Am I Becoming a Paultard? [Amerikan Politics]

[Nessus]

How much math would they even need? Riding over this set of symbols bad, saying "yes" to everything the bank man offers, there you go.

[Loki]

Enough to know they don't like the government taxing them.

[Nessus]

But that's abstract, you don't need to know exactly how much to resent it.

[Khendraja'aro]

[Nessus]

I'd post that xkcd about trying to Fourier transform love if I didn't loathe xkcd

[Dreadnaught]

Not really. Not all property tax or tuition rates are equal.

1) Apartment complex renters pay less than homeowners. Condo/townhouse/co-op owners pay less than individual property owners. Rural non-farm residential is taxed lower than suburban residential. Those in impoverished or blighted neighborhoods pay even less, because the tax rates are based on super low property values. It's all based on land-use, land values, and property 'improvements'. See slum lords and 'affordable' rent, in districts that have no tax revenue but still need public schools.

2) Religious schools charge different tuition rates based on ability to pay and family size. Catholic schools will give huge breaks to poor families with those 8 kids, if they're members of the parish. Most offer lower tuition for each additional child, to make it affordable for large families. Parochial and private schools give needs-based 'scholarships' to needy families.

3) Wealthier families do pay both property taxes and (usually) full private school tuition. But they can also pay a CPA to find tax loop holes, itemize and deduct their property taxes, mortgage interest, and religious tithing from their income, reducing their overall tax burdens.


Urban flight, rent control, ex-urban sprawl, the housing bubble, and screwy tax codes helped lead public school funding to disastrous results. Connecting education to property values and property taxes is one of the dumbest things we've ever done.

1) Apartment complex renters pay less tax than homeowners? That's not true. The property owner pays property taxes on the value of the building, which is likely substantial. The rents support that property tax.

2) Almost all private schools (like private universities) have financial aid programs.

3) Irrelevant distraction from the fact that people who pay for private school are double-paying for their kids education.

We have state funding of schools over here in Germany. And let me tell you: It's the subject of many curses and swear words of teachers, parents and politicians alike.

It's not the heaven you think it is.

If you don't mind going into details, what kinds of problems? I'm curious.

[LittleFuzzy]

if I didn't loathe xkcd

You are an awful human being and you need to never poison this site's electrons again.

[Being]

3) Irrelevant distraction from the fact that people who pay for private school are double-paying for their kids education.

Not at all irrelevant since people without children are paying for other people's kids education. Should we allow people without children to opt-out of the financing of general education? That's what you are saying people with kids should be allowed to do if they prefer private education over public education. Do you see what you are saying is somehow discriminatory? If you have children you have a choice where your money goes, if you don't have children then your money goes to public education.

[Nessus]

You are an awful human being and you need to never poison this site's electrons again.

On the seas and oceans, little man

[Lewkowski]

Not at all irrelevant since people without children are paying for other people's kids education. Should we allow people without children to opt-out of the financing of general education? That's what you are saying people with kids should be allowed to do if they prefer private education over public education. Do you see what you are saying is somehow discriminatory? If you have children you have a choice where your money goes, if you don't have children then your money goes to public education.

Boggle.

In other words... only the wealthy should have school choice. The poor kids just have to suck it.

[GGT]

1) Apartment complex renters pay less tax than homeowners? That's not true. The property owner pays property taxes on the value of the building, which is likely substantial. The rents support that property tax.

It depends on the state/municipality/township/boro....but as a general rule, aggregate housing gets a tax break. It's a logistical and pragmatic thing. One or two roads into apartment complexes are 'cheaper' to build and maintain than several hundred sprawled out roads leading to subdivisions, with one family per acre, or even eight families per acre.

You shouldn't use a NYC metric to describe the rest of the country, ya know. In most US places, people don't "buy" an apartment, let alone have areas with rent control.

Boggle.

In other words... only the wealthy should have school choice. The poor kids just have to suck it.

I'm surprised that you're surprised. After you've dismantled the Dept. of Education, and made each state responsible for funding their own public education...without any federal funds....do you really think your fellow Texans would be willing to pay more in taxes? As it stands now, Texas isn't paying its 'fair share' for public education to begin with.

[Dreadnaught]

Not at all irrelevant since people without children are paying for other people's kids education. Should we allow people without children to opt-out of the financing of general education? That's what you are saying people with kids should be allowed to do if they prefer private education over public education. Do you see what you are saying is somehow discriminatory? If you have children you have a choice where your money goes, if you don't have children then your money goes to public education.

Actually, there is a school tax credit in New York City that basically tries to address that very issue.

Everyone pays taxes on things they may not directly benefit from at some point in their lives. What are you, some kind of paleo-con?

My point is: if we're going to value education as a public good that is worthy of taxation and subsidies, we should give parents the choices and structure to get the most benefit from that wealth transfer. The structure which best serves that purpose is a voucher system, which helps change the orientation of funding from funneling cash into a status quo bureaucracy and into a far more dynamic system.

It depends on the state/municipality/township/boro....but as a general rule, aggregate housing gets a tax break. It's a logistical and pragmatic thing. One or two roads into apartment complexes are 'cheaper' to build and maintain than several hundred sprawled out roads leading to subdivisions, with one family per acre, or even eight families per acre.

You shouldn't use a NYC metric to describe the rest of the country, ya know. In most US places, people don't "buy" an apartment, let alone have areas with rent control.

Shenanigans. We could only wish taxes would be structured this way. Multi-housing units tend to have less land to assess, but the value (as determined by the income from the rent) is usually much higher. This leads to less per-unit taxes, but higher overall taxes.

And the picture is usually far more complicated.

[Being]

Actually, there is a school tax credit in New York City that basically tries to address that very issue.

Everyone pays taxes on things they may not directly benefit from at some point in their lives. What are you, some kind of paleo-con?

My point is: if we're going to value education as a public good that is worthy of taxation and subsidies, we should give parents the choices and structure to get the most benefit from that wealth transfer. The structure which best serves that purpose is a voucher system, which helps change the orientation of funding from funneling cash into a status quo bureaucracy and into a far more dynamic system.

How do vouchers help change the orientation of funding contributed by people without children? People without children include empty nesters, grandparents, great grandparents, and people who just never wanted children as part of their responsibility. Parents should be no more exempt from supporting the national need than any of the other members of our society.

[GGT]

Actually, there is a school tax credit in New York City that basically tries to address that very issue.

Everyone pays taxes on things they may not directly benefit from at some point in their lives. What are you, some kind of paleo-con?

My point is: if we're going to value education as a public good that is worthy of taxation and subsidies, we should give parents the choices and structure to get the most benefit from that wealth transfer. The structure which best serves that purpose is a voucher system, which helps change the orientation of funding from funneling cash into a status quo bureaucracy and into a far more dynamic system.

Wait. How can a valued public good be a wealth "transfer"? Or even a "redistribution" of wealth? The general public gains from having an educated and literate populace that makes everyone's lives better. It seems you're not really talking about education, but money. Vouchers aren't the magic fix you're wanting, any more than charter schools. That just moves students around as if they're money, but doesn't do a damn thing to improve the quality of education for kids left in the lurch.

My county has tried vouchers and charter schools, but there are still too many children *cough* left behind. There's a big hoopla currently, as one of the larger charter schools serving several hundreds of inner city kids is closing. They'd had plenty of money diverted their way for about five years, as a pilot program, but now have a huge deficit without much improvement in student performance. Parents now have to figure out where to send their kids to school, since the charter center meant a few neighborhood schools were closed.

Shenanigans. We could only wish taxes would be structured this way. Multi-housing units tend to have less land to assess, but the value (as determined by the income from the rent) is usually much higher. This leads to less per-unit taxes, but higher overall taxes.

And the picture is usually far more complicated.

Yes, it's complicated, not shenanigans. The rest of the country doesn't operate like NYC. My county doesn't assess multi-units or apartments by their rental income. Land is still plentiful and cheap around here. There's no incentive for developers to build a high-rise, so there's plenty of 3-4 story complexes with winding roads, cul-de-sacs, and parking lots. Instead, the tax assessor uses a combination of 'amenities' (fireplaces, # of bathrooms, swimming pools, garages), and density per acre. The sewer and refuse authority uses different calculations---but those charges are itemized for renters who pay the direct costs in their rent. See, we still have complexes that can choose to hire a private garbage collector instead of using the municipality's group contractor. And they hire their own snow removal teams, too, so those services aren't part of property taxes.

[Lewkowski]

How do vouchers help change the orientation of funding contributed by people without children? People without children include empty nesters, grandparents, great grandparents, and people who just never wanted children as part of their responsibility. Parents should be no more exempt from supporting the national need than any of the other members of our society.

So because some people don't have choice no one should have choice.

"If I can't have freedom neither can you...Haha ha..."

Mind Boggle. Its like you hate poor children.

[Being]

So because some people don't have choice no one should have choice.

"If I can't have freedom neither can you...Haha ha..."

Mind Boggle. Its like you hate poor children.

Vouchers move education away from poor children.

[GGT]

Vouchers move education away from poor children.

Best case scenario would mean NO family has to "choose" a school in order to get a high quality education for their kids. Even non-parents would agree that ALL our public schools can and should do better.

[Dreadnaught]

How do vouchers help change the orientation of funding contributed by people without children? People without children include empty nesters, grandparents, great grandparents, and people who just never wanted children as part of their responsibility. Parents should be no more exempt from supporting the national need than any of the other members of our society.

Why are you pursuing this irrelevant line of argument that no one has even approached?

Wait. How can a valued public good be a wealth "transfer"? Or even a "redistribution" of wealth? The general public gains from having an educated and literate populace that makes everyone's lives better. It seems you're not really talking about education, but money. Vouchers aren't the magic fix you're wanting, any more than charter schools. That just moves students around as if they're money, but doesn't do a damn thing to improve the quality of education for kids left in the lurch.

There is arguably a strong collective benefit from public funding for education. But taxing for education is still a wealth transfer.

And believing that education should be publicly funded doesn't mean one has to believe in public schools.

[Nessus]

And believing that education should be publicly funded doesn't mean one has to believe in public schools.

Here's a rabbit hole I much wish further investigated!

[Dreadnaught]

You can look next door to such countries at Sverige for inspiration.

[Nessus]

I'm not going to Wiki some position you are able to explain to me fully!

[Dreadnaught]

Except you already know the position, and I'm guessing you know the educational system of your neighbor across the channel. A voucher is a government educational credit that can be applied towards an education chosen by the parents.

The boundaries of that choice are usually where the real argument starts.

[Aimless]

You can look next door to such countries at Sverige for inspiration.

Perhaps not the best source of inspiration as thorough investigation reveals that the Swedish model hasn't been as successful as many expected/hoped. I also expect the failures of this school funding revolution have not been as bad as they might be in a country like the US, even though Sweden has a major education problem right now. As you're so fond of pointing out, Sweden is a fairly prosperous country with a tiny population. Lessons from Sweden aren't always easily transferred to other contexts.

[Nessus]

Except you already know the position, and I'm guessing you know the educational system of your neighbor across the channel.

You vastly over-estimate the importance I place on the policies of our former colonial masters; perhaps your intimacy with the British system affords you this chauvinism? Spoiler, I don't presume you well-acquainted with the UK school system, but I do find offensive your attitude towards presumption of my knowledge.

[Dreadnaught]

Perhaps not the best source of inspiration as thorough investigation reveals that the Swedish model hasn't been as successful as many expected/hoped. I also expect the failures of this school funding revolution have not been as bad as they might be in a country like the US, even though Sweden has a major education problem right now. As you're so fond of pointing out, Sweden is a fairly prosperous country with a tiny population. Lessons from Sweden aren't always easily transferred to other contexts.

Now this I want to hear more about!