Beating the dead horse

[TaunTaun]

I want a voucher for homeschooling. I would enjoy getting some of my tax money back to spend on school books and supplies instead of losing that money and STILL buying school books and supplies....

Looks like I'll be spending a good chunk of my tax return this year for the lil girl's next grade level for homeschool. Of course, in this case, it is quality over quantity.

When we get the girl her 22 cricket, we'll do an Appleseed as a school field trip event.

 

[88GT]

I want a voucher for homeschooling. I would enjoy getting some of my tax money back to spend on school books and supplies instead of losing that money and STILL buying school books and supplies....

Looks like I'll be spending a good chunk of my tax return this year for the lil girl's next grade level for homeschool. Of course, in this case, it is quality over quantity.

When we get the girl her 22 cricket, we'll do an Appleseed as a school field trip event.

Didn't you know? You can get a $1000 deduction per child. With the 3.4% state rate and around 2-3% for the county, you could get a whopping $50-60 reduction in your tax liability to help defray those costs. I'm sure that almost completely reimburses you for the several hundred dollars you pay to educate every body else's children.

 

[TaunTaun]

Hey, those Department of Education types are extremely qualified. They have all of those BA, MA, and PHD degrees saying that they are qualified. Some of them even teach our kids. Who are we to say that someone that attended a liberal arts university isn't qualified to teach our kids about social justice, global warming, and the history of violence that the white man has visited on all other creeds and ethnic groups? They even give our kids laptops now as a replacement for all those danged heavy books. No kid needs to know how to look something up in a book without relying on Google or wikipedia. They don't need to know how to do those pesky math problems (that's what a calculator is for!). What's better is that TV channels like Nickolodean are now teaching about subjects like hydraulic frakking (same credentials as those other teachers), now we can just let the TV educate when they are not at school. (Those DoE types say that we are unqualified to teach our own kids after all, and that we need to mind our own business.)


And to think, idiot colleges like Purdue (Engineering schools specifically) actually have people teaching that are active in the field they are instructing about. How dare they!? Where are their credentials!? Most of them don't even have Masters or PHD degrees. And they are trying to tell our college students how the working world works!? INSANITY!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Wrong angle.

Tell me why it's okay to use taxes to pay for one personal responsibility and not another. Don't give me the "Indiana Constitution" garbage. Simply being the law isn't a reason. It's why it exists, not why it should exist. If that's all you've got, I could argue there was nothing wrong with ownership and bondage of another human.

If taking my money to pay for someone else's health care is morally wrong (and it is), why isn't taking my money to pay for someone else's education morally wrong?

I don't have an issue with paying taxes in general. Just the ones that aren't used for legitimate public goods. Education isn't on of 'em.

I haven't followed any of your other conversations, but did someone say that it ISN'T immoral to tax the public to educate (or rather, pay for the schools for) our children?
It can be argued that educating the children of parents who wouldn't do it on their own, is invaluable to the community.

If public education taxation is immoral, then what taxes are you ok with?
Everything our taxes are taken for (the intention, not the final use), you could say, could (or should) be paid for individually.
Roads could all be toll roads, so those that use them are the only ones that pay for them.
Fire and police departments could bill individuals for their services. Etc.

Public schooling wasn't started because of any laws or Constitutions. It was started because the communities decided (probably with a vote) that it was for the common good to pool their money to hire a professional teacher to teach the children things the parents were not knowledgable about, and possibly to free up their own time to do the things in the home and on the farm that they needed to do.
Perhaps we are to the point where it is no longer for the common good!?
Imagine what a majority of the kids would be doing, and how they would end up if they were not in school!

I completely understand that you don't want to pay for a school system that your kids don't attend. Mine have graduated, I guess I shouldn't have to keep paying either? What about those who never have kids?
What is the alternative? Charge only parents that have kids in school? What do you do about those that don't pay?
How long could a school system operate if they had to have a billing department?

The point is, it IS good AND moral for the community to educate OUR (collective) children!
It IS good and moral to take care of those that can't (not WON'T) take care of themselves!
It is good to help pay the fire department to put out the fire at my neighbors house, (even if my morals don't justify it)so the fire doesn't spread to my house.

 

[steveh_131]

I haven't followed any of your other conversations, but did someone say that it ISN'T immoral to tax the public to educate (or rather, pay for the schools for) our children?
It can be argued that educating the children of parents who wouldn't do it on their own, is invaluable to the community.

If public education taxation is immoral, then what taxes are you ok with?
Everything our taxes are taken for (the intention, not the final use), you could say, could (or should) be paid for individually.
Roads could all be toll roads, so those that use them are the only ones that pay for them.
Fire and police departments could bill individuals for their services. Etc.

Public schooling wasn't started because of any laws or Constitutions. It was started because the communities decided (probably with a vote) that it was for the common good to pool their money to hire a professional teacher to teach the children things the parents were not knowledgable about, and possibly to free up their own time to do the things in the home and on the farm that they needed to do.
Perhaps we are to the point where it is no longer for the common good!?
Imagine what a majority of the kids would be doing, and how they would end up if they were not in school!

I completely understand that you don't want to pay for a school system that your kids don't attend. Mine have graduated, I guess I shouldn't have to keep paying either? What about those who never have kids?
What is the alternative? Charge only parents that have kids in school? What do you do about those that don't pay?
How long could a school system operate if they had to have a billing department?

The point is, it IS good AND moral for the community to educate OUR (collective) children!
It IS good and moral to take care of those that can't (not WON'T) take care of themselves!
It is good to help pay the fire department to put out the fire at my neighbors house, (even if my morals don't justify it)so the fire doesn't spread to my house.

Groups of like-minded parents teaming up to train their children: Good.

Government schools derived from the Prussian model of indoctrination: Bad.

You have been thoroughly brainwashed into this collectivist mindset. Is it good to educate our children? Absolutely. Is it good for the government to educate our children, using funds stolen from taxpayers? Absolutely not.

If you want kids to receive an education, donate to charities and scholarships. That is what is truly 'good' and 'moral'. Taking money from someone else by force and donating it to charities and scholarship is neither good nor moral.

 

[cosermann]

Didn't you know? You can get a $1000 deduction per child. With the 3.4% state rate and around 2-3% for the county, you could get a whopping $50-60 reduction in your tax liability to help defray those costs. I'm sure that almost completely reimburses you for the several hundred dollars you pay to educate every body else's children.

It's such a ridiculously token amount I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was found to simply be a carrot to help compile a list of home educators.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Groups of like-minded parents teaming up to train their children: Good.

Government schools derived from the Prussian model of indoctrination: Bad.

You have been thoroughly brainwashed into this collectivist mindset. Is it good to educate our children? Absolutely. Is it good for the government to educate our children, using funds stolen from taxpayers? Absolutely not.

If you want kids to receive an education, donate to charities and scholarships. That is what is truly 'good' and 'moral'. Taking money from someone else by force and donating it to charities and scholarship is neither good nor moral.

I can agree with all this, except the part about me being brain washed! Read my post again.

 

[88GT]

I haven't followed any of your other conversations, but did someone say that it ISN'T immoral to tax the public to educate (or rather, pay for the schools for) our children?

When they argue for it, I assume the believe it's morally acceptable.

It can be argued that educating the children of parents who wouldn't do it on their own, is invaluable to the community.

There are a number of logical fallacies in this alone. On the surface, show me how it's invaluable to the community. But deeper, considering that the government schools don't actually educate all the children currently enrolled in them, how is that any different from having parents not do it? Children are still coming out of schools without an education. And you want me to pay for that?

Additionally, is it my responsibility to fund parenting obligations of others? And just where do we set the bar for allowing government to dictate how parents should parent?

If public education taxation is immoral, then what taxes are you ok with?

Asked and answered. It's called a public good. With perhaps a few others here and there thrown in when economies of scale and efficiencies make it impractical to do otherwise.

Everything our taxes are taken for (the intention, not the final use), you could say, could (or should) be paid for individually.

That's covered above.

Roads could all be toll roads, so those that use them are the only ones that pay for them.

Yup.

Fire and police departments could bill individuals for their services. Etc.

Yup.

Public schooling wasn't started because of any laws or Constitutions. It was started because the communities decided (probably with a vote) that it was for the common good to pool their money to hire a professional teacher to teach the children things the parents were not knowledgable about, and possibly to free up their own time to do the things in the home and on the farm that they needed to do.

Um, no.

Perhaps we are to the point where it is no longer for the common good!?

Ya think?

Imagine what a majority of the kids would be doing, and how they would end up if they were not in school!

Yes, it's hard to imagine what the country would look like if every student weren't in class and earning As and Bs and actually getting an education. I shudder to think of it...OMG, that's what we have already.

And I know I always assume that the majority of parents out there would just throw their hands in the air and say, "Well, since my children's free ride education just got cut off, I guess they're not gonna get an education at all because there are no other alternatives available. Really sux too because I was hoping they'd turn out okay. Now I guess they're just gonna be running around on the streets and learning gang signs as a second language."

I completely understand that you don't want to pay for a school system that your kids don't attend.

No, I don't want to pay for anybody else's parental responsibilities. I don't want to pay for government indoctrination. I don't want to pay for a service that doesn't deliver what it is supposed to deliver. I don't want to pay for a service that has a failure rate that would put every other education service provider out of business. I don't want to pay for a service that has no oversight and no accountability to the people who pay for it.

If government schools had to compete for the funds, they would cease to exist out of sheer lack of income because they produce nothing, provide nothing that can't be had elsewhere for less and with better results.

Mine have graduated, I guess I shouldn't have to keep paying either? What about those who never have kids?

Your only responsibility should have been to pay for their education from whatever source you chose on the free market. If you chose to pay for it at all.

What is the alternative? Charge only parents that have kids in school? What do you do about those that don't pay?

Seriously? Why is education treated so much differently than any other service around here? Is it that hard to grasp the concept of user-fee based service?

How long could a school system operate if they had to have a billing department?

That's funny. Because countless schools have exactly that and seem to be doing just fine.

The point is, it IS good AND moral for the community to educate OUR (collective) children!
It IS good and moral to take care of those that can't (not WON'T) take care of themselves!
It is good to help pay the fire department to put out the fire at my neighbors house, (even if my morals don't justify it)so the fire doesn't spread to my house.

Then YOU write the check. YOU fund the endeavors. It's not your place to tell me I have to do it. And using the government to do what you can't do on your own ISN'T good, and it IS morally wrong.

 

[steveh_131]

I can agree with all this, except the part about me being brain washed! Read my post again.

Ok...I read it again...

Was there some sarcasm intended in there that I missed?

 

[88GT]

It's such a ridiculously token amount I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was found to simply be a carrot to help compile a list of home educators.

Ridiculously small is right. Right now the deductions is applicable to all private school users. So even those who send their children to brick-and-mortar edifices can take advantage of it. As of now, there is no distinction between those and homeschoolers. As of now.

I have little doubt that most or all of the following will eventually become reality:
1. Requirement to differentiate between homeschool and private tuition-based schools.
2. Requirement to "register" with the local district and/or state in order to qualify.
3. Requirement to adhere to some/all of government school standards in order to qualify.
4. Requirement to subject the students to standardized tests in order to qualify.

And that's just off the top of my head.

 

[HoughMade]

....If only homeschooling wasn't proven to leave children socially awkward and under-educated....

You forgot the purple......or can you actually cite a source that is not connected to a teacher's union.

 

[steveh_131]

You forgot the purple......or can you actually cite a source that is not connected to a teacher's union.

I said that purely for the sake of my own entertainment
'
I am all for homeschooling.

 

[HoughMade]

Good man.....I will now relax.....too up uptight.....must go shooting.

 

[level.eleven]

Nothing fresh here at all. Same old taxation is theft argument from the no government crowd. Painting those that support public schools as immoral is sort of new, I guess. Oh well.

 

[level.eleven]

Wrong angle.

Tell me why it's okay to use taxes to pay for one personal responsibility and not another. Don't give me the "Indiana Constitution" garbage. Simply being the law isn't a reason. It's why it exists, not why it should exist. If that's all you've got, I could argue there was nothing wrong with ownership and bondage of another human.

If taking my money to pay for someone else's health care is morally wrong (and it is), why isn't taking my money to pay for someone else's education morally wrong?

I don't have an issue with paying taxes in general. Just the ones that aren't used for legitimate public goods. Education isn't on of 'em.

Understanding how public education came be will answer your question of why. Of course, you don't believe in community or public good, so we are probably at impasse.

 

[level.eleven]

Groups of like-minded parents teaming up to train their children: Good.

Government schools derived from the Prussian model of indoctrination: Bad.

You have been thoroughly brainwashed into this collectivist mindset. Is it good to educate our children? Absolutely. Is it good for the government to educate our children, using funds stolen from taxpayers? Absolutely not.

If you want kids to receive an education, donate to charities and scholarships. That is what is truly 'good' and 'moral'. Taking money from someone else by force and donating it to charities and scholarship is neither good nor moral.

After railing on Monsanto for a week, you now wish they provide educations? You might get your way. Private equity has planted the seed in the far right that privitization is the answer, at the least the answer for them. Outsourcing, removing the local aspect to the unbridled greed of a Wall Street hedge fund board room. Check out ALEC, the hedge funds and private equity running these charter schools, and convince me that in 25 years after privatization you won't be railing against those evil education companies. You shouldn't be using the term brainwash on anyone.

Has anyone explored the national security aspect of public education?

 

[steveh_131]

After railing on Monsanto for a week, you now wish they provide educations? You might get your way. Private equity has planted the seed in the far right that privitization is the answer, at the least the answer for them. Outsourcing, removing the local aspect to the unbridled greed of a Wall Street hedge fund board room. Check out ALEC, the hedge funds and private equity running these charter schools, and convince me that in 25 years after privatization you won't be railing against those evil education companies. You shouldn't be using the term brainwash on anyone.

Pay attention.

I railed against Monsanto for being in bed with the government and using it to enforce its unethical agenda.

Yes, the same sort of corruption could easily happen with private schooling. I would rail against that as well.

Don't paint it as some sort of hypocrisy, that's just silly.

 

[steveh_131]

Understanding how public education came be will answer your question of why. Of course, you don't believe in community or public good, so we are probably at impasse.

I think all of us believe in community and public good. We (or I, at least) just don't believe that the government is capable of (or responsible for) providing it.

 

[level.eleven]

Pay attention.

I railed against Monsanto for being in bed with the government and using it to enforce its unethical agenda.

Yes, the same sort of corruption could easily happen with private schooling. I would rail against that as well.

Don't paint it as some sort of hypocrisy, that's just silly.

How are you going to stop the hedge fund that bought your school form getting in bed with government? And when it happens, then what? Better yet, what about a foreign interest, say a Chicom government equity firm from drastically changing the education in your local school? Remember, everything is about the bottom line, profit, for the equity firm.

 

[level.eleven]

I think all of us believe in community and public good. We (or I, at least) just don't believe that the government is capable of (or responsible for) providing it.

Who is and how are they going to organize to administer a school? Maybe, have a board and hold local elections?