newfangle
hates you.
Yes I know I can send my child to a private school. Why should I have to continue to pay for public?
Do You Support State Sponsered, Mandatory Education?
- Thread starter newfangle
- Start date
bobgote
Trousers
hehe
well I sure as hell didn't want to say it!
I would have been savaged from all sides for being anti-American
Did you even read what I said about home schooling? Sure you can end up with a good education, but the majority of home schooled kids i've seen have NO IDEA how to interact with children their own age. It is because of this that I don't like it. (Or if you do have this, then they need another valid way of spending a fair amout of time with other kids).
It was my parents' decision, not mine to make. They actually forced me to go to the private school, however i don't regret going there now. What I am saying is that there has to be public education, and it has to be mandatory (at least to a certain age). My brother dropped out of school when he was 15. he didn't like it, but at least he has a basic education. An education is in all cases better than no education. It is (unfortunately) a fact in our capitalist nations that paying extra money will get you better quality care than relying on government funded services.
*wonders how communism got into it...*
firstly - did you have to spend that long in the education system?
and otherwise - i have already mentioned my reservations as regards to homeschooling, as well as the fact that parents would have to virtually give up working a normal job. (although i think parents these days are far too much 'hands off' in the raising of their children).
state schooling serves as a default. for many people this is the only education that they can possibly receive - not everyone can afford private education for their kids. not everyone has the time or the ability to home school their kids.
inadequacies with the system are reasons that the system needs to be fixed or overhauled, not that the system shouldn't exist at all! What happens to the kids that don't go to school?
It appears your point is that when sending your kids to a private school, you resent paying tax to support other people's children getting an education. If this is the case then this whole debate goes back to the old socialism vs. capitalism and isn't really related to education in particular at all.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
there are to many screw-ups in my school who ruin everyones elses chance of getting an education. i'd make a special school for unmotivated people. if you are just plain dumb but would like an education, then you go to the normal school. if you don't give a f***, then you learn how to unclog toilets and flip burgers at the special school, no matter how intelligent you are.
Sims2789
Fool me once...
i voted no because we don't have the kind of money to run the special school. instead, we should encourage the unmotivated people to either:
a. preferably get motivated
or
b. drop out
that way, you don't have some a**hole with no respect for authority mouthing off at the teacher, then telling YOU to be quiet when you tell them to quit messing with the teacher.
a. preferably get motivated
or
b. drop out
that way, you don't have some a**hole with no respect for authority mouthing off at the teacher, then telling YOU to be quiet when you tell them to quit messing with the teacher.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Again this void argument
I don't need police force for the town 200 kilometers away, why should I need to pay for ?
I don't need the tribunals for the city in the north, why should I need to pay for ?
If I don't have a car, why should I pay for road ?
It's the difference between a SOCIETY, as a construct encompassing all its citizen, and a COMPANY which just sell products to the ones that want to buy them and that can afford them.
Of course, it annoyes self-centered people who resent to not pay for only the part they use
(though they don't really mind to be protected by police and justice that EVERYONE fund, or to be cured in healthcare that EVERYONE fund, or to use roads that EVERYONE fund...
jack merchant
Internationalist
As I pointed out on the first page, you benefit from other people's being educated too - adress those points, would you ?
It would probably be better if each city paid for everything in thAt city rather than every other city.Originally posted by Akka
Again this void argument
I don't need police force for the town 200 kilometers away, why should I need to pay for ?
I don't need the tribunals for the city in the north, why should I need to pay for ?
If I don't have a car, why should I pay for road ?
It's the difference between a SOCIETY, as a construct encompassing all its citizen, and a COMPANY which just sell products to the ones that want to buy them and that can afford them.
Of course, it annoyes self-centered people who resent to not pay for only the part they use
Akka
Moody old mage.
Yeah, back to the city-states of ancient Greece, hu ?
Sorry, I'm part of a COUNTRY, not just from a CITY.
Wherever I go in my country, I'm protected by police, justice, healthcare.
Wherever I go in my country, I can enjoy my basic rights, I can use the transportation system, I am subject to the same laws.
Wherever I am in my country, I vote for the same NATIONAL government, though I can ALSO vote for my LOCAL administration.
Wherever I am in my country, my children will have the right to access good education, will be taken in charge if the rest of my family is wiped out in an accident, will have their rights protected by the whole system.
I don't have to live in a city and to pay taxes in this city to use roads, hospitals, metro, to be protected by police, to be able to have judiciary help in case I need it.
Bleh, I've had enough of narrow communautarism and people who just wish to find excuse to pay the less possible. You are all part of society, and have your rights and possessions protected by it. You can be safe and you can store safely your precious money because OTHERS pay for YOUR safety.
NB : this rant is not targeted just at you, Elden, but rather at the whole "I just wish to pay for public services I use, and the hell with the rest of society".
Akka
Moody old mage.
Perhaps you should read my previous post past the two first lines.
You still would be, to different degrees
Basic rights and law would be standardised. Transport system, you get what you pay for.
You would still vote nationally and locally. Basic rights would be standardised as would payments to the deceased family.
The roads, hospitals and police would be paid for locally. Judiciary assistance by your city.
I'm not a communist.
If you can pay less and get virtually the same level of service that would benefit everyone.
You still would.
Your city would pay for your cities safety, it would work out to better service, less cost and less moaning on both sides of the arguement.
WickedSmurf
pr0
Yeah sure, why not.
bobgote
Trousers
you wouldn't pay less, you'd pay the same. It'd just go to a different place.
The system you describe would probably cost more in taxes because you have to support a whole bureaucratic system for just your city. It'd be quite chaotic to have different systems for different regions of a nation.
jpowers
Emperor
I pay taxes each year to lock up criminals that steal cars. No one stole my car. Why should I pay?
I pay taxes each year to subsidize tobacco farmers. I don't smoke. Why should I pay?
I pay taxes each year to kill Iraqis. I don't really want this service, but the government provides it anyway. Why should I pay?
Akka
Moody old mage.
You are aware that this "standardisation" is precisely the point of a NATIONAL government that pay for NATIONAL infrastructure ?
You are aware that the ONLY change you propose here is just to add several layers of bureaucracy and waste, lack of coordination, and overall a more inefficient system that would offer the same services for a higher cost ?
Additionnally, some areas are just wealthier than others. Which means that some won't have the money to pay for the infrastructure. So the standardisation goes through the windows.
Inefficient, more expensive, and not working. Great plan you have.
Road is a transport system. If you wish to make people pay for using road, you have to put taxes on fuel, cars, bikes and so on. Still, people walking would use roads and not pay for it - which is quite against your idea of "you use it, you pay for it, isn't it ? -.
Or you could just say that everyone benefit of roads and then incorporate the cost of maintenance into taxes - which is actually just the case in real life.
Additionnally, I think you don't realize what would be the cost of public transports if they were not subventionned.
It would be much more expensive, so many less people would use them, so they would need to be even more expensive, etc., etc., until they simply cease to exist and there is only personnal transportation, which kinda defeat the purpose of "public transportation" - and which mean that plenty people that don't have the money will be left out with no means of transport.
Great idea.
What's the purpose of a national government if it has no power, no money, no administration ?
Oh, ok, so if I wish the police to protect me when I'm under attack, I'll have to pay for this ? Sounds like mafia for me.
Or you mean that the local-paid police will protect me ? You mean, a police force that would be paid locally, so would be at the mercy of the wealthier people in the vicinity as they are the ones who fund the police ?
And anyway, if I'm protected by a police force I did not paid for, then it's against your principle of "you paid what you use". People of the city don't use the protection for ME, so why should they pay for it ?
This argument just does not stand.
Communautarism does not mean communism. In fact, it's even quite the opposite in several cases.
The thing is : not only you won't pay less, but you'll also have a lower level of services. Hardly a good deal.
No.
If I don't pay for the services of the whole country, if I just pay for my own city, if I'm concerned just by my own city, I'm no more a member of the whole society, I'm a member of a smaller society which is my single city.
jpowers
Emperor
That depends if you analyze the form or the content. All three are absurd questions since I agree to live in the US, abide by its laws, render unto W what is W's, and participate in political elections that are for the most part not completely rigged. Individual citizens do not and should not have 'line-item veto' power over government expenditure of tax dollars, even if most of what the government spends their money on seems ludicrous. Move to Sudan for a totally hands-off government. It's what bin-Laden did.
thats the funniest and most innacurate thing I've heard today
and why not, if the government is spending money on unjustifiable war and drugs then why should they be payed to continue being *******s?
1) The life expectancy of a Catholic in an extremist muslim country would discourage me from doing so
2) I don't appreciate being compared to bin-Laden, it is most insulting and unnaceptable.
jack merchant
Internationalist
You aren't being compared to Bin Laden, the point is a totally hands-off government is exactly what allows the Bin Ladens of this world to thrive.
Anyway, as Akka and jpowers already pointed out, the whole notion of being able to pick and choose from public services in a world full of public goods, externalities and market failures is ludicrous.
Anyway, as Akka and jpowers already pointed out, the whole notion of being able to pick and choose from public services in a world full of public goods, externalities and market failures is ludicrous.
Similar threads
