Tax those that have kids to fund schools. Leave my house alone!

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: JEDI
Why are we giving tax breaks to those that have kids (ie: exemptions on federal/state tax forms), yet tax those of us who dont have kids to pay for schools?!

Yeah, i got my latest property tax bill.

UNFAIR!

WTF man?! :thumbsdown::|

That's because by not having kids you're not contributing to public welfare by creating new productive members of society.

In terms of utilitarianism, you are of no long-term value to society if you don't reproduce... therefore members who do reproduce are appropriately encouraged to continue doing so. The western world needs to reproduce, lest it be trampled by the hordes from the 3rd world.

Secondly, to create new productive members of society, as opposed to criminal and idle ones, schools are essential. Therefore everyone is taxed to support those.

I understand that in your ignorance and selfishness you want to insulate yourself from responsibilities to the society in which you live in... but in all fairness in that case you must also relinquish all of your rights to the benefits of civilized industrial society as well.

Yeah, so start making hamsters and get 'em on that damn wheel! We've got free-loaders to support here!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Why are we giving tax breaks to those that have kids (ie: exemptions on federal/state tax forms), yet tax those of us who dont have kids to pay for schools?!

Yeah, i got my latest property tax bill.

UNFAIR!

WTF man?! :thumbsdown::|

Oh come on. Be like the rest of the rich folks and adopt kids.

This way you'll use the system you are paying for and get a tax write off at the same time.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Why are we giving tax breaks to those that have kids (ie: exemptions on federal/state tax forms), yet tax those of us who dont have kids to pay for schools?!

Yeah, i got my latest property tax bill.

UNFAIR!

WTF man?! :thumbsdown::|

I guess with your logic, rich people can hire their own security guards and not pay taxes for police/firefighters. They have their own cars, so they don't need to pa for mass transportation. They get their Food from some exotic restuarant in france so they don't have to pay taxes that contribute to farm subsadies. They don't ever go to New Orleans, so no money for the poor Katrina victims. Finally, they don't vote so they shouldn't pay taxes that go towards the salaries of politicians.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JEDI
Why are we giving tax breaks to those that have kids (ie: exemptions on federal/state tax forms), yet tax those of us who dont have kids to pay for schools?!

Yeah, i got my latest property tax bill.

UNFAIR!

WTF man?! :thumbsdown::|

I guess with your logic, rich people can hire their own security guards and not pay taxes for police/firefighters. They have their own cars, so they don't need to pa for mass transportation. They get their Food from some exotic restuarant in france so they don't have to pay taxes that contribute to farm subsadies. They don't ever go to New Orleans, so no money for the poor Katrina victims. Finally, they don't vote so they shouldn't pay taxes that go towards the salaries of politicians.

I like your line of thinking, especially on the farm subsidies.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: piasabird
Did you go to school?

It is a public school and the kids are required to go there!

It is a benefit to a community to have educated young adults ready to take their place in society. The same society that you belong to. These people will be expected to pay for your social security and pay taxes to upkeep roads and protect our way of life by serving in the military.

No man is an island.

Unless you move to a wilderness and fend for yourself and live and die off the land with no help from anyone else you have to depend on other people to live and work and grow together as members of a society for the common good. We have people that pick up trash, grow food, make cars, build houses, provide employment, make furniture and even make the plate and the knife and the fork you eat with. We are all important.

If you prefer anarchy where everyone kills everyone else to get what they want, then you want to live in the middle ages. We need each other man.

There is the option of going to schools that are not oppressive indoctrination centers. It doesn't take being rich, either (going into debt, yes, which my parents did). The people who have children should be charged for education, because it is they who created the situation of requiring it, and they who choose the government to do it.

You're right, America would be better off if no one had kids, and most parents do nothing but take take take... I've never met a parent who invested thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars in caring for and raising their child so that you could hire them when they grow up and make the whole nation more productive.

The positive externalities argument is hackneyed and weak, and you know it.

Actually, since it's one of the few a priori truths that actually holds up, the fact that people are productive over their lifetime despite having high initial costs to raise and educate them speaks for itself. Hmm... I haven't heard you refer to your a priori grubbish for a while, maybe that was just a phase

Why not actually address the argument instead of trying to dismiss it when it clealry has at least some validity.

Actually, David D. Friedman, who is a neo-classical economist sums up my views quite nicely. Text

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Todd33
We need people to breed and we need to train them into workers. A nation with negative population growth and poorly educated children will be a nation that fails. If you really hate America, then by all means get rid of schools and incentives to have children. By the way having children is alot of work and cost and it benifits the whole country.

So, according to your argument, we should strive to increase our population to 2 billion people since "a nation with negative population growth...will be a nation that fails"?

I disagree. In contrast, I think that a nation with runaway population growth will find itself with an impoverished populace, too few resources per person (like, um, land for putting up houses and roads), and environmental problems. It almost sounds like you're advocating a population-Ponzi scheme where the idea is to have an ever-increasing base of people at the bottom of the pyramid.

We could be just fine having a moderate negative population growth as long as it doesn't reach the point where it would affect the division of labor.

 

[Bitek]

Whahhh! I have to pay taxes for things I don't like or use Whah!

Join the club. I don't like the Iraq war, so I should get lots of $ back on my taxes this year. Not particularly fond of the IRS either...

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

I hate subsidizing schools w/property taxes on my house

Yeah, cause your life would be so much better with a whole generation of uneducated people running around. Think about it for a minute.

I don't have kids either but the thought of not providing even a basic education to our kids is just frightening. If you think this country is behind the developed world now with our current education system, imagine where we'd be with NO education system.

thats not what i mean.

How about this idea:
Tax those that have the kids?! What a concept???!!!

take away their exemptions on their 1040's and state tax forms. use that $ to fund the schools and not from those of us that dont have kids!

Kids are the future police and firemen you know.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

I hate subsidizing schools w/property taxes on my house

Yeah, cause your life would be so much better with a whole generation of uneducated people running around. Think about it for a minute.

I don't have kids either but the thought of not providing even a basic education to our kids is just frightening. If you think this country is behind the developed world now with our current education system, imagine where we'd be with NO education system.

thats not what i mean.

How about this idea:
Tax those that have the kids?! What a concept???!!!

take away their exemptions on their 1040's and state tax forms. use that $ to fund the schools and not from those of us that dont have kids!

And when my kids grow and and start paying taxes then my taxes should be less then yours. Oh yeah, since I have 3 grown kids paying SS, then my SS should be 4 times what yours is too.

Hmmmmm..... maybe we can work something out??

 

[3chordcharlie]

@Dissipate - From your link:

It is said that since education increases human productivity, by educating my child I increase the wealth of the whole society, making all of us better off. One obvious problem with this argument is that, if correct, it applies to a lot of things other than education. Physical capital also increases productivity; does it follow that all investments ought to be subsidized? Better transportation allows workers to spend more time working and less time commuting; should we subsidize the production of cars? The argument suggests that everything worth doing ought to be subsidized-leaving us with the puzzle of what we are to tax in order to raise the money for the subsidies.

Friedman is playing the neoliberal/libertarian game here of pretending that the world is ridiculously simple. I don't think I should have to explain why education of children and physical capital have 'relevant dissimilarities', and I certainly shouldn't have to point out that cars are in many cases not a productivity-increasing device, but rather a luxury good; and even at that, we subsidie cars by building public roads. This dissmissive argument is simply a case of begging the question and if this "sums up [your] views quite nicely.", then you've been duped.

Let's read on a little:

What is wrong with this argument is that it misses is the way in which the price system already allocates "social benefits" to those who produce them. Building a factory may increase the wealth of my society-but most (in the limit of perfect competition, all) of the increase goes to the investors whose capital paid for the factory.

This is wholly incorrect; in the system Friedman esouses, only under monopoly with perfect pricing would all consumer surplus accrue to the monopolist, and even then they would be unable to extract payment for any positive externalities.

Maybe some more?

Schooling-like a new car-produces non-market benefits as well. But these too go mostly to the student, enabled by education to appreciate more of the riches of the culture he lives in. There may be effects on other people as well, but they are typically small compared to the benefits to the student, and their sign is not always clear. When my child becomes an expert in Shakespeare and quantum mechanics one result may be to enlighten and entertain her friends, but another may be to make them feel stupid.

WTH is he talking about? This is some sort of 'better citizens' argument, which is totally unnecessary, but Friedman does a great job of coming off as arrogant, if nothing else. He deliberately chooses an example that presents little direct economic benefit because he is once again begging the question.

Next Friedman goes into true 'better-citizen/better-voter' arguments, which he tries to leave standing for some unexplained reason; the arguments are bad, and unneeded , and whoever originated them was stretching pretty hard.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
@Dissipate - From your link:

It is said that since education increases human productivity, by educating my child I increase the wealth of the whole society, making all of us better off. One obvious problem with this argument is that, if correct, it applies to a lot of things other than education. Physical capital also increases productivity; does it follow that all investments ought to be subsidized? Better transportation allows workers to spend more time working and less time commuting; should we subsidize the production of cars? The argument suggests that everything worth doing ought to be subsidized-leaving us with the puzzle of what we are to tax in order to raise the money for the subsidies.

Friedman is playing the neoliberal/libertarian game here of pretending that the world is ridiculously simple. I don't think I should have to explain why education of children and physical capital have 'relevant dissimilarities', and I certainly shouldn't have to point out that cars are in many cases not a productivity-increasing device, but rather a luxury good; and even at that, we subsidie cars by building public roads. This dissmissive argument is simply a case of begging the question and if this "sums up [your] views quite nicely.", then you've been duped.

What are you smoking this time? Cars are not productivity increasing devices?? Well then, let's all go back to the days of horse and buggies! 'Luxury goods' is a quite meaningless phrase. Today's average good would be considered a 'luxury good' 500 years ago.

Let's read on a little:

What is wrong with this argument is that it misses is the way in which the price system already allocates "social benefits" to those who produce them. Building a factory may increase the wealth of my society-but most (in the limit of perfect competition, all) of the increase goes to the investors whose capital paid for the factory.

This is wholly incorrect; in the system Friedman esouses, only under monopoly with perfect pricing would all consumer surplus accrue to the monopolist, and even then they would be unable to extract payment for any positive externalities.

All Friedman is saying is that yes there may be some positive externalities of subsidizing education, but in actuality almost all of the benefit goes to the person receiving the education.

Maybe some more?

Schooling-like a new car-produces non-market benefits as well. But these too go mostly to the student, enabled by education to appreciate more of the riches of the culture he lives in. There may be effects on other people as well, but they are typically small compared to the benefits to the student, and their sign is not always clear. When my child becomes an expert in Shakespeare and quantum mechanics one result may be to enlighten and entertain her friends, but another may be to make them feel stupid.

WTH is he talking about? This is some sort of 'better citizens' argument, which is totally unnecessary, but Friedman does a great job of coming off as arrogant, if nothing else. He deliberately chooses an example that presents little direct economic benefit because he is once again begging the question.

Next Friedman goes into true 'better-citizen/better-voter' arguments, which he tries to leave standing for some unexplained reason; the arguments are bad, and unneeded , and whoever originated them was stretching pretty hard.

Most of what is taught in school has no economic benefit. If what was taught in school had economic benefits high schoolers wouldn't be making minimum wage.

 

[MadRat]

Schools have been shoved down the throats of the American taxpayer. You pay 50% more than Europe to provide an average of 20% less in the overall standardized curriculums. Europeans learn to...

1. speak more languages
2. reason out math principles at a higher level
3. apply principles of logic in problem solving
4. test for fallacy of argument
5. organize their activities to a schedule

But our kids learn so much more sense of *barf* creativity and sexual identity at an earlier age.

 

[slash196]

Lord forbid you actually help someone other than yourself. Selfishness is not a social agenda.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Schools have been shoved down the throats of the American taxpayer. You pay 50% more than Europe to provide an average of 20% less in the overall standardized curriculums. Europeans learn to...

1. speak more languages
2. reason out math principles at a higher level
3. apply principles of logic in problem solving
4. test for fallacy of argument
5. organize their activities to a schedule

But our kids learn so much more sense of *barf* creativity and sexual identity at an earlier age.

How do you reason your last sentence? If I accept that the list is true (except #1, I can't fully, not habving been over there), then your last statement must be false. Creativity is function of the variety of your experience. The more different stuff you experience, the more creative you will be.

Also, what do you mean by sexual identity?

 

[episodic]

I'm playing devil's advocate here - why can't those with children provide for thier kid's education? Let persons with kids have their property tax rates doubled, and everyone else's reduced.

Why do apartment dwellers with kids get off scott free?

etc, etc. . .

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
I have no car, I walk everywhere, I hate my VAT taxes paying for roads, you better be making your own roads or I will hate you!

or

I hate my taxes going to prisons, I have no prisoners in my family, they should either shoot them all (but the tax will pay for the bullets, so forget that), or release them.

or

I hate my taxes going to pay for a war that only benefits big corporations.

or

I hate my taxes going to buy drugs at full when a discount should be negotiatied.

 

[sierrita]

Why do I have to provide fire alarms for my tenants?

I've never had a fire, nor do I plan to.


UNFAIR!

 

[judasmachine]

Boy are you gonna be pissed when the missess tells you she's pregnant. Or if you're a woman, you're gonna be pissed when the contraceptive fails.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Why are we giving tax breaks to those that have kids (ie: exemptions on federal/state tax forms), yet tax those of us who dont have kids to pay for schools?!

Yeah, i got my latest property tax bill.

UNFAIR!

WTF man?! :thumbsdown::|

:roll: You want out of school taxes.. fine. Let me out of paying for this "war on terror" and you have a deal.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
@Dissipate - From your link:

It is said that since education increases human productivity, by educating my child I increase the wealth of the whole society, making all of us better off. One obvious problem with this argument is that, if correct, it applies to a lot of things other than education. Physical capital also increases productivity; does it follow that all investments ought to be subsidized? Better transportation allows workers to spend more time working and less time commuting; should we subsidize the production of cars? The argument suggests that everything worth doing ought to be subsidized-leaving us with the puzzle of what we are to tax in order to raise the money for the subsidies.

Friedman is playing the neoliberal/libertarian game here of pretending that the world is ridiculously simple. I don't think I should have to explain why education of children and physical capital have 'relevant dissimilarities', and I certainly shouldn't have to point out that cars are in many cases not a productivity-increasing device, but rather a luxury good; and even at that, we subsidie cars by building public roads. This dissmissive argument is simply a case of begging the question and if this "sums up [your] views quite nicely.", then you've been duped.

What are you smoking this time? Cars are not productivity increasing devices?? Well then, let's all go back to the days of horse and buggies! 'Luxury goods' is a quite meaningless phrase. Today's average good would be considered a 'luxury good' 500 years ago.

Trucks are productivity increasing, busses are productivity increasing, by comparison, cars are not particularly 'productivity increasing'; most of the 'value' of owning a car could be best classified under 'luxury/consumption'.

Let's read on a little:

What is wrong with this argument is that it misses is the way in which the price system already allocates "social benefits" to those who produce them. Building a factory may increase the wealth of my society-but most (in the limit of perfect competition, all) of the increase goes to the investors whose capital paid for the factory.

This is wholly incorrect; in the system Friedman esouses, only under monopoly with perfect pricing would all consumer surplus accrue to the monopolist, and even then they would be unable to extract payment for any positive externalities.

All Friedman is saying is that yes there may be some positive externalities of subsidizing education, but in actuality almost all of the benefit goes to the person receiving the education.
[/quote]And Friedman is wrong, which I aleady explained for his factory example.

Maybe some more?

Schooling-like a new car-produces non-market benefits as well. But these too go mostly to the student, enabled by education to appreciate more of the riches of the culture he lives in. There may be effects on other people as well, but they are typically small compared to the benefits to the student, and their sign is not always clear. When my child becomes an expert in Shakespeare and quantum mechanics one result may be to enlighten and entertain her friends, but another may be to make them feel stupid.

WTH is he talking about? This is some sort of 'better citizens' argument, which is totally unnecessary, but Friedman does a great job of coming off as arrogant, if nothing else. He deliberately chooses an example that presents little direct economic benefit because he is once again begging the question.

Next Friedman goes into true 'better-citizen/better-voter' arguments, which he tries to leave standing for some unexplained reason; the arguments are bad, and unneeded , and whoever originated them was stretching pretty hard.

Most of what is taught in school has no economic benefit. If what was taught in school had economic benefits high schoolers wouldn't be making minimum wage.[/quote]

Since minimum wage is a farce, your statement has no meaning.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Trucks are productivity increasing, busses are productivity increasing, by comparison, cars are not particularly 'productivity increasing'; most of the 'value' of owning a car could be best classified under 'luxury/consumption'.

Do you actually believe this bullsh!t? How the hell do you think consumers are going to get to go anywhere to buy anything? How is anyone going to get to work without a car?

Is there anyone other than a socialist out there who actually thinks a car is a 'luxury' good?

And Friedman is wrong, which I aleady explained for his factory example.

You didn't explain anything because you have yet to explain the mystical properties of an education that makes it more than just a means to an end. If the justification for higher education is sports cars (as one pinup poster I have seen indicates) we might as well just subsidize sports cars. Forget the whole education rigamarolle.

Since minimum wage is a farce, your statement has no meaning.

How is it a 'farce?' My statement does so have meaning. Tell me what jobs are available to high school graduates.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Why are we giving tax breaks to those that have kids (ie: exemptions on federal/state tax forms), yet tax those of us who dont have kids to pay for schools?!

Yeah, i got my latest property tax bill.

UNFAIR!

WTF man?! :thumbsdown::|

Learn to manage your money betterso you dont whine about every unexpected cost you have. If your Bill is that big, maybe try lkiving within your means and stop keepin up with the jones

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Trucks are productivity increasing, busses are productivity increasing, by comparison, cars are not particularly 'productivity increasing'; most of the 'value' of owning a car could be best classified under 'luxury/consumption'.

Do you actually believe this bullsh!t? How the hell do you think consumers are going to get to go anywhere to buy anything? How is anyone going to get to work without a car?

Is there anyone other than a socialist out there who actually thinks a car is a 'luxury' good?

When you compare the cost/benefit differences of cars and public transportation +occasional taxies, you find that most of the value of automobiles must come from personal satisfaction (a 'sense' of convenience and independence, perhaps, rather than an actual increase in transportation efficiency?) You only have to see the number of people who drive to downtown-core jobs when a train could get them there faster and cheaper (and they could work/sleep/relax on the train) to see that increasing productivity and saving time are not necessarily the main reason for owning a car.

And Friedman is wrong, which I aleady explained for his factory example.

You didn't explain anything because you have yet to explain the mystical properties of an education that makes it more than just a means to an end. If the justification for higher education is sports cars (as one pinup poster I have seen indicates) we might as well just subsidize sports cars. Forget the whole education rigamarolle.

I actually have that poster somewhere; I got it for my 15th birthday

As an employer, having an educated work force lets you make more money. Having a wealthy society is beneficial to the whole society; ad example is that in affluent societies, there is less tendency for a rich subclass to feel the need for gated communities and 'protection' from the riffraf on the street (protecting communities with infrastructure and security staff is a rather blatant waste of resources).

Since minimum wage is a farce, your statement has no meaning.

How is it a 'farce?' My statement does so have meaning. Tell me what jobs are available to high school graduates.

Your minimum wage argument is a farce because it assumes that minimum wage has some sort of meaning. You would be the first one to say that if someone's education permits them to be productive at a rate of $2 an hour, then this is what they should be paid.

All the information about the inverse relationship between capital and labour inpouts and associated apparent producivity is totally lost on you because you don't get it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
When you compare the cost/benefit differences of cars and public transportation +occasional taxies, you find that most of the value of automobiles must come from personal satisfaction (a 'sense' of convenience and independence, perhaps, rather than an actual increase in transportation efficiency?) You only have to see the number of people who drive to downtown-core jobs when a train could get them there faster and cheaper (and they could work/sleep/relax on the train) to see that increasing productivity and saving time are not necessarily the main reason for owning a car.

I would blame that on road socialism than anything else. If peak load pricing was implemented in a private road system I think mass transit would become much more viable. I believe we have gone over that before.

I actually have that poster somewhere; I got it for my 15th birthday

As an employer, having an educated work force lets you make more money. Having a wealthy society is beneficial to the whole society; ad example is that in affluent societies, there is less tendency for a rich subclass to feel the need for gated communities and 'protection' from the riffraf on the street (protecting communities with infrastructure and security staff is a rather blatant waste of resources).

Decades of public education has gone by and the riff raff is still there. I would call public education a complete failure. I'm not a huge fan of Bill Gates, but I agreed with him when he said public education is obsolete.

Your minimum wage argument is a farce because it assumes that minimum wage has some sort of meaning. You would be the first one to say that if someone's education permits them to be productive at a rate of $2 an hour, then this is what they should be paid.

All the information about the inverse relationship between capital and labour inpouts and associated apparent producivity is totally lost on you because you don't get it.

They should get paid a market wage, that is for sure. What I am saying though, is that public education does very little to actually help increase that wage. Take a look at the average job of a high school graduate. This is highly indicative of the fact that public education does not improve job skills.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
When you compare the cost/benefit differences of cars and public transportation +occasional taxies, you find that most of the value of automobiles must come from personal satisfaction (a 'sense' of convenience and independence, perhaps, rather than an actual increase in transportation efficiency?) You only have to see the number of people who drive to downtown-core jobs when a train could get them there faster and cheaper (and they could work/sleep/relax on the train) to see that increasing productivity and saving time are not necessarily the main reason for owning a car.

I would blame that on road socialism than anything else. If peak load pricing was implemented in a private road system I think mass transit would become much more viable. I believe we have gone over that before.

Blame what on road socialism? Train-based transit is much cheaper and mre efficient than car-transportation. It's the fact that people choose to drive cars even when they are demonstrably nothing more than a net waste of resources from a 'productivity' standpoint that is all I need for my argument.

I actually have that poster somewhere; I got it for my 15th birthday

As an employer, having an educated work force lets you make more money. Having a wealthy society is beneficial to the whole society; ad example is that in affluent societies, there is less tendency for a rich subclass to feel the need for gated communities and 'protection' from the riffraf on the street (protecting communities with infrastructure and security staff is a rather blatant waste of resources).

Decades of public education has gone by and the riff raff is still there. I would call public education a complete failure. I'm not a huge fan of Bill Gates, but I agreed with him when he said public education is obsolete.[/quote]You like to rely on appeals to authority; Bill Gates is hardly an authority on public education; his own success is due to talent, hard work, and an incredible dose of luck, and his productive employees are much more educated than 'high school'.

Your minimum wage argument is a farce because it assumes that minimum wage has some sort of meaning. You would be the first one to say that if someone's education permits them to be productive at a rate of $2 an hour, then this is what they should be paid.

All the information about the inverse relationship between capital and labour inpouts and associated apparent producivity is totally lost on you because you don't get it.

They should get paid a market wage, that is for sure. What I am saying though, is that public education does very little to actually help increase that wage. Take a look at the average job of a high school graduate. This is highly indicative of the fact that public education does not improve job skills.

Take a look at the average real wage compared to the 1800s. Reaching the conclusion that education does not increase productivity is pretty sketchy.