Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

forecg · Feb 25, 2004, 01:30 pm

I've got an idea for a privately funded school choice system and I'd like to hear your criticism.

Right now public schools are supported by everyone's tax dollars - regardless of whether or not they use them, and regardless of whether or not they think they're more cost effective than private schools. My proposal is to do _nothing_ to the amount of money each person pays for education, but to give them the individual ability to choose how it gets spent.

It's pretty simple, really. Anyone who spends money on _non-public_ education gets a tax rebate for that amount. The restrictions are as follows:

1. The institution they spend it on (a private/religious school, a scholarship organization, a homeschooling parent, etc) must be state-approved. To avoid getting out of hand, this approval must exist solely to prevent fraud, and must be entirely open to public scrutiny.

2. To qualify for the rebate, the money spent per child can't exceed the amount the state currently spends per child. Parents can spend more than that of course - the extra money just won't qualify for the rebate.

3. It's a _rebate_, so the total amount returned to the taxpayer can never exceed the amount they paid for education in the first place.

You may wonder how people would actually use these vouchers if they wanted to. Parents could get a rebate for some of the money they spent educating their own kids, but grandparents, friends, neighbors, and local businesses could all get rebates for helping them out (up to the state level of funding anyway). Even people who pay far more than the cost of school for a single child can still get the full rebate by funding scholarships that support multiple children.

So under this system, what happens to someone who has a principled objection to funding private or religious schools? Their money continues to go to the public schools just like it always has. What happens to the people who are cheap and just want to pay lower taxes? They pay the same amount they've always paid, because this proposal does nothing to reduce the amount of money they're required to spend on education. What happens if people take their kids out of medium-priced public schools and put them in really expensive private schools? The state doesn't lose out because the rebate only goes up to the amount _the state_ spends, not the amount the parents spend. Public schools ONLY lose the money they save by not having to teach the kids that stop going to them.

The advantage of this system is that it lets individual people support school choice if and only if they choose to, while at the same time it does nothing to prevent public schools from continuing to function with their existing levels of funding per student. In fact, because private and religious schools on average cost LESS than public ones, per student funding levels will actually INCREASE for the students who remain in public schools. Kids who are unhappy with their schools will be more easily able to escape them, while kids who are happy will have more money to remain in them.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 25, 2004, 01:44 pm

"By income taxes we strive to redress the balance and at the same time make the builders of great fortunes pay proper toll to the society which has made their success possible." — George Lorimer, 1934

forecg · Feb 25, 2004, 01:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
"By income taxes we strive to redress the balance and at the same time make the builders of great fortunes pay proper toll to the society which has made their success possible." — George Lorimer, 1934<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not to be blunt, RebelWithanAK, but what does this contribute to meaningful discussion? While this quote may explain why you agree or disagree with my position on school choice in your mind, I really don't see it, and I'm not going to sit around all day trying to decipher it. If it is relevant to this particular thread but I'm just blind to it, I'd really appreciate a translation.

Impenitent · Feb 25, 2004, 02:10 pm

school choice works and the teachers unions hate it, plus it gives too much power to individuals and not enough to the NEA so the democRATS hate it

Major Billy · Feb 25, 2004, 06:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg)
3. It's a _rebate_, so the total amount returned to the taxpayer can never exceed the amount they paid for education in the first place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't understand #3. Exactly how much does a person 'pay' for education in the first place?

forecg · Feb 25, 2004, 08:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Major Billy,)
I don't understand #3. Exactly how much does a person 'pay' for education in the first place?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

An average of $6857 is spent on each public school student in the U.S. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0110384.html, 21.8% of the population is of school age, so assuming at least 80% of these children go to public schools, that works out to at least $6857*21.8%*80% = $1196 that the average person in the U.S. pays in taxes for education each year.

The point I was trying to make with #3 was that if you'd normally pay $1200 per year in taxes for education, you can only get a rebate for up to $1200. If you spend or donate more than that on non-public education you just get $1200 back.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 25, 2004, 08:23 pm

1) It's not a flat tax - not everybody pays the same.
2) The only way you can get out of paying taxes in this country is by leaving this country: You don't live in a bubble. You're not as independent as you think you are. And if you were, you'd be stagnant and a waste of good land.
3) You can't pick and choose which taxes you pay: We are all part of society. I pay taxes so that the country as a whole is uplifted.

forecg · Feb 25, 2004, 09:01 pm

Quoting RebelWithanAK:

"1) It's not a flat tax - not everybody pays the same."

Hence the word average.

"2) The only way you can get out of paying taxes in this country is by leaving this country: You don't live in a bubble. You're not as independent as you think you are. And if you were, you'd be stagnant and a waste of good land.
3) You can't pick and choose which taxes you pay: We are all part of society. I pay taxes so that the country as a whole is uplifted."

Both of these are an apt description of how things are currently. This happens to be a forum for political discussion, however, so I'm suggesting a change and asking for people to discuss it.

If you see a flaw in my suggestion that would let people avoid paying money to support education, please tell me.

If your opposition is to the idea of letting me decide how to spend my tax dollars, please tell me why. Do you think I won't want to spend it as wisely?

Major Billy · Feb 25, 2004, 09:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg)
= $1196 that the average person in the U.S. pays in taxes for education each year.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You didn't answer my question. I don't want to know what the 'average' rebate is.

Exactly how much of a rebate would I get under your plan?

Even GW Bush told us exactly how much his tax cuts would save:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GW Bush)
Your Tax Cut if you make $100,000: $1,326
Your Tax Cut if you make $40,000 and have 3 kids: $120<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

forecg · Feb 25, 2004, 09:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Major Billy,)

You didn't answer my question. I don't want to know what the 'average' rebate is.

Exactly how much of a rebate would I get under your plan?

Even GW Bush told us exactly how much his tax cuts would save:<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If I knew your state, your town, your income, and the value of your house, then yes, I could tell you exactly what your rebate would be.

If your state & town fund education with a $10 tax on every $1000 of the value of your house, then you already pay:

$400 per year for a $40,000 house
$1200 per year for a $120,000 house
$3500 per year for a $350,000 house

The rebate would be limited to the amount you already pay for education, so that's how much money you could choose to spend on non-public schooling and still get it all back. The rebate won't save you any money, but it will let you decide where it is spent.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 25, 2004, 10:59 pm

How about privatizing public schools?

JohnGalt · Feb 25, 2004, 11:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How about privatizing public schools? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

agreed!

Edge · Feb 26, 2004, 12:33 am

Whoever writes the check dictates the rules. Your point number one that creates a "State Approval" process may only start to prevent fraud, but in the end people will object to the lack of standards for the "public money" being spent on the program. And in the end, private schools won't be, and home education will be more difficult than ever. More than a slippery slope argument, this is at the very nature of governmental to ever expand it's control.
First: Take your money to give to someone else.
Second: Promise to give you some of your money back if you surrender just a little liberty.
Third: Get you hooked on getting back a portion of your own money.
Fouth: Threaten to cut off the money unless you surrender even more liberty.
One article (and not really the best of the lot, just the first one I found)
http://www.freedomofeducation.org/content/freedom.html this one's a little better: http://www.co-freedom.com/2003/03/vouchers.html

In the 1970's the dept of education was created to improve the quality of education in America. Since then, spending on education and schools has increased so that the US spends more per student than any other nation in the world and class sizes have shrunk with each educational study. Schools get bigger and bigger requiring more and more space and $$ to upkeep. Yet the performance of it's charges (the children) do worse and worse. The typical 8th grader of the mid 1700's had a more demanding education that the corresponding 12th grade graduate. And the literacy rate has fallen as well.
http://www.freedomofeducation.org/content/myths
Government directed education is now and has always been a miserable failure. It is time to accept that fact and return the control and the funding,(really the same thing) back to the families, where it belongs.

forecg · Feb 26, 2004, 09:14 am

This is part of what really frustrates me about advocates for smaller government. I agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting government out of the business of influencing young minds, but I also recognize the fact that 99% of all voters think people like us are nuts.

You're preaching to the choir when you effectively say that everything politicians touch turns to shit. What I'm asking you to do is to realistically compare the following three alternatives:

1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes.

2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools.

3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off.

The key here is realizing that we're not trying to design a state-approval mechanism that will last forever without getting corrupted. NOTHING lasts forever. If we put explicit limits on its authority that are designed to prevent meddlesome regulation, and if we guard these limits like hawks, do you really think statists will be able to subvert the system entirely and be fully regulating private schools within 15 years? As a follow up on that question, do you really think that after 15 years with a voucher system like this there would be even 10% of voters left (much less 51%) rooting for public schools? I'd appreciate your constructive criticism.

commonsense · Feb 26, 2004, 10:13 am

Rebel with an AK:
Paying taxes only "uplifts" bureacrats

RebelWithanAK · Feb 26, 2004, 11:21 am

Oh yes, Commonsense, I see it all now. I apologize profusely, retract all my previous arguements and will respectfully bow out of this thread, simply unable to match your superior reasoning.

Pfft.

Leopard · Feb 26, 2004, 11:52 am

finally! superior reasoning wins out!

take out the 'state approved ' bit and I like the idea

Edge · Feb 26, 2004, 12:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)
This is part of what really frustrates me about advocates for smaller government. I agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting government out of the business of influencing young minds, but I also recognize the fact that 99% of all voters think people like us are nuts.

You're preaching to the choir when you effectively say that everything politicians touch turns to shit. What I'm asking you to do is to realistically compare the following three alternatives:

1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The government system is already toast. We already have a two track educational system. Those who government school their children, and those who do not. Private education, both home and contract educations are doing well. They are in fact thriving. As much as I long to share the success with government schools, I have no desire to sacrifice the education of my children and grandchildren to help "show them the light." Since I firmly believe that vouchers will lead to the elimination of quality education, I would be a fool or disengenuous to advocate for someone else that which I would never advocate for my loved ones.
With regard to the inevitable collapse... And as much as I hate to say it, you can't start to raise yourself up until you hit rock bottom. As long as the illusion that government schools exist to educate children persists, then it will continue to be a threat to liberty.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)

2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Already on the way. We don't have to do anything. The government system is collapsing of it's own weight. Despite the compassion for those children who will be lost in the system, organizations have fought long and hard to make sure parents have the right to educate their children the way they see fit. This is not a step in the right direction.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)

3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think your goal is laudable. But vouchers by their very nature are intrusive, and I believe that the competitiveness that you attempt to bring to the system will be overwhelmed by the power of the state.
A less intrusive method would be a straight tax credit for any and all educational tuition, fees, books, supplies, etc. No Questions Asked. The tax credits would be funded directly out reductions in the Dept of Education's budget. I haven't decided whether this would be a viable alternative or not. Mostly because churches used to be autonomous, then they recieved their tax exempt status, then they lost thier first amendment rights (or negotiated them away).
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)

The key here is realizing that we're not trying to design a state-approval mechanism that will last forever without getting corrupted. NOTHING lasts forever. If we put explicit limits on its authority that are designed to prevent meddlesome regulation, and if we guard these limits like hawks, do you really think statists will be able to subvert the system entirely and be fully regulating private schools within 15 years?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don't believe that it is possible to design any state approval process that will not lead to governmental control over education. And the stakes are much higher. Right now, you can opt out of the system. The day an activist judge decides that it is in the "public interest" that private educational activities be regulated will be the end of private education. And the more "state" money that is used for "private" educational choices makes the case easier to make.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 26, 2004, 01:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)
This is part of what really frustrates me about advocates for smaller government. I agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting government out of the business of influencing young minds, but I also recognize the fact that 99% of all voters think people like us are nuts.

You're preaching to the choir when you effectively say that everything politicians touch turns to shit. What I'm asking you to do is to realistically compare the following three alternatives:

1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes.

2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools.

3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off.

The key here is realizing that we're not trying to design a state-approval mechanism that will last forever without getting corrupted. NOTHING lasts forever. If we put explicit limits on its authority that are designed to prevent meddlesome regulation, and if we guard these limits like hawks, do you really think statists will be able to subvert the system entirely and be fully regulating private schools within 15 years? As a follow up on that question, do you really think that after 15 years with a voucher system like this there would be even 10% of voters left (much less 51%) rooting for public schools? I'd appreciate your constructive criticism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How about this voter stat: 100% of ALL voters never had, don't have, and never will have the right to appoint somone to enforce their will upon others.

forecg · Feb 26, 2004, 02:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
"1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes."

The government system is already toast. We already have a two track educational system. Those who government school their children, and those who do not. Private education, both home and contract educations are doing well. They are in fact thriving. As much as I long to share the success with government schools, I have no desire to sacrifice the education of my children and grandchildren to help "show them the light." Since I firmly believe that vouchers will lead to the elimination of quality education, I would be a fool or disengenuous to advocate for someone else that which I would never advocate for my loved ones.

"2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools."

Already on the way. We don't have to do anything. The government system is collapsing of it's own weight. Despite the compassion for those children who will be lost in the system, organizations have fought long and hard to make sure parents have the right to educate their children the way they see fit. This is not a step in the right direction.

"3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off."

I think your goal is laudable. But vouchers by their very nature are intrusive, and I believe that the competitiveness that you attempt to bring to the system will be overwhelmed by the power of the state.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The entire thrust of your argument rests on the assertion that vouchers will lead to inevitable and rapid subjugation of all private schools. While it's true that many private schools will be willing to jump through "small" hoops to get voucher funding, some of them will not. As long as independent private schools haven't died out completely, parents will still have the option of sending their kids to schools that are free of government control. Everyone who realizes they can afford private school now without vouchers will still realize that they can afford to ignore vouchers when we have them.

School districts with vouchers have existed for decades, and most (but not all, sadly) have been able to maintain their independence. What supporting evidence do you offer for the assertion that vouchers make subjugation inevitable?

"With regard to the inevitable collapse... And as much as I hate to say it, you can't start to raise yourself up until you hit rock bottom." - We both know this is just rhetoric. Plenty of people and societies have managed to advance socially without ever hitting "rock bottom".

"As long as the illusion that government schools exist to educate children persists, then it will continue to be a threat to liberty." - I agree. What we seem to disagree on is which method will expose this illusion more quickly.

"I don't believe that it is possible to design any state approval process that will not lead to governmental control over education. And the stakes are much higher. Right now, you can opt out of the system. The day an activist judge decides that it is in the "public interest" that private educational activities be regulated will be the end of private education. And the more "state" money that is used for "private" educational choices makes the case easier to make."

I agree that this is a concern, which is why we need to scream bloody murder every time anyone so much as hints at the idea that the state needs to regulate the few remaining schools that aren't already completely under its control.

"A less intrusive method would be a straight tax credit for any and all educational tuition, fees, books, supplies, etc. No Questions Asked. The tax credits would be funded directly out reductions in the Dept of Education's budget. I haven't decided whether this would be a viable alternative or not. Mostly because churches used to be autonomous, then they recieved their tax exempt status, then they lost thier first amendment rights (or negotiated them away)."

I'd be all for a clause like this if we could get it passed, but I really don't see it happening. Something like this would be a big fat target for anyone with vested interest in government schools who wants to rouse public opinion and prevent it from happening. With the system I proposed, there is no way at all that I can see for educrats to argue against it without revealing that the only reason for their opposition is the power they would stand to lose.

Feb 25, 2004, 01:44 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	"By income taxes we strive to redress the balance and at the same time make the builders of great fortunes pay proper toll to the society which has made their success possible." — George Lorimer, 1934 . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 25, 2004, 01:59 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) "By income taxes we strive to redress the balance and at the same time make the builders of great fortunes pay proper toll to the society which has made their success possible." — George Lorimer, 1934<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not to be blunt, RebelWithanAK, but what does this contribute to meaningful discussion? While this quote may explain why you agree or disagree with my position on school choice in your mind, I really don't see it, and I'm not going to sit around all day trying to decipher it. If it is relevant to this particular thread but I'm just blind to it, I'd really appreciate a translation.

Feb 25, 2004, 02:10 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	school choice works and the teachers unions hate it, plus it gives too much power to individuals and not enough to the NEA so the democRATS hate it "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 25, 2004, 06:34 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Major Billy Molten Ash Posts: 90	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg) 3. It's a _rebate_, so the total amount returned to the taxpayer can never exceed the amount they paid for education in the first place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't understand #3. Exactly how much does a person 'pay' for education in the first place? >>>--~(ô¿ô)~--->

Feb 25, 2004, 08:09 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Major Billy,) I don't understand #3. Exactly how much does a person 'pay' for education in the first place?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> An average of $6857 is spent on each public school student in the U.S. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0110384.html, 21.8% of the population is of school age, so assuming at least 80% of these children go to public schools, that works out to at least $685721.8%80% = $1196 that the average person in the U.S. pays in taxes for education each year. The point I was trying to make with #3 was that if you'd normally pay $1200 per year in taxes for education, you can only get a rebate for up to $1200. If you spend or donate more than that on non-public education you just get $1200 back.

Feb 25, 2004, 01:30 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	I've got an idea for a privately funded school choice system and I'd like to hear your criticism. Right now public schools are supported by everyone's tax dollars - regardless of whether or not they use them, and regardless of whether or not they think they're more cost effective than private schools. My proposal is to do _nothing_ to the amount of money each person pays for education, but to give them the individual ability to choose how it gets spent. It's pretty simple, really. Anyone who spends money on _non-public_ education gets a tax rebate for that amount. The restrictions are as follows: 1. The institution they spend it on (a private/religious school, a scholarship organization, a homeschooling parent, etc) must be state-approved. To avoid getting out of hand, this approval must exist solely to prevent fraud, and must be entirely open to public scrutiny. 2. To qualify for the rebate, the money spent per child can't exceed the amount the state currently spends per child. Parents can spend more than that of course - the extra money just won't qualify for the rebate. 3. It's a _rebate_, so the total amount returned to the taxpayer can never exceed the amount they paid for education in the first place. You may wonder how people would actually use these vouchers if they wanted to. Parents could get a rebate for some of the money they spent educating their own kids, but grandparents, friends, neighbors, and local businesses could all get rebates for helping them out (up to the state level of funding anyway). Even people who pay far more than the cost of school for a single child can still get the full rebate by funding scholarships that support multiple children. So under this system, what happens to someone who has a principled objection to funding private or religious schools? Their money continues to go to the public schools just like it always has. What happens to the people who are cheap and just want to pay lower taxes? They pay the same amount they've always paid, because this proposal does nothing to reduce the amount of money they're required to spend on education. What happens if people take their kids out of medium-priced public schools and put them in really expensive private schools? The state doesn't lose out because the rebate only goes up to the amount _the state_ spends, not the amount the parents spend. Public schools ONLY lose the money they save by not having to teach the kids that stop going to them. The advantage of this system is that it lets individual people support school choice if and only if they choose to, while at the same time it does nothing to prevent public schools from continuing to function with their existing levels of funding per student. In fact, because private and religious schools on average cost LESS than public ones, per student funding levels will actually INCREASE for the students who remain in public schools. Kids who are unhappy with their schools will be more easily able to escape them, while kids who are happy will have more money to remain in them.

Feb 25, 2004, 08:23 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	1) It's not a flat tax - not everybody pays the same. 2) The only way you can get out of paying taxes in this country is by leaving this country: You don't live in a bubble. You're not as independent as you think you are. And if you were, you'd be stagnant and a waste of good land. 3) You can't pick and choose which taxes you pay: We are all part of society. I pay taxes so that the country as a whole is uplifted. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 25, 2004, 09:01 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	Quoting RebelWithanAK: "1) It's not a flat tax - not everybody pays the same." Hence the word average. "2) The only way you can get out of paying taxes in this country is by leaving this country: You don't live in a bubble. You're not as independent as you think you are. And if you were, you'd be stagnant and a waste of good land. 3) You can't pick and choose which taxes you pay: We are all part of society. I pay taxes so that the country as a whole is uplifted." Both of these are an apt description of how things are currently. This happens to be a forum for political discussion, however, so I'm suggesting a change and asking for people to discuss it. If you see a flaw in my suggestion that would let people avoid paying money to support education, please tell me. If your opposition is to the idea of letting me decide how to spend my tax dollars, please tell me why. Do you think I won't want to spend it as wisely?

Feb 25, 2004, 09:38 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Major Billy Molten Ash Posts: 90	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg) = $1196* that the average person in the U.S. pays in taxes for education each year.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You didn't answer my question. I don't want to know what the 'average' rebate is. Exactly* how much of a rebate would I get under your plan? Even GW Bush told us exactly how much his tax cuts would save: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GW Bush) Your Tax Cut if you make $100,000: $1,326 Your Tax Cut if you make $40,000 and have 3 kids: $120<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> >>>--~(ô¿ô)~--->

Feb 25, 2004, 09:54 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Major Billy,) You didn't answer my question. I don't want to know what the 'average' rebate is. Exactly how much of a rebate would I get under your plan? Even GW Bush told us exactly how much his tax cuts would save:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If I knew your state, your town, your income, and the value of your house, then yes, I could tell you exactly what your rebate would be. If your state & town fund education with a $10 tax on every $1000 of the value of your house, then you already pay: $400 per year for a $40,000 house $1200 per year for a $120,000 house $3500 per year for a $350,000 house The rebate would be limited to the amount you already pay for education, so that's how much money you could choose to spend on non-public schooling and still get it all back. The rebate won't save you any money, but it will let you decide where it is spent.

Feb 25, 2004, 10:59 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	How about privatizing public schools?

Feb 25, 2004, 11:22 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
JohnGalt Sedimentary Rock Posts: 7	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by How about privatizing public schools? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> agreed!

Feb 26, 2004, 12:33 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	Whoever writes the check dictates the rules. Your point number one that creates a "State Approval" process may only start to prevent fraud, but in the end people will object to the lack of standards for the "public money" being spent on the program. And in the end, private schools won't be, and home education will be more difficult than ever. More than a slippery slope argument, this is at the very nature of governmental to ever expand it's control. First: Take your money to give to someone else. Second: Promise to give you some of your money back if you surrender just a little liberty. Third: Get you hooked on getting back a portion of your own money. Fouth: Threaten to cut off the money unless you surrender even more liberty. One article (and not really the best of the lot, just the first one I found) http://www.freedomofeducation.org/content/freedom.html this one's a little better: http://www.co-freedom.com/2003/03/vouchers.html In the 1970's the dept of education was created to improve the quality of education in America. Since then, spending on education and schools has increased so that the US spends more per student than any other nation in the world and class sizes have shrunk with each educational study. Schools get bigger and bigger requiring more and more space and $$ to upkeep. Yet the performance of it's charges (the children) do worse and worse. The typical 8th grader of the mid 1700's had a more demanding education that the corresponding 12th grade graduate. And the literacy rate has fallen as well. http://www.freedomofeducation.org/content/myths Government directed education is now and has always been a miserable failure. It is time to accept that fact and return the control and the funding,(really the same thing) back to the families, where it belongs.

Feb 26, 2004, 09:14 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	This is part of what really frustrates me about advocates for smaller government. I agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting government out of the business of influencing young minds, but I also recognize the fact that 99% of all voters think people like us are nuts. You're preaching to the choir when you effectively say that everything politicians touch turns to shit. What I'm asking you to do is to realistically compare the following three alternatives: 1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes. 2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools. 3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off. The key here is realizing that we're not trying to design a state-approval mechanism that will last forever without getting corrupted. NOTHING lasts forever. If we put explicit limits on its authority that are designed to prevent meddlesome regulation, and if we guard these limits like hawks, do you really think statists will be able to subvert the system entirely and be fully regulating private schools within 15 years? As a follow up on that question, do you really think that after 15 years with a voucher system like this there would be even 10% of voters left (much less 51%) rooting for public schools? I'd appreciate your constructive criticism.

Feb 26, 2004, 10:13 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	Rebel with an AK: Paying taxes only "uplifts" bureacrats The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Feb 26, 2004, 11:21 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Oh yes, Commonsense, I see it all now. I apologize profusely, retract all my previous arguements and will respectfully bow out of this thread, simply unable to match your superior reasoning. Pfft. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 26, 2004, 11:52 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	finally! superior reasoning wins out! take out the 'state approved ' bit and I like the idea Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 26, 2004, 12:23 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) This is part of what really frustrates me about advocates for smaller government. I agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting government out of the business of influencing young minds, but I also recognize the fact that 99% of all voters think people like us are nuts. You're preaching to the choir when you effectively say that everything politicians touch turns to shit. What I'm asking you to do is to realistically compare the following three alternatives: 1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The government system is already toast. We already have a two track educational system. Those who government school their children, and those who do not. Private education, both home and contract educations are doing well. They are in fact thriving. As much as I long to share the success with government schools, I have no desire to sacrifice the education of my children and grandchildren to help "show them the light." Since I firmly believe that vouchers will lead to the elimination of quality education, I would be a fool or disengenuous to advocate for someone else that which I would never advocate for my loved ones. With regard to the inevitable collapse... And as much as I hate to say it, you can't start to raise yourself up until you hit rock bottom. As long as the illusion that government schools exist to educate children persists, then it will continue to be a threat to liberty. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) 2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Already on the way. We don't have to do anything. The government system is collapsing of it's own weight. Despite the compassion for those children who will be lost in the system, organizations have fought long and hard to make sure parents have the right to educate their children the way they see fit. This is not a step in the right direction. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) 3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think your goal is laudable. But vouchers by their very nature are intrusive, and I believe that the competitiveness that you attempt to bring to the system will be overwhelmed by the power of the state. A less intrusive method would be a straight tax credit for any and all educational tuition, fees, books, supplies, etc. No Questions Asked. The tax credits would be funded directly out reductions in the Dept of Education's budget. I haven't decided whether this would be a viable alternative or not. Mostly because churches used to be autonomous, then they recieved their tax exempt status, then they lost thier first amendment rights (or negotiated them away). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) The key here is realizing that we're not trying to design a state-approval mechanism that will last forever without getting corrupted. NOTHING lasts forever. If we put explicit limits on its authority that are designed to prevent meddlesome regulation, and if we guard these limits like hawks, do you really think statists will be able to subvert the system entirely and be fully regulating private schools within 15 years?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't believe that it is possible to design any state approval process that will not lead to governmental control over education. And the stakes are much higher. Right now, you can opt out of the system. The day an activist judge decides that it is in the "public interest" that private educational activities be regulated will be the end of private education. And the more "state" money that is used for "private" educational choices makes the case easier to make.

Feb 26, 2004, 01:37 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) This is part of what really frustrates me about advocates for smaller government. I agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting government out of the business of influencing young minds, but I also recognize the fact that 99% of all voters think people like us are nuts. You're preaching to the choir when you effectively say that everything politicians touch turns to shit. What I'm asking you to do is to realistically compare the following three alternatives: 1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes. 2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools. 3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off. The key here is realizing that we're not trying to design a state-approval mechanism that will last forever without getting corrupted. NOTHING lasts forever. If we put explicit limits on its authority that are designed to prevent meddlesome regulation, and if we guard these limits like hawks, do you really think statists will be able to subvert the system entirely and be fully regulating private schools within 15 years? As a follow up on that question, do you really think that after 15 years with a voucher system like this there would be even 10% of voters left (much less 51%) rooting for public schools? I'd appreciate your constructive criticism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How about this voter stat: 100% of ALL voters never had, don't have, and never will have the right to appoint somone to enforce their will upon others.

Feb 26, 2004, 02:05 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) "1. We accept that they're going to ignore us and that the system is doomed. We wait for the collapse and stand ready to rebuild it from the ashes." The government system is already toast. We already have a two track educational system. Those who government school their children, and those who do not. Private education, both home and contract educations are doing well. They are in fact thriving. As much as I long to share the success with government schools, I have no desire to sacrifice the education of my children and grandchildren to help "show them the light." Since I firmly believe that vouchers will lead to the elimination of quality education, I would be a fool or disengenuous to advocate for someone else that which I would never advocate for my loved ones. "2. We somehow manage to get our ideas through their thick skulls. They admit that everything they've believed in for 140 years is fundamentally flawed and agree to join us in privatizing the schools." Already on the way. We don't have to do anything. The government system is collapsing of it's own weight. Despite the compassion for those children who will be lost in the system, organizations have fought long and hard to make sure parents have the right to educate their children the way they see fit. This is not a step in the right direction. "3. We examine vouchers with a critical eye instead of dismissing them out of hand. We find a way to stall off the state-approval time bomb for long enough to show people that private school is more affordable than they think. We privatize schools completely before the 'bomb' goes off." I think your goal is laudable. But vouchers by their very nature are intrusive, and I believe that the competitiveness that you attempt to bring to the system will be overwhelmed by the power of the state. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The entire thrust of your argument rests on the assertion that vouchers will lead to inevitable and rapid subjugation of all private schools. While it's true that many private schools will be willing to jump through "small" hoops to get voucher funding, some of them will not. As long as independent private schools haven't died out completely, parents will still have the option of sending their kids to schools that are free of government control. Everyone who realizes they can afford private school now without vouchers will still realize that they can afford to ignore vouchers when we have them. School districts with vouchers have existed for decades, and most (but not all, sadly) have been able to maintain their independence. What supporting evidence do you offer for the assertion that vouchers make subjugation inevitable? "With regard to the inevitable collapse... And as much as I hate to say it, you can't start to raise yourself up until you hit rock bottom." - We both know this is just rhetoric. Plenty of people and societies have managed to advance socially without ever hitting "rock bottom". "As long as the illusion that government schools exist to educate children persists, then it will continue to be a threat to liberty." - I agree. What we seem to disagree on is which method will expose this illusion more quickly. "I don't believe that it is possible to design any state approval process that will not lead to governmental control over education. And the stakes are much higher. Right now, you can opt out of the system. The day an activist judge decides that it is in the "public interest" that private educational activities be regulated will be the end of private education. And the more "state" money that is used for "private" educational choices makes the case easier to make." I agree that this is a concern, which is why we need to scream bloody murder every time anyone so much as hints at the idea that the state needs to regulate the few remaining schools that aren't already completely under its control. "A less intrusive method would be a straight tax credit for any and all educational tuition, fees, books, supplies, etc. No Questions Asked. The tax credits would be funded directly out reductions in the Dept of Education's budget. I haven't decided whether this would be a viable alternative or not. Mostly because churches used to be autonomous, then they recieved their tax exempt status, then they lost thier first amendment rights (or negotiated them away)." I'd be all for a clause like this if we could get it passed, but I really don't see it happening. Something like this would be a big fat target for anyone with vested interest in government schools who wants to rouse public opinion and prevent it from happening. With the system I proposed, there is no way at all that I can see for educrats to argue against it without revealing that the only reason for their opposition is the power they would stand to lose.