arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (01/01/70)
>> = me > = Paul Dubuc >>I think that >>society at large gets real, substantial benefits from a generally >>educated citizenry. Public school taxes make this benefit possible, >>and thus are payed for the same reason you pay other taxes -- because >>society at large, and thus you, (allegedly) benefit from the service, >>and it could not be efficiently or properly provided any other way. >>The fact that someone might have children they choose to educate some >>other way is just as irrelevant to this as someone who has no >>children. > >No, I don't think it is just as irrelevant. Parents who have children >ought to have a choice as to how they are educated. They are compelled >to get them educated somewhere. Why should the tax system be set up >so as to make it so difficult to choose against the public schools? Let me propose an analgoy. As all analogies, it is not precise, but might serve to make my world view clearer. You and I are taxed to provide medical care for the poor. Whether or not any relative of yours is poor, you pay the tax (unless, of course, you are poor yourelf). Why? Well, you benefit from having a healthier population in many substantial ways. Now, I guess this makes it harder for you to pick the kind of medical care you like, since you have less money since you pay the tax. But you still get the benefits from the overall increased health. You have a choice as to how your children are educated. The more money you have, the greater your choice, in this as in most other areas. But any money not given to schools because of reduced tax revenues due to tuition tax credits simply reduces the benefits that society gets from a generally educated population. As a member of this society, that hurts you. The benefits you get from the education base have nothing to do with whether or not you have children, so your responisibility to support them should not vary either (except, stating the obvious, as it affects your ability to pay taxes -- I'm a staunch supporter of progressive taxation). I hope this makes my viewpoint clearer. Any considered comments would be welcome. Ken Arnold
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/20/85)
In article <10435@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: >>... >>No, I don't think it is just as irrelevant. Parents who have children >>ought to have a choice as to how they are educated. They are compelled >>to get them educated somewhere. Why should the tax system be set up >>so as to make it so difficult to choose against the public schools? > >Let me propose an analgoy. As all analogies, it is not precise, but >might serve to make my world view clearer. > >You and I are taxed to provide medical care for the poor. Whether or >not any relative of yours is poor, you pay the tax (unless, of course, >you are poor yourelf). Why? Well, you benefit from having a healthier >population in many substantial ways. Now, I guess this makes it harder >for you to pick the kind of medical care you like, since you have less >money since you pay the tax. But you still get the benefits from the >overall increased health. > >You have a choice as to how your children are educated. The more money >you have, the greater your choice, in this as in most other areas. But >any money not given to schools because of reduced tax revenues due to >tuition tax credits simply reduces the benefits that society gets from >a generally educated population. As a member of this society, that >hurts you. The benefits you get from the education base have nothing >to do with whether or not you have children, so your responisibility to >support them should not vary either (except, stating the obvious, as it >affects your ability to pay taxes -- I'm a staunch supporter of >progressive taxation). > >I hope this makes my viewpoint clearer. Any considered comments would >be welcome. This is a good analogy, except that the goal of medical care is much more precise than the goal and content of an eduation. We can have pretty uniform criteria for what constitutes a healthy body, but education is another matter. It's more than just a question of what method is better (that is an issue with medical care too). Above that, the very goal and content of learning is subject to wider opinion than the goal of medical care. To relate this point in terms of your analogy, some people may believe that the state education does not produce the proper result for their children. It would be like supporting medical care that has the goal of handicapping people instead of making them healthy. Many people may feel that the state education is not healthy for their kids, that the state's idea of a healthy education is not right. Here there is a greater divergence of opinion than with the criteria we would hold for a healthy body. This is because our bodies all work in a very similar fashion; we can have a very unified consensus on how they *should* work. This is not the case for our idea of what the content of an education should be. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd