Taxes - McCain vs Obama

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 7/17/2008 10:49:41 PM
Author: Miranda


Ditto as usual NEL.

DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there's no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!

What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

yep,agree !! and we're in the getto tax brackets.

 

[MoonWater]

So yeah, miraclesrule....about that consumption tax?

 

[miraclesrule]

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ConsumptionTax.html

And then there is always wikipedia. There are a lot of great articles on consumption tax dating back to Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers.

Most economists agree that a consumption tax is more fair and will reduce the federal deficit while also encouraging savings. People that work hard to increase their income only to see it taxed away makes me vomit. I am one of those people who work very hard and earn just enough to be ineligible for the 401K. I am probably the lowest wage earner in the upper management who doesn''t get to participate. The others make substanially more than me or are eligible for another program because of a division in corporate structures among individual companies within a parent company. It sucks.

But then again, if there is also an exception to a rule, or a 1$ chance of something, you will usually find me in that situation. Boo....

I am a huge comsumption tax proponent.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 7/17/2008 10:49:41 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 7/17/2008 9:49:29 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Ah, the ''let''s further tax those who are already shouldering the burden of paying 95% of the nation''s taxes and dissuade them from investing in the market INSTEAD of controlling our spending'' mentality.

If I ran my household in the same manner as the goverment, we''d be in deep trouble. And if I went to my employer saying ''my spending is out of control and I need you to fund it'', I''d be fired.

It''s called a budget. Use it.

Ditto as usual NEL.

DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there''s no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!

What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

I came here to say AMEN!!!!!

RIGHT ON ladies. Totally agree!

 

[miraclesrule]

Cut Social Spending? I''m curious about that. What exactly does the Federal Government allocate on "Social " spending? What do you define as social spending? I assume that would include indvidual welfare and medi-caid/medi-cal, maybe corporate welfare? What else? Because when I look at the Federal Budget, I don''t see a whole lot of social spending unless I am missing which departments they are hiding it under.

In your opinion, what classifies as social spending?

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Here is a graph of historic gov't spending. I wish I could find a graph which shows spending vs. economic growth because the government's spending is growing 8x faster than the economy (14x faster for social programs). It's impossible to sustain a budget with that kind of spending.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

And here is a pie chart that shows allocated spending in 2007. I finding trending data more interesting, but this shows what is included in "social" spending (according to the U.S. Bureau of Econ. Analysis)

 

[miraclesrule]

The pie chart is interesting. However, it is not indicative of the actual U.S. Federal Budget by function according to the official budget functions data that can be found at

www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/fct.html or for us who link to us the link button because we learned it only a very short time ago, then you can also click right here...

Budget of the United States Government


The breakdown is more like the following:

National Defense - 51%
Other - 20% *
Educational and Social Services- 7%
Income Security - 5%
Health - 5%
Justice - 4%

* Other includes:
Veteran benefits and services, Natural resource and environment, International affairs, general science and space technology, community and regional development, general goverment, agriculture, energy, social security and medicare.

I do believe that approx half of the overal budget is reserved for Social Security Benefits and Medicare. I couldn''t look at it anymore. It''s depressing. All that money and we can''t even find Bin Laden.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 7/19/2008 5:23:58 PM
Author: miraclesrule

The breakdown is more like the following:

National Defense - 51%
Other - 20% *
Educational and Social Services- 7%
Income Security - 5%
Health - 5%
Justice - 4%

How did you get 51% for defense?

It''s more like 587B/3.49T = 16.8 percent

I didn''t check the remainder of your math.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 7/19/2008 5:23:58 PM
Author: miraclesrule


It''s depressing. All that money and we can''t even find Bin Laden.

Another way to look at it might be "all that money was worth it because we haven''t been attacked on our home soil again!"

 

[miraclesrule]

....yet.

 

[Fancy605]

Date: 7/17/2008 10:49:41 PM
Author: Miranda


DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there''s no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!


What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

EXACTLY! Why should you be penalized for being successful.

This is why a fair tax or a flat tax interests me so greatly. Ah, but that''s another issue that so far neither candidate seems in favor of, so I can''t justify getting into it at this time. Though I am socially liberal (insofar as I think most issues such as marriage, lifestyle choice, consumption of chemicals, reproductive rights, etc are none of the government''s business in the first place and therefore should be left up to an individual and NOT a candidate), I am fiscally conservative, and therefor will also be voting in a way that lines up most strongly with my concerns for my pockets (which are already taxed too much if you ask me.)

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/22/2008 10:58:37 AM
Author: Fancy605

Date: 7/17/2008 10:49:41 PM
Author: Miranda


DH and I are people who came from the lower tax brackets when we were first married. We are now in the higher brackets. We accomplished this through hard work and diligence. Not relying on the government. We could have qualified for lots of social programs, but, instead we chose to get ourselves ahead. There are opportunities for every single American...Even Illegal Aliens have opportunities in this country! For goodness sake. People need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and learn to take care of themselves. We act as if there''s no choice for these people but to be poor. This Robin Hood mentality makes me crazy!


What we need to do is cut SOCIAL spending in order to have a more balanced budget.

EXACTLY! Why should you be penalized for being successful.

This is why a fair tax or a flat tax interests me so greatly. Ah, but that''s another issue that so far neither candidate seems in favor of, so I can''t justify getting into it at this time. Though I am socially liberal (insofar as I think most issues such as marriage, lifestyle choice, consumption of chemicals, reproductive rights, etc are none of the government''s business in the first place and therefore should be left up to an individual and NOT a candidate), I am fiscally conservative, and therefor will also be voting in a way that lines up most strongly with my concerns for my pockets (which are already taxed too much if you ask me.)

I agree with you ladies here - my parents started off poor as can be with NO English skills and they worked very hard to be successful and raised FIVE kids...only to pay astronomical taxes once they earned some money. There is no way they should be paying the same percentage as some billionaires. Taking from the rich to give to the poor will only 1) discourage the poor from trying to find their own solutions and 2) cut jobs because the people with money will not be able to spend it anymore - thus, decreasing income for those with lower incomes who are *most likely* working in service, sales, or manufacturing positions. I am all for charity and helping those who are down in the dumps, but I would focus any social spending on programs that will help people find sustainable jobs instead of handing out foodstamps left and right with no monitoring system for abuse. Taxes are a HUGE issue for me, being a single woman who will have probably no tax breaks. And, this is OT, but I would rather have an unstable economy than a weak military force defending our country.

 

[icekid]

I am with you ladies, as well. Toward the fiscally conservative side, yet socially liberal. After working my butt off through medical school, taking on quarter of a million dollars in school debt, being responsible and saving our pennies... it''s incomprehensible to me that we will now be penalized for WORKING HARD. I am a saver by nature and I doubt my hubby and I will ever lead an exorbitant lifestyle even though we''ll certainly make decent money. Save now, work hard, so we can retire and enjoy life. To me, a consumption tax makes a lot of sense. But that is clearly not in the cards w/ our current candidates. I''m not thrilled with either of our candidate choices, but McCain kind of gives me the creeps...

I came across this article today on NPR........ opinions?

For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach

 

[Erin]

I recognize that our government supports capitalism and there is a price to pay for this. However I don''t believe as a society we can continue funding capitalism with policies that cause the poor to become impoverished. Unfortunately in concentrating on the poor and the rich, you have overlooked the huge group of people who are between the rich and the first group of middle class. They are the ones who earn just over the poverty line and just under the median income - 17000 to 45000. They are a group that is just as heavily hit by taxes as the poorest. They don''t qualify for any programs that help out the poor and have not the adequate income to purchase a house or give a better life to their children. They may make more now then they did before, but with the increase in fuel, food, and housing cost, it doesn''t make a difference.

I suppose it seems like injustice to have to give a high % of your wage back but some people''s tax for a month are what others earn in a month. It may seem like an injustice to claw back so much of a person''s income but then I think the disparity between high & low paid is an injustice. It''s not that it comes at the expense of us, it''s what it does to society. It''s because is an implicit caste system. The poorer people get, the more likely it is they get involved with crimes, and the less likely it is they can be anything more that drones in society. Statistics show a VERY strong correlation between income and professional and education achievement. In the long run, continuing to let the rich essentially subjugate the poor not only damages our democracy, but damages society, and is really unsustainable. The reason things trend this way is because humans by nature are not completely compassionate, and become more so from the separation caused.

 

[MoonWater]

Bravo Starset!

Oh and seriously, I really like this consumption tax idea. Anyone have the negative side to it because so far I only see positives.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Sure, let it replace the income tax (and keep the consumption tax under 10%).

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 7/22/2008 5:00:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Oh and seriously, I really like this consumption tax idea. Anyone have the negative side to it because so far I only see positives.

The black market becoming a much larger enterprise than it already is, which means to a lot more crime, namely theft.

P.S. I am a big fan of the idea of a consumption tax replacing income taxes.

 

[Fancy605]

Date: 7/22/2008 11:36:54 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
I am all for charity and helping those who are down in the dumps, but I would focus any social spending on programs that will help people find sustainable jobs instead of handing out foodstamps left and right with no monitoring system for abuse.

FOR real though. I know this is sort of breaking from the topic, but sometimes knowing where my tax dollars are going is infuriating. I know for a fact that my students have relatives who sell their food stamps for half of what they''re worth and then use the money for booze or meth rather than to buy food for themselves or their families. It is really disgusting. I mean yes, I''m all for helping out those who can''t help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON''T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 7/22/2008 10:51:00 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/22/2008 5:00:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Oh and seriously, I really like this consumption tax idea. Anyone have the negative side to it because so far I only see positives.

The black market becoming a much larger enterprise than it already is, which means to a lot more crime, namely theft.

P.S. I am a big fan of the idea of a consumption tax replacing income taxes.

Actually, I don''t think a consumption will allow the black market to become larger. There is so much untaxed money right now in the drug trade and money laundering and other unseemly means of making money. Yet, if you have a consumption tax, it is harder for the perps to avoid paying taxes as they are able to do now. If they buy a Rolex with that drug money, it would get taxed at the same amount as the person who purchases the Rolex through profit on an investment. Is that fair....eh, doesn''t seem like it on the surface. But in the grand scheme of things, I would rather get the tax money from people who are consuming so that those who work hard at earning wages the legal way, can also save their money if they choose and not have to pay more money because the black market gets to avoid taxes altogether.

 

[Erin]

Date: 7/23/2008 12:05:49 AM
Author: Fancy605
I''m all for helping out those who can''t help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON''T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

There will always, always, always be those people. That cannot be avoided. However, for the majority, those monies are helping the right people.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/23/2008 9:18:56 AM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 7/23/2008 12:05:49 AM
Author: Fancy605
I'm all for helping out those who can't help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON'T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

There will always, always, always be those people. That cannot be avoided. However, for the majority, those monies are helping the right people.

On the other hand, just because there will always be some people who find loopholes in the system it does not mean that we shouldn't enact programs/legislation to help prevent abuse. It really wouldn't be that hard...I used to work for an apartment complex and we would report people who were living together with two incomes but not declaring one of them so they could stay on welfare. Rarely was anything done to correct their benefits. Some simple background checks would catch several indiscretions.

Speaking of where our tax money goes, what do you guys think about school vouchers? I attended private school all my life (for the religious education aspect of it) and my parents were by no means rich until I had graduated from HS...I know they could've used some vouchers for the five of us kids.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 7/23/2008 1:43:07 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 7/22/2008 10:51:00 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/22/2008 5:00:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Oh and seriously, I really like this consumption tax idea. Anyone have the negative side to it because so far I only see positives.

The black market becoming a much larger enterprise than it already is, which means to a lot more crime, namely theft.

P.S. I am a big fan of the idea of a consumption tax replacing income taxes.

Actually, I don't think a consumption will allow the black market to become larger. There is so much untaxed money right now in the drug trade and money laundering and other unseemly means of making money. Yet, if you have a consumption tax, it is harder for the perps to avoid paying taxes as they are able to do now. If they buy a Rolex with that drug money, it would get taxed at the same amount as the person who purchases the Rolex through profit on an investment. Is that fair....eh, doesn't seem like it on the surface. But in the grand scheme of things, I would rather get the tax money from people who are consuming so that those who work hard at earning wages the legal way, can also save their money if they choose and not have to pay more money because the black market gets to avoid taxes altogether.

I think you misunderstood what I mean by black market, I wasn't referring to drug dealers, etc. as the consumption tax would actually force them to pay taxes that they don't have to now, because they don't report their income, obviously. I was referring to the black market that sells stolen goods (purses, clothing, appliances, etc.), without charging taxes, such as street vendors. The theft of the afore mentioned goods to be sold on the black market, without taxes being charged, would likely increase if we our system switched to a consumption based tax.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 7/23/2008 9:59:52 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 7/23/2008 9:18:56 AM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 7/23/2008 12:05:49 AM
Author: Fancy605
I''m all for helping out those who can''t help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON''T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

There will always, always, always be those people. That cannot be avoided. However, for the majority, those monies are helping the right people.

On the other hand, just because there will always be some people who find loopholes in the system it does not mean that we shouldn''t enact programs/legislation to help prevent abuse. It really wouldn''t be that hard...I used to work for an apartment complex and we would report people who were living together with two incomes but not declaring one of them so they could stay on welfare. Rarely was anything done to correct their benefits. Some simple background checks would catch several indiscretions.

Speaking of where our tax money goes, what do you guys think about school vouchers? I attended private school all my life (for the religious education aspect of it) and my parents were by no means rich until I had graduated from HS...I know they could''ve used some vouchers for the five of us kids.

The issue with school vouchers is that parents who are vested in their childrens'' education will take the time to enroll their child in the best school for him/her/them while those who face language barriers, are illiterate, can''t/won''t provide the transportation necessary to attend the school that is further away, or simply don''t care, won''t do so, which means the cycle is perpetuated as their children, who are typically the ones who need the most help, will end up in the same poor schools the voucher system would be trying to eradicate. Also, the seperation of church and state becomes a huge issue with a voucher system, if it includes religious based schools, as the money follows the student and that means gov''t funds are going to support religious enterprises.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 7/23/2008 11:04:27 AM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/23/2008 1:43:07 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 7/22/2008 10:51:00 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/22/2008 5:00:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Oh and seriously, I really like this consumption tax idea. Anyone have the negative side to it because so far I only see positives.

The black market becoming a much larger enterprise than it already is, which means to a lot more crime, namely theft.

P.S. I am a big fan of the idea of a consumption tax replacing income taxes.

Actually, I don''t think a consumption will allow the black market to become larger. There is so much untaxed money right now in the drug trade and money laundering and other unseemly means of making money. Yet, if you have a consumption tax, it is harder for the perps to avoid paying taxes as they are able to do now. If they buy a Rolex with that drug money, it would get taxed at the same amount as the person who purchases the Rolex through profit on an investment. Is that fair....eh, doesn''t seem like it on the surface. But in the grand scheme of things, I would rather get the tax money from people who are consuming so that those who work hard at earning wages the legal way, can also save their money if they choose and not have to pay more money because the black market gets to avoid taxes altogether.

I think you misunderstood what I mean by black market, I wasn''t referring to drug dealers, etc. as the consumption tax would actually force them to pay taxes that they don''t have to now, because they don''t report their income, obviously. I was referring to the black market that sells stolen goods (purses, clothing, appliances, etc.), without charging taxes, such as street vendors. The theft of the afore mentioned goods to be sold on the black market, without taxes being charged, would likely increase if we our system switched to a consumption based tax.

Oh gotcha''. I completely misunderstood you. Do you really think that would increase? I suppose it might, but I don''t know if it would be to any great extent. Maybe for some easy to knock off or small items, but it would be hard to do with washing machines and cars and houses and stuff like that.

 

[KimberlyH]

Date: 7/23/2008 1:18:49 PM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 7/23/2008 11:04:27 AM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/23/2008 1:43:07 AM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 7/22/2008 10:51:00 PM
Author: KimberlyH

Date: 7/22/2008 5:00:24 PM
Author: MoonWater

Oh and seriously, I really like this consumption tax idea. Anyone have the negative side to it because so far I only see positives.

The black market becoming a much larger enterprise than it already is, which means to a lot more crime, namely theft.

P.S. I am a big fan of the idea of a consumption tax replacing income taxes.

Actually, I don't think a consumption will allow the black market to become larger. There is so much untaxed money right now in the drug trade and money laundering and other unseemly means of making money. Yet, if you have a consumption tax, it is harder for the perps to avoid paying taxes as they are able to do now. If they buy a Rolex with that drug money, it would get taxed at the same amount as the person who purchases the Rolex through profit on an investment. Is that fair....eh, doesn't seem like it on the surface. But in the grand scheme of things, I would rather get the tax money from people who are consuming so that those who work hard at earning wages the legal way, can also save their money if they choose and not have to pay more money because the black market gets to avoid taxes altogether.

I think you misunderstood what I mean by black market, I wasn't referring to drug dealers, etc. as the consumption tax would actually force them to pay taxes that they don't have to now, because they don't report their income, obviously. I was referring to the black market that sells stolen goods (purses, clothing, appliances, etc.), without charging taxes, such as street vendors. The theft of the afore mentioned goods to be sold on the black market, without taxes being charged, would likely increase if we our system switched to a consumption based tax.

Oh gotcha'. I completely misunderstood you. Do you really think that would increase? I suppose it might, but I don't know if it would be to any great extent. Maybe for some easy to knock off or small items, but it would be hard to do with washing machines and cars and houses and stuff like that.

I aboslutely believe it would increase. The theft of luxury goods (clothing, purses, etc.) would definitely increase. It wouldn't be a small time thief who goes into a store and steals purses to sell that would be such a problems so much as the people who steal large amounts of goods (i.e. a crime ring that pilfers goods off of boats that import goods). Obviously someone stealing a house isn't possible, you couldn't pick it up and run away with it unless it was a mobile home, but appliances, cars, clothing, accessories etc. can all be stolen.

 

[Miranda]

Date: 7/23/2008 9:18:56 AM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 7/23/2008 12:05:49 AM
Author: Fancy605
I''m all for helping out those who can''t help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON''T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

There will always, always, always be those people. That cannot be avoided. However, for the majority, those monies are helping the right people.

Helping? Or enabling? For the most part it is enabling.

And yes, I support a consumption tax. If it replaces (some) income tax. While we''re revamping taxes...Let''s throw out withholding!

We should be writing out a big FAT check every quarter. Everyone should know exactly how much they are paying in taxes. I''m surprised by how many people think they are getting a big bunch of extra money in the form of a tax refund. Not many people get that it''s an overpayment. Ahhhhh...Here I go...

 

[Erin]

Date: 7/23/2008 8:44:51 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 7/23/2008 9:18:56 AM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 7/23/2008 12:05:49 AM
Author: Fancy605
I''m all for helping out those who can''t help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON''T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

There will always, always, always be those people. That cannot be avoided. However, for the majority, those monies are helping the right people.

Helping? Or enabling? For the most part it is enabling.

My exboyfriend''s parents split when he was nine. Now I know this must sound weird but they never got a divorce so technically 25 years later they are still married. She has all sorts of health issues and their staying married allows her to stay on his insurance policy. Who knows how she''d make it through without that. So she never worked during their marriage so her benefits allow her $600 per month. Always by her side is her daughter who contracted a special flu at the age of two which left her mentally disabled. She depends on the government for her well being. She can work about 15 hours a week at a Burger King or something similar but she cannot work with money. I think of these two and wonder what their options would be without government aid. Does it mean their burden would simply fall to my exboyfriend?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/24/2008 8:38:04 AM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 7/23/2008 8:44:51 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 7/23/2008 9:18:56 AM
Author: Starset Princess

Date: 7/23/2008 12:05:49 AM
Author: Fancy605
I'm all for helping out those who can't help themselves or who are really trying to help themselves, but those who WON'T help themselves and use charity to further their issues are part of the reason that the idea of higher taxes makes me cringe.

There will always, always, always be those people. That cannot be avoided. However, for the majority, those monies are helping the right people.

Helping? Or enabling? For the most part it is enabling.

My exboyfriend's parents split when he was nine. Now I know this must sound weird but they never got a divorce so technically 25 years later they are still married. She has all sorts of health issues and their staying married allows her to stay on his insurance policy. Who knows how she'd make it through without that. So she never worked during their marriage so her benefits allow her $600 per month. Always by her side is her daughter who contracted a special flu at the age of two which left her mentally disabled. She depends on the government for her well being. She can work about 15 hours a week at a Burger King or something similar but she cannot work with money. I think of these two and wonder what their options would be without government aid. Does it mean their burden would simply fall to my exboyfriend?

I don't think anyone here is saying that people who CANNOT (vs. WON'T) be self-sustaining for various reasons (disability, health, etc.) should not be given Government assistance. The problem lies in the lack of regulatory programs to make sure the money is going to the right people. I personally don't think that anyone under 50 years old without a disability of some sort (including health) should be kept on welfare for more than a year - just MHO though. I think that many Americans have this "something for nothing" mentality that makes them believe that they are ENTITLED to and DESERVE money from the Government, even if they are not contributing to it in taxes. The parens patriae mentality needs to be abandoned IMHO. More money should be put into training programs to help people who have a marginal chance of getting a job otherwise, and towards funding state educational programs to ensure that more people graduating from high school can go to college or get decent jobs. America should aim to be a nation of SELF-sustaining individuals, not one full of people who believe they are owed something from others who have worked hard to achieve success, including the middle class.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 7/23/2008 11:13:47 AM
Author: KimberlyH
The issue with school vouchers is that parents who are vested in their childrens'' education will take the time to enroll their child in the best school for him/her/them while those who face language barriers, are illiterate, can''t/won''t provide the transportation necessary to attend the school that is further away, or simply don''t care, won''t do so, which means the cycle is perpetuated as their children, who are typically the ones who need the most help, will end up in the same poor schools the voucher system would be trying to eradicate. Also, the seperation of church and state becomes a huge issue with a voucher system, if it includes religious based schools, as the money follows the student and that means gov''t funds are going to support religious enterprises.

Correct me if I''m wrong, but do you think that if school vouchers existed that marginal schools would be forced to increase their standards to "keep up" with the better schools? That would make the education system somewhat of a capitalist model, with competition driving up quality while trying to keep costs low? Bad schools nowadays have little incentive to improve, and often face no consequences for turning out poorly unqualified graduates year after year. Also, in D.C.''s school voucher program, only low-income students are given vouchers to attend private schools with higher academic standings. I know the D.C. program needs to be reformed (i.e. written non-discrimination prohibitions against students who are not religious but are attending parochial schools, standards to prove that private schools actually have higher performance scores, etc.), but I think that it''s a start. When I was in school my parents were not high income by any means but I don''t know if they would''ve qualified as "low-income." It just seems wholly unfair that my parents had to pay my tuition and taxes for other people''s children...almost a penalty for being a certain religion and wanting your children to go to schools that implement that religion in education...but I guess "Life''s not fair."

As for the separation of church and state, I understand that some overlapping would occur...would there be a way to eliminate the portion of taxes that go to the public schools completely for parents of children in parochial schools? That wouldn''t involve any government money going to religious institutions (many of whom do not operate on a budget), and parents would simply be able to choose where their money went.