Should only people who have children in school pay all the school tax?

Answer 1

No.

Taxing all who live in district through their property assessment or their rent is literally unfair to people who do not have children in school. But we could not sustain a public school system otherwise--the tax would be too high for young parents, and many children would never be educated.

Years ago, our country made a decision that if we all pitched in to pay for public schools, we would all benefit. How? Well without public education a lot of people would remain woefully ignorant and the literacy rate would plummet. Employers would leave in droves because we simply would not have a qualified work force.

Answer 2

I live in an area where there are lots and lots of retired people. If only people with children paid school taxes, our children would be going to a one-room school house and writing on slates. Then the old folks would have poorly educated neighbors. The families would move out and make this place a grey-haired ghetto. As it is now, we all share the responsibility for our children's futures. We have a great school and our kids will be able to go on to whatever they hope to do. There is a move on now to make all the school tax money go into a state fund, and divided up equally, because some districts are poorer than others. As of now, I think I agree that local districts should be in control of their own schools.

Answer 3

Only if the rest of the people are willing to pay the differential for all the extra police and prisons that will be required when we can't fund the schools. Or do we realistically think that everything would be okie-dokie if we have hundreds of millions of people living in a country where half the population has no prospects to earn an honest living because they can't afford an education?

It was one thing when everyone was a farmer -- it's quite different now when your education is the biggest factor in your likely income potential.

Answer 4

The problem with this is how do you keep track of whether or NOT they have children the day after taxes are paid or have children in a year.

I know that in some states people over a certain age do not pay school tax, but this is NOT always fair either.

People are having babies at an older age.

Older men are marrying young women and if his name is the only name on the deed. Then they pay the reduced tax.

That is not fair either.

Answer 5

No.

You cant have it in between, its one way or the other. Either privatize the schools (which would only charge parents) or keep is as a gov't entity. As long as its the gov't and voter's choice where the kids go, how and what theyre taught, etc. then everyone should have to pay.

When I can send my kid to a school that teaches them about condoms instead of just abstinence, or one that doesnt feel obligated to tread lightly around anything that might be offensive, and when I can send them to a school where my money affects their safety, then I'll gladly take the burden. As long as the non-parents are helping screw up the schools with their votes they need to pay as well.
___

Nodog--I dont want to pay for your bike lane. I dont ride a bike. Even if I did it wouldnt be practical for me to ride it on any roads that need a bike lane. Why should I have to pay for it?

Answer 6

there's a ton of compliment for government colleges in this one. government colleges human beings! you may particularly pay taxes to indoctrinate Johnny on a thank you to place a rubber on a banana or study that frauds like international warming is certainty? unhappy....unhappy....unhappy. in easy terms while government college instructors are held in charge for a doing a shi**y interest will 'public practise' advance. confident, i understand there are some public colleges that are respectable and nevertheless tutor interpreting, writing, math, and technological know-how yet they are by potential of a ways the minority

Answer 7

I've pondered this one a lot. On the one hand, it serves me as a citizen of the community to have the community's children properly educated. On the other hand, it does not serve me as an individual since I have no children.

My feelings generally tend toward the good of the community as long as the individual is not harmed. While I don't like paying taxes I can accept that cause to which they are applied.

Answer 8

im generally not in favor for social programs and stuff, but i think education should be payed for by everyone 1) because you at one time received an education and 2) having an educated society benefits everyone and the economy whether you have kids yourself or not. its hard enough for businesses to find quality people to employ for low paying jobs, can you imagine how bad it would be if half the population couldnt read and the impact it would have on our economy?

but i really dont like how kids are tax write offs, the world is overpopulated and you shouldnt be financially encouraging of people that have a whole pack of children. id actually be in favor of taxing people who have more than 2 maybe 3 kids.

Answer 9

No, that would be the demise of public education. The have nots could not pay that much tax so their kids would get no education and be a burden on society. The haves would simply put their kids in private schools. It's a non-starter.

Answer 10

Should people who believe in the Iraq war pay for it?
Should people who don't have a retirement plan be the only ones contributing to social security?
and on and on......

By the way an educated public benefits all, not just people with children.