1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Only families with children should pay taxes for schools?

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Masher88, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. Masher88

    Masher88 Believe in absurdities and you commit atrocities

    May 7, 2005
    Cleveland, OH
    A guy I work with and I were debating whether people with children should be the only ones to have to pay taxes for public schools. Since the people with no kids don't use the schools, why should they pay for it?

    But, will the community value go down because of lack of funding for schools? Noone wants to move into an area that has bad schools, so only the poor will move in, thus depreciating the value of the neighborhood.

    But, it's already that way anyways...There are good and bad school districts and good or bad neighborhoods...and they are always in the same geographical location. Despite the fact that everyone is paying the school taxes equally, regardless of children.

    So, by this reasoning...all you have to do is raise the taxes for schooling in an area and it will become a nicer area than it once was...or will it become a ghost town?:eyebrow:

    What are your opinions on me (no kids) having to pay for my neighbors kid to get an education?
  2. dlloyd

    dlloyd zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Apr 21, 2004
    So it's only people with children who benefit from education?
  3. jkritchey


    Jul 23, 2002
    Northern Va.
    Eh, you pay for roads you may never drive on; you pay for missiles that never get launched; who knows what you pay for in the "Black Budget" of the Pentagon.

    Well funded schools make for good neighborhoods, IME. There's not much good real estate in areas with poor schools.
  4. trog


    Nov 8, 2003
    Having a good education system is beneficial for the entire society: it allows the country to have more high-tech industry, etc. And a decent school in the area will raise your house value.
  5. Its a good idea to pay for education. I think that parents should be able to choose the school that they send thier children to, and that the funding from the government for that student should go to the school that they attend. Naturally, the better schools will attract more students, and will benefit from higher budgets. Teachers will have to compete for the best jobs, and bad teachers would be weeded out. No more illiterate high school graduates!!
  6. In places where public education is funded by property taxes, the quality of the local schools is the single biggest factor in real estate prices. For property owners, it is essential to keep the schools in as good a condition as possible.

    This nexus is broken when schools are financed by means other than local property taxes, as is the case in California. William Fischel, one of the leading urban economists today, has written an excellent series of papers showing that the 1970s California Supreme Court decisions that equalized school funding across all districts (the Serrano cases) were the single biggest contributing factor to the success of Proposition 13. Prop 13, of course, is the property tax cap that caused tax receipts to plunge 57% in a year and led to severe ongoing fiscal crises in all but a very few cities and counties. It didn't succeed in its aim of lowering the tax burden, either: Californians now actually pay more of their income in taxes than they did prior to Prop 13, thanks to ridiculously high sales taxes.
  7. Indiana Mike

    Indiana Mike

    Nov 18, 2005
    very well put .

    Masher88,I hope you understand why we cannot do this
  8. jkritchey


    Jul 23, 2002
    Northern Va.
    No More Illiterate??? How's that work? Good teacher and good student move to good school. Good for them. What about the school they left behind?

    Can't just look at the winners....
  9. Steve


    Aug 10, 2001
    C'mon now, don't hate on the kiddies. Under the best of conditions, they're dumb enough. A decent education is the least we can offer them and is probably one of the more worthwhile things the govt. spends money on.

    Give a little.

    The real question is, why do schools get to spend bazillions of tax dollars on football programs that benefit almost no one while other things like music and the three R's are all but ignored and abandoned.
  10. I wouldn't have a problem with K-12 schools spending lots of money on athletics if more of it went to intramural programs instead of interscholastic competition. If you like playing soccer, baseball, or basketball, but you're not good enough to make varsity or even JV, you might as well not exist.
  11. Well, not having kids until we were in our mid(in my case late) thirties, meant my wife and I paid into the California school system for a good 15 years without any "return" on our investment. Prop 13, as Peter said, held my property taxes down a bit over most of those years but I think I'd have paid without complaint regardless of the amount of money siphoned from me to the school system. My gut feeling on the whole thing is it's the right thing to do.

    Someone else pointed out things our taxes pay for that we never use, and I think the biggest reason folks single out schools is they feel they can do something about it.

    Why anyone would want to reduce funding for our biggest potential asset though...:rollno:

  12. Masher88

    Masher88 Believe in absurdities and you commit atrocities

    May 7, 2005
    Cleveland, OH
    The above sounds like a reasonable solution.

    Right now, as a single/no children adult...I pay the highest taxes (short of people with no property ownership).

    Why do people get tax breaks for having kids and being married? What is the reasoning behind this? Inform me.

    I also don't get the cutting funding for arts and sciences in favor of athletics. In our areas a lot of schools are opting for the "pay to play" scenario. Where you pay the school an extra 3-400 bucks to have your kid in football or whatever to pay for uniforms and buses.

    Just for the record, I wasn't for or against any side...I was looking for facts to support the different sides, so that I could make an informed choice.

  13. I dont think you're of the "I don't have kids so I shouldn't pay" camp, but I don't think parents should pay more. Don't we all benefit by having a general population that's educated?

    On the other side of that argument, do we attempt to have folks who haven't paid into the school system or have paid less taken care of by people with less or no education?

    A sliding scale of care in all aspects of life based on what's been put into the system? Sounds scary to me.

  14. Turock

    Turock Supporting Member

    Apr 30, 2000
    I benefit from my doctor having a good education.
  15. Geoff St. Germaine

    Geoff St. Germaine Commercial User

    My belief is that society benefits from having a good education system and so I have no problem with some of my money being diverted to pay for that.
  16. The_D

    The_D Well, thats like your opinion. Man...

    Mar 20, 2004
    Fife, Scotland
    You could try charging the kids themselves when they are at school. Oh no hang on, better to wait till they are earning money then tax them to pay for THEIR OWN EDUCATION.

    I am assuming most of you went to school yourself, how about looking at it like you are paying back for what you received?
  17. On an average, people with houses and kids, etc, are supposed to be much more financially stable than someone who's 19 and trying to find a job that pays more than minimum wage, etc.

    I agree that parents should pay more for schooling.
    I also think that income taxes should be less for younger people, I work 50 hours a week, and it's completely unfair that on payday I have 200 dollars missing because the government just plain took it away from me and basically said "too bad it's ours"
  18. Geoff St. Germaine

    Geoff St. Germaine Commercial User

    Why is it unfair?
  19. this thread is ridiculous. the_d is the only one making alot of sense here. I can't help but feel there is alot of selfish feelings here. People have been paying town/state taxes forever...you don't like how the monies are being deferred??? None of you get a bill from a school directly, you pay a town tax. from that the money is divided. You're a member of a community, and it is your obligation to pay taxes to support said community...so you don't like that? Too bad. ...instead of soapboxing here, why not go to a couple town meetings and voice your concerns there? Go to the "people in charge".
  20. It seems like the ideal should be that taxes should vary from person to person so that they don't have to pay for things they don't use. But a lot of poor people get funding from government programs that are in turn funded by taxes, so why tax the poor more just because they need the most support from government funding? It's only fair that everyone splits the costs to support everyone in the nation, because even as it is public schools aren't getting NEARLY enough funding, and people in poverty can't live off of welfare or whatever other government funding they receive.

Share This Page