Along the lines of wow's post about teachers, here are a few novel ideas to consider. One is that education is tied primarily to property tax, whch varies and doesn't hold parents responsible unless they own ground. How about we levy fees on parents to pay for their kid's education? This is along the lines of paying for what you consume. You want a car, you pay for it. You want to eat at a restaurant, you pay for it. You want kids, you pay for them.

Also, let's stop the deductions for kids on income tax. Why are we rewarding people for having kids? 18 (and in some cases longer) years of deductions is a lot of money. And no, I am not a proponent of - gosh, then they have more money to support their kids. The reality is, when a select class gets a break like that, others are paying more.

Then, we can also stop the eaned income credit (where I saw my friend with 4 kids get more money back every year than actually paid in, which is crazy) and the head of household.

As stated, a few novel ideas for education and making people be resopnsible for their choices and decisions. Let the furr fly.

dl

I can only comment on the property tax idea. As a landlord I keep the amount of taxes I pay in mind when I rent; tax goes up, rent goes up. So, in essence, my tenants are paying taxes, just indirectly. Also as a landlord I know that the better the schools are around me the better it is for me to rent my property. Win win in my eyes.

I know what you are saying but we need to educate our children so that they do not turn out like the money leeches their parents have become. We cannot punish the children for their parent's stupidity.

I agree that we need to quit rewarding parents for having babies. Limits need to be set so people can't have another child just to stay on public aid.

Okay, I didn't just comment on property taxes. All I know is that we need to keep the children in mind. Bad parents shouldn't mean bad education.

I was thinking along these lines the other day. The current system allows tax deductions for people with children. Wouldn't it make more sense fiscally if the more children you have the more taxes you pay? If you have one child in school you use less public resources than someone who has four children. So how is it that the family with four children gets more deductions than the the family with one child?
I realize it's expensive to have and raise children which is the main reason I only had one child. Wouldn't it be more fair (more fair? fairer?) that those who use the most resources pay the most money?

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

Are you talking just in terms of education? Taxes pay for roads, libraries, medical care, etc. You really can't pinpoint what your tax money pays for. Wouldn't that be a great idea though!

For the purpose of this discussion I'm talking about education. There are already things in place to account for some of the other usages. For example in Oregon heavy trucks pay more in taxes to account for road damage and gas is taxed for road maintenance so if you use more gas (=use the roads more) you pay more tax.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

You get it.......those with more, use more resources, and are more likely to get the free or reduced breakfast, lunch, field trips, etc. That is financed on the backs of people like you who were responsible and reasonable in what you could afford.

It just isn't right, but somehow it happened and people with children expect those deductions. Even when the child is in college, people figure out if it's advantageous to keep the child or allow them to be independent. I think we'd be hard pressed at this point to make a change, but I'd like to see it. No deductions for children period on income tax. No more eic or head of household. Those are reasons for many to not get married in the 1st place, along with other benefits they can reap.

dl

In my area, it now doesn't matter where you live, you can pretty much choose the school your kids go to. I know that location, location, location has been big factor previously for families, but I don't see that anymore.

Somehow I believe thinking constantly that we can't punish the children fuels this sprial we are in. Now, I am not saying withhold an education, but I am saying that parents need to take responsbility financially. I am trying to say those who are responsible for themselves/their own should not be responsible for other people's children.

Example: Let's say if you own a house by age 25 and have 2 children in the school system for 13 years each, and own your home until you are 75 (working with round numbers) you got 26 years out of the school system, yet paid in for 24 more with no benefit. People who do not have children pay (in my illustration) for 50 years with no benefit. I hope that made sense. What a crazy thing to have to pay that long for something you don't get.

I understand theoretically what you are saying about renters/property taxes.

Additionally, my property taxes have definite amounts listed that I pay for schools, library, fire, police, etc. So it would be easy peezie to drop the school rate and I would still pay for the other items.

dl

I do like the way that sounds - the more children, then the higher taxes, due to the increase in resources being accessed, etc.

But at the same time, I would worry that this system would cause people to look to children with special needs - would they expect that the family of a child with extensive educational support services to pay a higher premium, as well? Would the premise of requiring parents to fund their own children's educational needs translate to pointing fingers at these kids who put more of a financial strain on educational costs? That would be very unfortunate.

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

The only one I agree with is number 2. I've been saying for years that there is no earthly reason to give tax deductions for healthy children. I've always thought a compromise might be in order. Two per family would be fair and after that, no more deductions, but I could live with none at all as well.

I can remember years ago taking my two to the dentist with my best friend who had, I think 6 at that time, and seeing her paying less per child than me. Believe me, I had a talk with the dentist about that and got my bill reduced. It either costs X amount to get your teeth cleaned or it doesn't. I had no desire to subsidize her family. I think the same thing applies to taxes.

As for number 1, everyone is paying taxes in one form or another. Punishing children for their parents being poor is not the way to do things. Not everyone is as smart as the the next person, not everyone is as educated as the next person and not everyone is capable of finding, getting, keeping, a decent paying job. Should their kids suffer for this? I think not. We can not, as a society, afford to have a totally uneducated class of citizen.

A better solution, might be to pool a states school revenues and dole it out per child to all the public schools in the state. Each district would be in charge of finding funding for building new schools, upgrading old ones etc, so there would still be a need for local funding of some items. But each district would have the same amount to spend per child. I also think that some sports should be curtailed, such as football. Expensive, dangerous, and it takes money from other deserving sports. The bulk of many high school sports budgets goes to football. Actually that money would be better spent on the arts. I find it sad that so many schools don't curtail their sports programs, but are quick to cut the music and art programs.

As for the earned income credit, I wonder how much that really amounts to. Does anyone have any figures on that? I do know it was a big help to my brother and mother a few years back, she was ill, he had gotten laid off and had decided to stay home as much as possible to take care of her. I had small children and it was a help to us as well that he could do that and relieve me of the burden of driving 30 miles to their house daily and back if he was working. The earned income credit for that year or two that he was eligible made their life easier and her last days less stressful, and she didn't have to be put in a nursing home, which she would have been unable to pay for, so the taxpayers would have ended up with the bill. I'm pretty sure the tax credit didn't come close to what that would have cost.

Wildwood - I got to use head of household and EIC on my taxes when my son was still a minor. It saved me quite a bit-you can look at the tax form and see what the difference is. I didn't/don't get any other type of benefit.
I think this county needs to toughen up and most things will fall into place. We need to stop the entitlement attitude. Like my 86 yr old mom and I talked about tonight-when she was growing up (dirt poor) if they couldn't afford it they did without or made do with what they had. Can you imagine that in todays frame of mind?

I realize there are people like you describe, but to throw out the baby with the bath water is not the answer. There are millions, particularly in this economy that can not survive without some kind of help. We may need to make some adjustments to the system, but we don't need to do away with it. Why do millions have to suffer more because you don't like the attitude of some of them? If they are in need, what difference does their attitude make? When did we get into the attitude changing business? Who's in charge of the attitude police? I can have any attitude I want and it shouldn't affect the way I'm treated. If I can prove I need the help and the rules state that I should be helped, my attitude should be out of the picture. If I can't prove that I need the help, then don't give it to me. Attitude gets you nowhere if the rules are set up right and followed. Attitude police sounds like Big Brother is here and well.

Millions? Doesn't that worry / concern / SCARE you? This is why I think it's time for drastic change. People can't survive without some kind of help because too many have been conditioned to expect and receive handouts, or, can't control their spending.

They have "needs" that are really wants and then cry poor. But their nails are done, the newest phone is on their hip, clothes, eating out, etc. It's about poor choices and not even knowing it.

As for the children, I do understand the forlorn cry "it's not their fault". However, it's not everyone else's duty to take care of the millions. We need to stop rewarding people for having children with income tax deductions, eic, head of household, reduced/free breakfast and lunch, etc, etc, etc. We need to get tough now. It's out of hand and long overdue to pull in the reins.

Children did without previously. In many cases, their parents actually went without for their children to eat ! That doesn't fly today because they hold out their hand and it's filled. Hold it out again, and it's filled again. They've been conditioned.

I work with a couple of charitable organizations and in the past 2 years, I've really started to wonder if I am not enabling people to stay on the public dole by what I give and do. In other words, I might be part of the problem.

dl

If the entitlement attitude carries over into the way you live then it is a big factor. If a person's attitude is that they want anything they can get for free then they don't have the inner fortitude/incentive to do what they can do to better themselves. I would NEVER not help the truly needy. However, I see way too many people getting help that have cell phones, cars, etc... all things that used to be considered luxuries.