Not at all. I am trying to find a way to explain that no matter how hard it is to pay when you are young and healthy, it is MUCH harder to find a job, work a job and keep a job...and pay school taxes too. I am saying that those who are old and at the end of their lives should not have to CONTINUE to pay school taxes. That we could much more fairly fund schools and that as a society we have a responsibility to our old just as much as we do our young.
Yes, but that responsibility is Social Security and Medicaid (or is it Medicare -- I always confuse the two names). I don't see why senior citizens wouldn't continue to reap benefits of education -- even beyond the societal level. They themselves are still educated, their children are educated, and their grandchildren are being educated.
My example was just to illustrate how education costs are currently structured. Paying for a private school for a neighbor is as close to your "social benefit" example as I can get to a childless couple paying for school taxes. Both are costs to educate children not your own. While education IS important to a society, the benefit is NOT even to all members of that society. The greatest benefit will always be (in a democracy) to the individual (family) who receives it, NOT society as a whole.
Ah, I see the connection; however, I don't agree with your premise. How many services do you use each week? How many of the people with whom you come in contact were educated in the public school system. You can't discount that indirect benefit.
You also ignore the fate of children whose parents can't afford to educate them. I was one of those kids -- we were poor during my entire childhood and were on welfare for a portion of it. I received 12 years of education in the public school system, then I received a Pell Grant in college. Yes, I took a great deal from society; however, since graduating from college 20+ years ago I have been working in a professional job, paying taxes every year, providing needed services for society. My own children will not need Pell Grants. Without those educational benefits, I would've stayed where I was born. Would it be better to say to poor children, "Sucks to be you, but your parents can't pay for your education. Maybe you can work in a factory. Nope, those jobs went to Mexico. Well, the soup kitchen is down the street."
The increase in federal tax revenue would be redirected to the states based on need. It would provide better funding for our schools and provide a more even education opportunity for all. The increased revenue would also allow a person, once they reach the end of life where they can not work, or working becomes MUCH more difficult ( if they can even find a job.) to FINALLY pay off the education debt to society.
You're assuming that the two parties would agree to make major changes in taxes, that they'd be willing to shift that money from federal to state, and that the money would be used for schools. You're optimistic.
Yes, but that responsibility is Social Security and Medicaid (or is it Medicare -- I always confuse the two names). I don't see why senior citizens wouldn't continue to reap benefits of education -- even beyond the societal level. They themselves are still educated, their children are educated, and their grandchildren are being educated.
My example was just to illustrate how education costs are currently structured. Paying for a private school for a neighbor is as close to your "social benefit" example as I can get to a childless couple paying for school taxes. Both are costs to educate children not your own. While education IS important to a society, the benefit is NOT even to all members of that society. The greatest benefit will always be (in a democracy) to the individual (family) who receives it, NOT society as a whole.
Ah, I see the connection; however, I don't agree with your premise. How many services do you use each week? How many of the people with whom you come in contact were educated in the public school system. You can't discount that indirect benefit.
You also ignore the fate of children whose parents can't afford to educate them. I was one of those kids -- we were poor during my entire childhood and were on welfare for a portion of it. I received 12 years of education in the public school system, then I received a Pell Grant in college. Yes, I took a great deal from society; however, since graduating from college 20+ years ago I have been working in a professional job, paying taxes every year, providing needed services for society. My own children will not need Pell Grants. Without those educational benefits, I would've stayed where I was born. Would it be better to say to poor children, "Sucks to be you, but your parents can't pay for your education. Maybe you can work in a factory. Nope, those jobs went to Mexico. Well, the soup kitchen is down the street."
The increase in federal tax revenue would be redirected to the states based on need. It would provide better funding for our schools and provide a more even education opportunity for all. The increased revenue would also allow a person, once they reach the end of life where they can not work, or working becomes MUCH more difficult ( if they can even find a job.) to FINALLY pay off the education debt to society.
You're assuming that the two parties would agree to make major changes in taxes, that they'd be willing to shift that money from federal to state, and that the money would be used for schools. You're optimistic.
