Education funding fraud

[IrishEyes]

IrishEyes said:
4- I think that there should be a school choice initiative. I pay school taxes, but my children all stay home. My school district still gets my tax money, AND government funding for my children that do not attend. That's not right.

stargazer replied:
Do your tax money also go to streets and roads you do not use and clean water you do not drink? Isn't the education already underfunded?

Yes, my money goes to streets and roads, and the fire department, which is all volunteer, and I am one of them. I have a well for water though, but nice try.

Why does the school district get money for children that are not using their equipment? That's my main gripe here. Yes, I understand that school taxes are paid by everyone. But the schools should not receive money from the government, state or federal, for children that do not even attend. That's fraud, at its most basic. How can anyone say otherwise?

[Freethinker]

Show us how a "school district get money for children that are not using their equipment". Public Schools recieve a budget regardless of how many children there are. Yes budgetary numbers are based on population expectations. But if "little Johnny"'s folks decide to send him to public school this year after attending private school last year (or conversly) the Public Shool's budget does not change.

Interestingly, in my area, the Public Shool Budget pays for Highspeed Internet, Crossing Guards and Busses for the Private Religious schools.

[Stargazer]

Am I right when I assume that you think most taxes are fraud, since they pay for many things you do not use? I would think so.

As I see it, there are some things that are necessary for a society to function. For the public to be well-educated is something very obvious to me. They should get the opportunity to get an education even if they do not come from rich families and don't have the right connections. I believe a democracy works better with a well-educated public, and freedom is safer with a well-informed public.

[IrishEyes]

Am I right when I assume that you think most taxes are fraud, since they pay for many things you do not use? I would think so.

Oh, you got me there. Yep, that's right, I think most taxes are ridiculous. What can I say? I very strongly believe that there should be a flat tax on all income, that there should be NO exceptions to that flat tax, and that the government should be required to run within that limit. But that is, in part, due to me realizing that we have paid more in taxes already this year than what is considered 'poverty level' in my country. So maybe I'm just a little touchy on the tax subject. Sorry about that, don't mean to offend, but it really burns me when people complain about making very little, and I see such a large dollar amount in the YTD Tax column of the pay stub.

More to come on this, I have lots of opinions on this topic.

[lindagarrette]

A flat income tax would place most of the burden on the working classes for financing our economy, not that what we have is far removed. There are many other possibilities to consider. Even Bush is looking into the National Sales Tax (progressive consumption) option to replace the IRS. I don't think we are ready for it yet, though.

[IrishEyes]

A flat income tax would place most of the burden on the working classes for financing our economy, not that what we have is far removed.

I'm not an economics student, so maybe you can help me understand this one, Linda. If there is a flat tax on every income, if no exceptions to the across the board tax were allowed, how would the working class be responsible for financing the economy? I understand that there are currently ways to get around paying taxes, especially at the corporate level, but if some of the ridiculous exemptions (like Freethinker's Hummer tax) were removed, and every person were required to pay, how would this unfairly tax one group over another? I'm not trying to beargumentative, I really am curious.

As to the National Sales Tax, I'll have to read more about that. To me, it sounds like just another way for the government to make a few extra (million) dollars, at my expense.

One other thing - I really like your new avatar. I miss the heart, but it's nice to see your face, aside from your website. You look just like my ex-mother-in-law, but that's not a bad thing. I really love her!

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Oh, you got me there. Yep, that's right, I think most taxes are ridiculous. What can I say? I very strongly believe that there should be a flat tax on all income, that there should be NO exceptions to that flat tax, and that the government should be required to run within that limit. But that is, in part, due to me realizing that we have paid more in taxes already this year than what is considered 'poverty level' in my country. So maybe I'm just a little touchy on the tax subject. Sorry about that, don't mean to offend, but it really burns me when people complain about making very little, and I see such a large dollar amount in the YTD Tax column of the pay stub.

More to come on this, I have lots of opinions on this topic.

I agree that taxes should be kept at reasonable levels, but I also strongly believe that they should go to things like public education, public healthcare, police, fire department, etc.

[Freethinker]

Er, should I be the one to say this thread is WAY off topic? Or should I follow suit and explain my Tax Reform package?

[lindagarrette]

The advantage of a national sales tax would be to capture money based on goods spent. The more you buy and the higher price items, outside of necessities, the more you pay. Theoretically, those who can afford to spend can afford to pay more for their luxuries. There would be a horrendous black market, however, and hoarding would be rampant. I don't think sucy a system would be healthy for our economy.

The flat tas with no excemptions would be a disaster because, in a nutshell, the working class would have to support the idle rich. Even the so-called graduated tax structure we have now is inequitable because it tops out at around 35% (I think) but the most inequitable tax is the payroll tax which falls exclusively on middle class workers. They pay for the retirement of everyone, including those who paid into the fund a smaller portion of their earnings.

Simplified hypothetical example of a flat tax rate at 20%:
Let's examine a hypothetical example of a true flat tax (we have to use a hypothetical example because none of the actual proposals is a true flat tax) and compare it with a simplified example of a hypothetical progressive system. Let's imagine a progressive system with three rates: 15% on the first $25,000 income layer, 28% on the next $30,000 layer (from $25,000 to $55,000) and 33% above $55,000. A person who earns $25,000 would be entirely in the first 15% layer, for a tax of $3,750. His take-home pay is $21,250. A flat 20% rate would raise the working guy's taxes by $1,250.

A person earning $200,000 (the wealthiest 2% of the population) pays an exactly equal $3,750 for the first $25,000 layer. For the layer from $25,000 to $55,000 he pays the 28% tax of $8,400; and for the final $145,000 layer he pays the 33% tax of $47,850 for a total tax of $60,000. His take-home pay is $140,000 -- more than six times that of the $25,000 worker. With a flat 20% rate the investor's taxes would go down by $20,000! Then, there's unearned income which would not bet taxed at all.

In my personal iopinion, along with a strictly enforced and well designed national sales tax, there should be no income tax and a 100% tax on inheritance. Keep the money flowing.

[lindagarrette]

Don't forget, Earnings of the working poor (not those on welfare) go almost entirely for survival expenses such as food, shelter and clothing. At that level, every dollar is critical; even a small difference causes tremendous changes in the quality of life. Life not being fair, at least let's have some compassion.