School Tax

[Typhoon]

Just got my school tax bill with the 5.9% increase...
Went in and showed my boss and told him I needed a 5.9% raise. He told me to go work for the school district! :mad:

[takethepowerback]

Come on with the fuzzy math! If you're taxes were hypothetically $1000 a year, and went up 5.9%, they went up a whopping $59. So unless you only make $1000 a year, you wouldn't need a 5.9% raise maintain your lifestyle!!!!! If you work fulltime, a $.03 (that's three cents!) raise would cover that increase. So even if you were paying $2000 a year or $3000, you'd still need less than a dime raise to cover it.

Instead of everyone aiming solely at public employees (and I'm guilty sometimes), we need some health care reform, badly. It's health insurance that is killing govt agencies. The explosion in insurance costs is crippling taxpayers on both ends.

Sure, some public employees get great benies and salaries, but for the most part, it's insurance that is driving the costs up in smaller town like Tonawanda, NT, Kenmore.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by takethepowerback
Instead of everyone aiming solely at public employees (and I'm guilty sometimes), we need some health care reform, badly. It's health insurance that is killing govt agencies. The explosion in insurance costs is crippling taxpayers on both ends.

Sure, some public employees get great benies and salaries, but for the most part, it's insurance that is driving the costs up in smaller town like Tonawanda, NT, Kenmore.

Right, that's this year. Before the killer increases in pensions there were skyrocketing health insurance costs to blame for rising spending.

Before that, there were rocketing costs in special ed.

Before that, there were rocketing costs due to state mandates.

With school districts, it's always something. The reason, IMO, is simple: They can spend as much as they want and no one can stop them. Thus, they have no idea of how to really spend effeciently.

And they never will. Why should they? If I had a bottomless well of money ( taxpayers, in this case), I'd spend as much as I wanted any old way I wanted to -- especially if I could always say "It's for the children."

:mad:

[Typhoon]

Originally posted by takethepowerback
Come on with the fuzzy math! If you're taxes were hypothetically $1000 a year, and went up 5.9%, they went up a whopping $59. So unless you only make $1000 a year, you wouldn't need a 5.9% raise maintain your lifestyle!!!!! If you work fulltime, a $.03 (that's three cents!) raise would cover that increase. So even if you were paying $2000 a year or $3000, you'd still need less than a dime raise to cover it.

I was just kidding around :p

[takethepowerback]

Well, where are your riorities? Do you prefer a well-educated society. Or a police state?

See, research has shown that high education rates are correllary to low crime rates. It's the chicken or the egg argument. Fund and educate better and crime goes down. Or provide more money to the cops. But research also shows that numbers of police and their "equipment" have little effect on crime.

The best example or hypothesis, which is obviously unattainable "utopia," is Amherst. They have have been named Safest City in America on a couple occasions. And right off the bat, you say, "Well, they can afford more cops." Well, it's really a social and economic issue. They have a very high educational attainment, and therefore, higher incomes. And those combine for low crime. So if you strive to attain high educational attainment, you can reduce crime more than you can with more cops. And by the way, Amherst has LESS cops per 1000 residents than Tonawanda!

It's easy to have the mentality that schools "waste" our money. Especially in this blue collar town where everyone knows someone who can get them a political patronage or factory job and nice benefits. But to be competitive in the REAL world, not WNY, students need to be equiped with the knowledge, skills and abilities to rise to the challenge.

Also, before you get to carried away with your argument, get your facts staight. Teachers pay into their retirement on their own for the first 10 years (might be five but the point is, they pay in). They also pay a portion of their health care (albeit not enough).

So, if you know everything, what do the cops pay into their retirement and health care? Do they buy thier own uniforms? Do they get a bonus for scoring high enough at the pistol range? How about overtime for going to court, even though it's a function of their job?

See, I have the "equipment" to make these arguments because I got a great and valuable education in school at Tonawanda and an advanced graduate degree in one of our fine public universities. And I do the research instead of dropping blanket statements with no data or info to back them.

I paid about $1000 last year for school tax in Tonawanda. If I had a child in the district (and this is where it can get sticky, obviously), that's a pretty fair price tuition. Education is a public good. Everyone benefits. Sure, it's not always economically, but their are benefits of having an educated society.

I think that the one thing that is a detriment to schools and teachers is their sheer number. There are lots of them, which means a lot money. But I think it's unfair to punish them for their numbers and reward other govt employees with better salaries and benefits because there are less and high salaries for less isn't tough to swallow.

I've said it here before. Why are we paying teacher $30,000 to start with a required masters degree and state troopers $48,000+/- to start with no degree required. And then paying the $73,000 for 5 years experience?

And someone will likely say, yeah, but it's a dangerous job. Well, not as dangerous as off-shore fishing, lumberjacking and roofing, according to annual data.

Oh, but it's the "bottomless well" again. Roofers, lumberjacks, etc. have to operate in a free market economy whereas troopers don't. They make a demand, and get it.

Bottomline is, this city and state are a wreck...

Here's your updated 2004 population projection for Tonawanda.... down 3.8% from 2000. 16,136 to 15,515

[speaker]

"I like this guy":)

[moonshine]

Do you prefer a well-educated society. Or a police state?

Neither. Furthermore, implying that a well funded government school system produces a well educated society is faulty reasoning to the highest degree. Imagine how educated our little blue collar town would be if we spent $100,000 per student! Elimination of the government school is the only way to encourage a "well-educated" society. Obviously that isn't going to happen so my only recourse if withdrawing my kids from government schools. The police state is going to happen regardless of the education level of the citizens. It's just a matter of time. As long as there are government schools there will be a steady supply of inmates to process and house.

A lot of people have no interest in being educated and it is foolish to spend $10k per student to force them to become something they will never become. You might as well spend the money teaching your dog to do your taxes.

[speaker]

Originally posted by moonshine
Neither. Furthermore, implying that a well funded government school system produces a well educated society is faulty reasoning to the highest degree. Imagine how educated our little blue collar town would be if we spent $100,000 per student! Elimination of the government school is the only way to encourage a "well-educated" society. Obviously that isn't going to happen so my only recourse if withdrawing my kids from government schools. The police state is going to happen regardless of the education level of the citizens. It's just a matter of time. As long as there are government schools there will be a steady supply of inmates to process and house.

A lot of people have no interest in being educated and it is foolish to spend $10k per student to force them to become something they will never become. You might as well spend the money teaching your dog to do your taxes.

[speaker]

Sorry about that.consider the precious post as a quote.

Moonshine----at least give everyone child the chance and opportunity to be educated.

[speaker]

I mean--previous--:D

[moonshine]

at least give everyone child the chance and opportunity to be educated

Again, this isn't logical. To suggest that I can "give" someone a chance to do something implies that I can "take" that chance away. I'd like to think of myself as superman, but I simply don't have the power to prevent someone from learning. Maybe there is a drug out there that you can administer at birth to prevent learning, thus taking away the "chance" or "opportunity", but I really don't have the time to be bothered.

Please, enlighten me. How can you, me, or anyone else take away the "chance" or "opportunity" to be educated?

[speaker]

Originally posted by moonshine
Again, this isn't logical. To suggest that I can "give" someone a chance to do something implies that I can "take" that chance away. I'd like to think of myself as superman, but I simply don't have the power to prevent someone from learning. Maybe there is a drug out there that you can administer at birth to prevent learning, thus taking away the "chance" or "opportunity", but I really don't have the time to be bothered.

Please, enlighten me. How can you, me, or anyone else take away the "chance" or "opportunity" to be educated?

Who was talking about YOU, moonshine. You sure twist words around.
We all learn as we grow up, but what? And quality teachers are very powerful in what children learn. There are street smarts, not bad, but there is the intelligence of benefitting from what others have learned and adding it to our own experiences--that's education. And I'm not saying that equal $ means equal education. I believe in public schools and state universities. You, moonshine, make so many misstatements, such as "The police state is going to happen regardless of the education level of the citizens" that it boggles the mind.

[moonshine]

Moonshine----at least give everyone child the chance and opportunity to be educated.

Then says:


Who was talking about YOU, moonshine.

??? :confused: ???

[speaker]

I don't know, moonshine, do you slip into your closet and put on a blue cape sometimes?
I truly question your sense of discussion when you try and turn the subject around to a point of silliness. You know exactly what I meant.

[LaNdReW]

Originally posted by moonshine
Neither. Furthermore, implying that a well funded government school system produces a well educated society is faulty reasoning to the highest degree. Imagine how educated our little blue collar town would be if we spent $100,000 per student! Elimination of the government school is the only way to encourage a "well-educated" society. Obviously that isn't going to happen so my only recourse if withdrawing my kids from government schools. The police state is going to happen regardless of the education level of the citizens. It's just a matter of time. As long as there are government schools there will be a steady supply of inmates to process and house.

A lot of people have no interest in being educated and it is foolish to spend $10k per student to force them to become something they will never become. You might as well spend the money teaching your dog to do your taxes.

I can teach my dog to do taxes??;)

Nice post takethepowerback.

[moonshine]

Speaker, I honestly have no idea what you meant. Message boards are notorious for abstracting the meaning of the intended message. I'll chalk it up to a mulligan if you're willing to do the same. Clean slate?

Perhaps what I was saying was misunderstood, perhaps it wasn't. I'll be forthright so you can decide for yourselves.

I do oppose the existence of government schools. Education is something that is sought, not forced. Some people don't appreciate education and that is their right. I respect their position as much as I respect the guy who spends a 100k on education. Different strokes for different folks. Some of us only need street smarts to be successful while others need a PhD in XYZ. Why should it concern me? It doesn't.

I say this because I'm usually chalked up as an elitist, rich dude, or redneck because I oppose government schools. Those stereotypes are far from reality.

I wouldn't pay a bureaucrat to fix the engine in my car, so it seems silly to me that people would pay bureaucrats to teach their kids. The ability of the private sector to properly educate is much stronger than any government force. Furthermore, it's in the best interest of the private sector to produce a well educated work force. Capitalism depends on it. The government does not share this concern. Government legitimacy is based on the willingness of the participants. Any capitalist knows that government is not in his best interest, unless he owns Geico. Snide remarks aside, how can a parent entrust his child to the state if the only purpose of the state is to produce a subservient of their largess? Education is a private sector enterprise. Those who want it will always be able to afford it. The amazing network of charity in this country will provide all of the funding needed for those without the means to pay, especially if the burden of school taxes is removed.

Can the natural right to education be taken away? I don't think so. Anyone shot out of the womb has the natural right and ability to be educated. Taking away government schools doesn't eliminate the right to be educated. Those born before Horace Mann will attest.

I'm not sure why my position elicits such a raucous response. Does my opinion pose a threat to government schools? Most people laugh at me, and the best I can do is withdraw my kids from the Leviathan. I sleep well at night.

Ryan

[speaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by moonshine
[B]Speaker, I honestly have no idea what you meant. Message boards are notorious for abstracting the meaning of the intended message. I'll chalk it up to a mulligan if you're willing to do the same. Clean slate?

Done, moonshine.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by moonshine
Speaker, I honestly have no idea what you meant. Message boards are notorious for abstracting the meaning of the intended message. I'll chalk it up to a mulligan if you're willing to do the same. Clean slate?

Perhaps what I was saying was misunderstood, perhaps it wasn't. I'll be forthright so you can decide for yourselves.

I do oppose the existence of government schools. Education is something that is sought, not forced. Some people don't appreciate education and that is their right. I respect their position as much as I respect the guy who spends a 100k on education. Different strokes for different folks. Some of us only need street smarts to be successful while others need a PhD in XYZ. Why should it concern me? It doesn't.

I say this because I'm usually chalked up as an elitist, rich dude, or redneck because I oppose government schools. Those stereotypes are far from reality.

I wouldn't pay a bureaucrat to fix the engine in my car, so it seems silly to me that people would pay bureaucrats to teach their kids. The ability of the private sector to properly educate is much stronger than any government force. Furthermore, it's in the best interest of the private sector to produce a well educated work force. Capitalism depends on it. The government does not share this concern. Government legitimacy is based on the willingness of the participants. Any capitalist knows that government is not in his best interest, unless he owns Geico. Snide remarks aside, how can a parent entrust his child to the state if the only purpose of the state is to produce a subservient of their largess? Education is a private sector enterprise. Those who want it will always be able to afford it. The amazing network of charity in this country will provide all of the funding needed for those without the means to pay, especially if the burden of school taxes is removed.

Can the natural right to education be taken away? I don't think so. Anyone shot out of the womb has the natural right and ability to be educated. Taking away government schools doesn't eliminate the right to be educated. Those born before Horace Mann will attest.

I'm not sure why my position elicits such a raucous response. Does my opinion pose a threat to government schools? Most people laugh at me, and the best I can do is withdraw my kids from the Leviathan. I sleep well at night.

Ryan

I don't share some of your assumptions, such as it being in the best interest of the private sector to produce a well-educated workforce -- or that capitalism relies on it.

It is in the best interest of the private sector to make as big a profit as possible. We can produce highly educated individuals here, but they'll never be able to compete with their counterparts in other countries who work at a fraction of the cost -- hence, our country's love of shipping jobs overseas.

And, frankly, I'm galled by your contention that our "amazing" network of charities will provide full funding for all those poor unfortunates whose parents are not well-off enough for private schools.

Who are you fooling? Only yourself, I suspect. That is the kind of logic that would be used by someone who does not want to be forced to consider the future and fortunes of anyone but his own.

Does that make you a rich elitist? Nope. Just selfish.

I do, however, agree with your feelings about public schools, at least as they now operate.

You can spend all the taxpayer dollars in the world on schools, but you can't buy student motivation. And in the end, motivation is what really produces academic excellence.

Public schools, at least those in this area and New York, also are cushioned by all manner of legislation from having to be accountable. Spending $13,000 per pupil is no quarantee that his/her teachers will be good teachers or that the students will try to be good students.

Moreover, public schools take a one-size-fits-all approach to education -- an approach doomed to fail.

I do like the idea of charter schools. I think they should be given more (yes, taxpayer) money and more time to determine how they can work best.

At this point, I think charter schools are our best bet. This way, I hope, we can provide a fair education for all kids -- not just those whose parents are affluent enough to afford it.

Nor, I would hope, would we have to rely on the kindness of charities to educate our less well off. Jeeze, I still can't believe you would say that!

[moonshine]

Nor, I would hope, would we have to rely on the kindness of charities to educate our less well off. Jeeze, I still can't believe you would say that!

If you are stuck on the present formal education model (lessons from 8am to 3pm, monday thru friday, in an enormous building) and the costs required to feed this model I would agree that there is no way charities could fill the taxpayer void. Formal education can happen in any way a parent or group of parents decide. New private schools would open. Many parents would homeschool. Community groups and churches would form education collectives. Kids would receive a true education, not the canned spam currently being distributed in the government schools.

When parents are ready to take responsibility for the education of their critter the demand for government schools will slow to a trickle, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime I'll just shutup and pay taxes at the point of a gun to bureaucrats to poorly educate children.

[WNYresident]

I went to public school 43 in the 70's and I turned out well. At least I believe I did. Why can't public schools turn back time and just go back to the basics?

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by moonshine
If you are stuck on the present formal education model (lessons from 8am to 3pm, monday thru friday, in an enormous building) and the costs required to feed this model I would agree that there is no way charities could fill the taxpayer void. Formal education can happen in any way a parent or group of parents decide. New private schools would open. Many parents would homeschool. Community groups and churches would form education collectives. Kids would receive a true education, not the canned spam currently being distributed in the government schools.

When parents are ready to take responsibility for the education of their critter the demand for government schools will slow to a trickle, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime I'll just shutup and pay taxes at the point of a gun to bureaucrats to poorly educate children.

I think the idea of charter schools is to strike out from the old model, at least to a certain extent. Ironically, the charter schools run by private enterprise groups tend to stick most closely to the public school 8-to-3-in-a-big-building model.

But what does the 8-to-3 model of education have to do with charities being able to provide a good education? I don't see the connection.

If we came to point where we were relying on charities to educate our poor, surely charities could do it however they desired, sans government interference.

After all, if we reached that point, it would be because the government had bowed out of the business of educating kids.
Why would it dictate how charities would step in as a replacement? The government might have some vague requirements, like"make sure pupils receive a fair education," but to do more would be spending money for no reason.

Homeschooling is concept I like, except that is it only as good as the parents make it. I had a friend who decided to home school; she lasted a year, during which time the child being home schooled mostly helped the mom with her toddler and baby.

Still, the number of kids home schooled in rising, and I know of a few parents who have had success with it. Some form co-ops, with help relieve some of the around-the-clock responsibilities that come with home schooling.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by WNYresident
I went to public school 43 in the 70's and I turned out well. At least I believe I did. Why can't public schools turn back time and just go back to the basics?

I think it depends on what you consider "the basics." When I was in public schools, back in time of the dinosauers, no one had even heard of computers.

Now, learning to use them is a "basic." And a very costly one too.

We had your basic math, but you only went beyond that if you were really good. Now, in NYS at least, the new standards require a lot of fairly advanced math, as well more science than I ever took.

Back in the day, the push to get kids into college wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.

These days, I think most parents regard "the basics" as any and all subjects needed to get their kids into the best colleges or universities that they can.

[moonshine]

But what does the 8-to-3 model of education have to do with charities being able to provide a good education? I don't see the connection.

I was just trying to point out that the elimination of government schools would not immediately place millions of kids at the doorstep of the local charity. I'm guessing the majority of parents would simply enroll their kids in a private school and not need charity. My son's private school costs $1500 per year. If the government school was eliminated I would pocket $1000 in taxes, so the cost to educate the kid for a year would be $500. Very reasonable if you ask me. Right now I'm paying $2500 ($1500 to the private school and $1000 to the government school). In addition, the new private schools would need to compete on price and quality to keep their customers satisfied.

There will be those who simply can't afford any of the options discussed. Charity will be there for these people. If you no longer need to pay $1000 a year in taxes to educate someone elses kid wouldn't you be more willing to donate $100 a year to a charity that gives educational grants and scholarships to those in need? Crap, I'd give them the entire $1000 I just saved. At least it isn't in the government's hands anymore.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by moonshine
I was just trying to point out that the elimination of government schools would not immediately place millions of kids at the doorstep of the local charity. I'm guessing the majority of parents would simply enroll their kids in a private school and not need charity. My son's private school costs $1500 per year. If the government school was eliminated I would pocket $1000 in taxes, so the cost to educate the kid for a year would be $500. Very reasonable if you ask me. Right now I'm paying $2500 ($1500 to the private school and $1000 to the government school). In addition, the new private schools would need to compete on price and quality to keep their customers satisfied.

There will be those who simply can't afford any of the options discussed. Charity will be there for these people. If you no longer need to pay $1000 a year in taxes to educate someone elses kid wouldn't you be more willing to donate $100 a year to a charity that gives educational grants and scholarships to those in need? Crap, I'd give them the entire $1000 I just saved. At least it isn't in the government's hands anymore.


Well, that's an interesting point of view. I guess it all depends on how many people can't afford private schools, and whether private schools would even want them if they could get muster the money. One of the things that make private schools successful is that they can pick and choose their pupils to fit their model.

(I'm not including parochial schools here. I don't know much about their requirements)

As for charities picking up education for the poor -- I hate that idea. Talk about stigma.