I believe the school system should be partially socialized. I do not believe that is the best for our society as a whole if everything were to be made private in the school system. I want the lower class children to have more of a chance to step up and I do not think that making all schools private is the solution. I am glad all of America is forced to pay for everyone's education. I really do not care how much you guys disagree with me on that one or think that I am dumb or whatever. I know a lot of people here really hate anything that is socialized, but not everything works out for the best overall in a country if it is completely privatized in a free market and I believe that the school system is one of the few.
I believe the school system should be partially socialized. I do not believe that is the best for our society as a whole if everything were to be made private in the school system. I want the lower class children to have more of a chance to step up and I do not think that making all schools private is the solution. I am glad all of America is forced to pay for everyone's education. I really do not care how much you guys disagree with me on that one or think that I am dumb or whatever. I know a lot of people here really hate anything that is socialized, but not everything works out for the best overall in a country if it is completely privatized in a free market and I believe that the school system is one of the few.
And the reason the lower class is growing is because of socialist policies in the first place. You can't perpetually justify socialism based on environments it creates. If those people weren't taxed and inflated to kingdom come, they'd have plenty of money to spend for themselves. And instead of giving vouchers to parents, we simply allow government to distribute the money to the providers as it chooses, and to pay the salaries of people running a pointless federal department. Only an idiot socialist would think that doubling size and cost of a federal department with money that otherwise would've stayed in the hands of the parents would better help their children.
And why should someone with 1 child who's saving prudently be paying the same amount in as someone who didn't but decided to have five kids they couldn't afford. Person A is effectively subsidizing Person B and being punished for making better monetary decisions, destroying the natural disincentive that makes people not want to do what Person B did in the first place. This is what turns immigration from a good thing to a bad thing, people come not just for opportunity, but to be subsidized by others. And eventually, the strain just builds until everyone has an equal entitlement to crappy education.
Yet you're all for the socialism of Minimum Wage. Hey, you never responded to my post, going to provide some data?
Absolutely not, where did I say that? Labor is a product like anything else, it naturally gets bid up to appropriate levels. Why else would my local fast-food restaurant be hiring at 7.00 instead of the enforced minimum right now?
The minimum wage is small cookies compared to other policies, though, so I rarely attack it unless it is actually so high that it interferes with natural levels, which it really isn't right now.
They are not growing because of how our current education system is funded. Nor will removing or reducing property taxes help put more money in the pockets of these kinds of people. They do not own any property.
This is not about the idea of socialism as a whole. This is only about property taxes and the public education system. Just because my belief partially leans towards socialism in this one case does not make me a socialist and nor does it mean that I believe that everything would be better if it were completely socialized. Again, some things are better overall for this country if they incorporated some socialized beliefs while many others are not. In order to do what is best for this country, one must consider everything on a case by case basis. Becoming biased towards one way of doing things whether it be socialism or anything else just because it doesn't work out for the best in most cases is not wise. You will end up over looking details and making mistakes by thinking that way.
Besides, the vast majority of people who are against the government funding the public school system actually have no interest in what is best for our country overall. Nor are they interested in what is truly "fair"...whatever that means. All they are interested in is paying less taxes so they can have more money in their own pockets.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
it's not hyperbole, it's the historical background of the development of real property. land was the king's property and held by knight's service to the king, either in money or manpower. eventually through various assizes and historical accidents we evolved into what we've got today.
and maybe my property professor is just an idiot
Just because you are renting doesn't make you immune to property taxes. Your landlord will increase rent if his property taxes go up, so you are effectively taxed. It's just never a full amount since you're one of many people that cost is divided amongst.
Duh, if you had no kids or few kids you are essentially paying for other people's lifestyles with a general tax system. Why would the tax be based on property? Shouldn't it be based on something like how many kids you are going to send through the system? And even then, libertarians will always tell you that a parent will make a better market choice with that money than any politician who didn't work for it will. So it's a doubly stupid system.
I've certainly spoken to lower class families who are intelligent enough to understand this, but they are the minority. Poverty generally keeps you oblivious and stuck on idealist arguments where you're inadvertently voting for something that hurts you.
Rent goes up for everyone every year regardless of taxes. The average annual increase is 3% IIRC. More importantly, it does not get reduced for any reason. There will not be any more money in the pockets of any renters should these taxes get reduced. It will only put more money into the pockets of owners of the rental properties. The rich.
In regards to the taxes being only placed upon those with kids, there are many problems which come with that. The short answer is that everyone, both rich and poor, pay taxes on things which do not get spent 100% by the government on services which they use. This is just how it works in this country.
If it worked the way you are suggesting by the taxes for public education being distributed more "fairly" on a per kid basis then the end result would be much greater impact on those with less money because for them it is not nearly as affordable and that's that. Somehow you believe that doing so will reduce the number of people who are lower class? How? By taking more money from them? You think that they will stop popping out kids? No...they will continue to give birth. Then what? Are you going to deny those kids an education because Mom and Dad cannot afford the taxes? Great...a lot more people with little to no education who will just end up popping out more kids which stand less of a chance than they did. Lastly, if you think that even for one second that this sort of thing will not effect your life and lives of everyone who makes a lot more money then you gotta another thing coming. This is a major negative domino effect that will severely wreck our country for both the rich and the poor. Now how is that fair? We don't have a choice. We have to pick the lesser of two evils in this case and education for everyone is paramount.
I don't like paying money to the government for things that I don't use any more than the next guy, but I am looking at the big picture here. I do realize how not doing so will negatively impact my life by a lot. So, in a sense, my taxes are being spent on me and the quality of my life.
That's not correct. Property taxes affect rent.
It's not an exact correlation. Property taxes aren't broken out as a line item on rent, and the price of rent is set by the market, not by the landlord's costs.
But nonetheless, it's a real factor. A bottom line is that if the market for rent falls too low, including the taxes the landlord pays, the landlord will get out of renting.
That reduces supply, which increases prices, and leaves higher rents for fewer places and more people without a place to live.
Of course, it can also drive down the price of the real estate since it's not too profitable, which can again make renting ok. But taxes are a factor in the equation.
And it's not true that rents only go up. Like most prices, they usually go up, but not always.
If there's a competitive market, a large tax decrease probably would mean lower rent.
It's good to see some 'grownup' posts.
I agree with the whole supply/demand thing when it comes to rental units and prices, but that is separate from taxes for the most part. People are just too greedy to let much if any of the extra profit go into the pockets of the renters. More importantly, it would not be enough to cover the added costs for the average family who now has to pay a lot more money in the form of other taxes so their kids can go to a public school so the point is kind of mute. The rich will win. The poor will lose. Actually, the rich would lose too because the country would get a lot worse when it comes to education which directly effects business and the economy. They just might not see it that way when it happens later down the road.
Lastly, property taxes in Florida just went down last year. No one's rent was decreased. New leases are more expensive now than before. This is a result of supply and demand though. The point is it had nothing to do with the taxes even though the rental property owners were raking in more profit due to the decrease. I mentioned in an earlier post how much this has negatively effected the state's school system, police departments, and fire departments. Not good.
You don't seem to understand that insanely high taxation and inflation being enforced on these people in the name of these idealist goals MAKES most of those people poor when they otherwise wouldn't be. You can't keep arguing this way, by taking the present environment as a given without addressing WHY these people are poor. They're not just helpless idiots mating like rabbits and spending all their money on casinos. Even if they were, that's their consequence to bear. You can't possibly sit here and tell me that it is another man's obligation to give up a better life for his children to prevent another idiot's bad decisions from afflicting his. He may morally choose to do so, but voluntary charity is quite different. You can't just have a child and say "welp, that's it neighbors, I'm a deadbeat parent, subsidize me or the kid has a terrible life." That's pretty much extortion and it incentivizes the wrong decisions.
YES. Better that than rewarding them with money appropriated by force from their neighbors.
Formal education is overrated, books are incredibly cheap, libraries with internet access are common (some of them privately funded by rich people), and I'm sure you know people who entered the work force early, persevered, and ended up better off than people racked up massive debt going to college. My own mother is one of them. I know people who went to school and college and still ended up drunken fuck-ups. It doesn't matter, you have a choice and it doesn't come down to how many hand-outs you get.
And you're not even admitting that as funding for public education has increased, quality has steadily gone down. We used to be first in the world before 1970, now I'm not sure if we're even in the top 10. My high school economics class was a total joke. My teacher essentially spent half the semester bragging about how many times he had successfully bartered down prices at local stores, and how low an interest rate he had on one of his credit cards. I learned fifty times more in a week's time by reading books like "Wealth of Nations" and "Gold- Once and Future Money."
Nonsense, it's made everyone poorer and stupider. We had better results before the DoE existed. And sports programs get way more money today than they did back then.
Nobody said supply and demand couldn't overpower miniscule tax decreases, particularly if neighboring states are raising theirs. That doesn't mean taxes don't affect the price of rent. What do you think would happen if taxes increased to $500 from $50 per tenant on when the rent is $400 per month? He'd HAVE to raise his rent by $450, or he'd lose money and foreclose. So of course it has an effect, and hopefully this exaggerated case makes it clearer to you that a landlord has very real costs and margins, and tax is included in those costs.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
And maybe he is, because that's what real estate means, unmovable property.
Still, you are correct that property laws derived from the English common law, and thus from feudalism. Likewise could be said of capitalism deriving from the protected peasants markets inside the lord's castle.
Things have changed. Or not.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,567
- 6
- 81
Government costs money. Revenue must be raised to pay for it: Income taxes, sales and excise taxes, inventory taxes, transfer taxes and stamp fees, registration fees, user fees and tolls, airport and landing fees, service fees, licensing fees, fees for permits, borrowing (government bonds), personal property taxes. And, yes, real estate taxes.
Ideally, taxes and fees "feel" fairer when the government service being funded is closely connected to the source of the revenue. In the case of property taxes, they are used exclusively by the locality levying the tax, and the beneficiaries of the government services funded, in part, by property taxes are the inhabitants of the locality. That makes sense.
But in any event, given that your fair, total revenue burden for a locality is going to be X, do you REALLY care what labels the taxes or fees go by, or on what bases they're levied? That $2000 coming out of your bank account is going to be just a real if it's a "county services fee" or a "property tax."
Ideally, taxes and fees "feel" fairer when the government service being funded is closely connected to the source of the revenue. In the case of property taxes, they are used exclusively by the locality levying the tax, and the beneficiaries of the government services funded, in part, by property taxes are the inhabitants of the locality. That makes sense.
But in any event, given that your fair, total revenue burden for a locality is going to be X, do you REALLY care what labels the taxes or fees go by, or on what bases they're levied? That $2000 coming out of your bank account is going to be just a real if it's a "county services fee" or a "property tax."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter