Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ITD
Sorry M+M but I strongly disagree with you here. One of our country's greatest assets is its education system although I agree it’s not perfect. One of the reasons it is great is that it is publicly funded, therefore blind to the economic status of its attendees (of course we could argue that statement, but again nothing is perfect). Requiring parental units to "fund the majority of the expense" would be disastrous as the majority of parental units are stretched to the limit just trying to feed and clothe their kids.
|
I hear you but as I said originally you could have a more "fair" system and not necessarilly like the results. We end up with taxes the way they are because the majority of voters want what they want (sometime good things, other times not so good) and can't afford to pay for it in a fair way, thus we end up with a, in this case, good result but paid for via an unfair means. I, a person w/o children, pay more as a result of someone else making a decision to have kids, kids thay appparently couldn't afford to have otherwise.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ITD
I suppose I could go for the parental units paying the majority of the costs of education if that attitude were applied across the spectrum. Lets see, seniors pay the majority of medicare, the poverty stricken pay the majority of welfare, retirees pay the majority of social security, people whose houses burn down pay the majority of fire protection, crime victims pay the majority of police costs, you can see where I am going here, not a pretty picture.
|
Hmmm first let's start with the easy ones. In the case of social security the oringinal intent was that the "retirees" do pay the cost, they just do it before the are retired. Yes, I end up paying for my parents and someone else pays for me but the
intent was not to have retirees living off someone else's $$'s (except for the initial batch). Fire, police and such fall into the catagory where we all pay for it because we're all as likely to use or need the services. Welfare, as a form of "poverty insurance" is touted as a service like the aforementioned (though I'm sure there are plenty of arguments to made pro/con this viewpoint). These are different from schooling in 1 important aspect; I don't get a choice in whether I'm a crime victim or laid off or a brush fire burns down my house and the person having a child does (or should) make a conscious decision to have one and accept the responsibilities (and resultant costs) of that decision. Why should "I" pay for "your" kid ? What do you think about a "welfare mom" having 6 kids by 5 different fathers ? Is is "fair" that we all pick up that burden ? Again I'm not saying that shifting the burden in the manner I've suggested would nessecarily be as "pretty" or as desirable as the present system, all I am saying is that it would be more fair, tax-wise. Moving to a more fair system, where and when we practically can, is the moral high ground. Recognizing where and when the existing system is unfair, but perhaps the lesser of evils, and not simply saying akin to "like it or lump it" is the first step.
I would say the reason we don't like "taxation w/o representation" is because it can become an unfair system. If you're going to take away the product of someone's efforts, letting them have a say in the manner is the least that should be done. Perhaps they get voted down but it's as close to fair as can be had given how we as a people decide these things. In this regard I deem both NH's property and MA's income tax, wrt non-residents, as unfair. That you'll never see the situation change is an example of why people should have
some say in how their $$'s are spent. One last thought ... perhaps many years ago when most people were born, grew up, lived and died in the same area the existing system made more sense but todays mobile society is going to force some changes.