1980. Please explain.
  - fantomass 12y ago
    Ok, I see, I dind't phrase it carefully enough - sorry. I meant what happend in Europe, not in the U.S. Here's my very very very unhealty simplifictation of how the lack of public funding of public services and the events in europe are related. underfunded schools > public spending in general > fiscal quote > "washington" > elections > cultural reflexes > "socialism" > libertarianism/Reagan > Europe > cold war > socialism > WW II
    - Dewie 12y ago
      You can't blame Europe for America's Red Scare. That's wholly their own choice. And "socialism" ala Western Europe is totally different to communism ala the Soviet Union, so when Americans conflate the two that is their own choice, also. (And why would Western Europe be setting a bad example with their 'socialism', anyway?) America had it relatively swell after WWII. Things went so well for so long that they thought that the American Way was indestructible. Again, how is that 'Europes" fault?
      - 12y ago

by fdsary 12y ago

samstave 12y ago

Brainwashing. The US is an illusion.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

The US has public and universal education.

monochr 12y ago
Just at a standard which would make many former soviet states cringe.

VeejayRampay 12y ago

(Fellow European here) Because: - Obama is a socialist - Trickle-down economics is the only thing that works - Taxing wealth is hating the rich (so basically being a nazi) - Taxing the wealthy doesn't give them a tax cut like donating money to schools or charities does - Because taxing job creators just encourages the moochers and takers (Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until it becomes a way of life)

Ihmahr 12y ago
I think people didn't get that your comment was a caricature / ironic.
- VeejayRampay 12y ago
  Or maybe they did get it, found it heavy-handed and crass and chose to downvote it. I didn't exactly go for subtlety to be quite frank. Doesn't matter anyway, that's why Hacker News has +/- buttons to begin with :)

cynicalkane 12y ago

Sweden and Denmark have abolished their wealth tax. Also, Sweden uses a voucher system for schools.

VMG 12y ago

Because you don't have to rely on a political apparatus to spend the money wisely. By the way, nobody has to wait for billionaires anywhere, if you want to help out in education, get up and do it.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
By the way, nobody has to wait for billionaires anywhere, if you want to help out in education, get up and do it. That is so obviously not the point. Education needs a bunch of investment in teachers, buildings and equipment, and your volunteering is going to make minimal difference to that.
- VMG 12y ago
  Salman Kahn would beg to differ. Anyways, you can also donate money to a educational institution yourself.

spindritf 12y ago

Americans spend over $14k/kid on education already, more than Sweden which is below $12k, and almost twice the OECD average.[1] I'm guessing that all developed countries have already reached a point of diminishing returns in their spending on education. The reason money from billionaires is interesting is because it's less limited by the regulations. It can be spent in ways public money cannot be used. It didn't work in Newark though, as others in the thread pointed out. [1] http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48630868.pdf http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/48630868....

guelo 12y ago
That $14k average includes public and private schools, as well as college tuition. It also ignores the fact that US public school funding is provided via local property taxes, so wealthy neighborhoods have better funded public schools than the lower income neighborhoods, whose kids actually need more resources.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Per student spending at K-12 public schools is $13k. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 Also, per student spending is substantially evened out in some areas. For example, every public school in NYC has the same per student spending. More importantly, there is almost no correlation between per student spending and educational outcomes. Some of the states with the worst performing public schools also have higher spending. Moreover, many of the states that have higher revenue and higher public school spending also have higher costs of living. If you take the 5 highest and 5 lowest ranked US state public school systems and adjust their spending by the relative cost of living then order them from highest to lowest you end up with this list: 5th, 47th, 49th, 48th, 4th, 50th, 46th, 2nd, 1st. Spending is an easy issue to focus on, but it's not the right issue, and fixing it won't fix outcomes. Fixing education is a complicated problem, imagining that we can fix it by just throwing money at it is, frankly, lazy. It's like a disengaged father sending his child to the most expensive private school without understanding anything about their child's educational desires or needs. The problem with the system is that it's bureaucracy bound and married to perverse incentives. We need to fix the incentives, to do so within the existing system is a monumental task.

alandarev 12y ago

Why such a huge accent put on taxing wealthy people? Large portion of tax already goes into public education. Money is never enough, thus someone donating more money to education never hurts. But I fail to see connection between 'if we need more money, tax all those wealthy citizens'.

jchung 12y ago
I believe the answer you're looking for is "because that's where the money is"
fdsary 12y ago
If you have a tax %, the wealthiest will automatically give more money but it will still be proportionally. Also, not having too rich and too poor people is a goal in itself - to move wealth from rich to poor creates a society where everyone is equal. Equal people are more happy and peaceful, and that is what it's all about.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Because that would be SOCIALISM! /s

wturner 12y ago

As a U.S. citizen I can give my perspective, although I don't know the real 'reasons' for anything people do. People in roles like Zuckerberg are not only required to fulfill Machiavellian responsibilities to the companies they operate but they also need to do everything they can to counter the day-to-day reality with a strong likable public image. When Zuckerberg throws money it kind of acts as a bit of an inoculation to things like privacy concerns or the undermining of the middle class through the false culture of 'openness'. If Zuckerberg really cared about bad schools he would have dedicated a year ( or some meaningful amount of time) to teaching at one of them while learning about all the internal granularity and interacting pieces that truly are fucking up kids lives. Just throwing money is nice and I'm sure there is a ton of data behind his decision, but I can't help but think that a first hand perspective is something Zuckerberg has no desire to even begin to entertain. In fact I get the feeling that like most people ( admittedly myself) ), he would rather avoid it all together.

fantomass 12y ago

Honestly, I don't like this kind of condescending comments. I'm european too and I hear this kind of statements all the time. We Europeans in general and particular Scandinavians have it very easy to judge in our warm and cuddly nests. A lot of what is wrong in the U.S. today goes back to our own absolutely unparalleled failure in the roughly 40 years between 1940 until 1980. I think the American people could be far more powerful and demanding if they weren't hindered by their absurd notion of "socialism". And the reason why the politians can pull this term out of the cage in order to scare and control their folks is rooted in our continent.

Dewie 12y ago
> A lot of what is wrong in the U.S. today goes back to our own absolutely unparalleled failure in the roughly 40 years between 1940 until 1980. Please explain.
- fantomass 12y ago
  Ok, I see, I dind't phrase it carefully enough - sorry. I meant what happend in Europe, not in the U.S. Here's my very very very unhealty simplifictation of how the lack of public funding of public services and the events in europe are related. underfunded schools > public spending in general > fiscal quote > "washington" > elections > cultural reflexes > "socialism" > libertarianism/Reagan > Europe > cold war > socialism > WW II
  - Dewie 12y ago
    You can't blame Europe for America's Red Scare. That's wholly their own choice. And "socialism" ala Western Europe is totally different to communism ala the Soviet Union, so when Americans conflate the two that is their own choice, also. (And why would Western Europe be setting a bad example with their 'socialism', anyway?) America had it relatively swell after WWII. Things went so well for so long that they thought that the American Way was indestructible. Again, how is that 'Europes" fault?
    - 12y ago