wmw999 2,589 #26 May 28, 2003 QuoteDan'l, the flip side of this is that education of children benefits all of the citizens, therefore at least some amount of money -should- go to education even from folks that have no children of their own Couldn't agree with you more. And it's more in the public interest to have as many educated citizens as possible than it is in the individual parents' sometimes, so yes, it's a public duty. Some parents shouldn't be able to breed. Since they can, the common future is better served by making sure that at least a best effort is made to have a common set of knowledge. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Danl 0 #27 May 28, 2003 Paul, I respectfully disagree. Although you benefit from other people being educated, you should not be forced to pay for it. It simply does not follow. Should the existence of the benefit inspire you to voluntarily contribute, I'll lead the applause. Dan'l Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #28 May 28, 2003 QuoteQuoteHow much of my money do you think I should have to pay to educate someone else's child? It's a tough question to be sure, with no simple solution. Quote Easy question. Zero. Government-run school teacher opinions notwithstanding. Dan'l So, what happened to the idiom that Hillary Clinton coined, then? "It takes a village"? Huh? ltdiver btw, my parents paid their taxes for public schools for other children, -plus- paid for private school for myself and my 3 older sisters. We lived -very- cheaply but had all our needs met. And, when we were old enough to have a job ourselves, we did. That money went towards our education as well. Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #29 May 28, 2003 QuoteAlthough you benefit from other people being educated, you should not be forced to pay for it. How far do you carry this. You live in California. Your road tax dollars go towards all of the roads, not just the ones you use. Your insurance/HMO dollars go to a giant pot that's used by more than just you. But you're welcome to pay for all of your own medical care out of your pocket. You're not forced to pay for their choice of private schooling (unless, of course, the vouchers plan comes to be). You are forced to invest in the public good of an educated citizenry. Ardent pacifists are forced to pay for the armed forces, too. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rmsmith 1 #30 May 29, 2003 QuoteI would have been a lot more happy if the feds would have given that money over to the states for k-12 education purposes. The school administrators would just use the money for new offices in the hills where they could look down on everyone, or new cars to carry their obesity in comfort. Kids get ahead when their parents spend quality time with them. I know this from experience having two kids in the public school system where it is easy to spot the kids that get little attention at home. Unfortunately, they just fall further behind year after year despite an alphabet soup of costly acronym programs. Taxpayers should only have to pay for programs that produce quantifiable results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #31 May 29, 2003 Couple of observations. Like Ltdiver, I was privately schooled through 6th grade, and my brother was privately schooled through HS graduation. My parents paid their taxes, too. Not being a parent, I think that if the parents choose to spend the money on themselves - for once putting themselves first - as long as the children's needs are met, then who cares if it goes to jump money or a nice weekend for two away? I suspect that there are a lot of parents who work very hard and make sure their children's needs (and often "wants", like cel phones, pagers, and other non-essential "toys") are addressed prior to their own needs and wants. Further, Wendy makes a good point about a larger apartment, better car, etc. which is a "general family benefit" rather than a specific child benefit. Lastly, I was reading at 4, my brother was reading at 4, and my nephew is just starting to read - and he's just 4. My niece, 2 1/2, can count and uderstands numbers and groupings - it's not just recitation of a sequence - and can identify her alphabet letters and sing the song. There is a significant issue in effective parenting and time spent with primary teachers - parents - which is directly related to the ability of a child to learn higher information and logic skills. And the budget is in such turmoil with such lack of oversight and no accountability here in CA that there is a serious issue with giving it to the state for the state school funds, not to mention the local school boards' inability to fund the schools in a proper way - even when the till is flush. And lest anyone think I am bagging on teachers - I most certainly am not...it's the administration I have issues with. Why do you think home schooling has become so popular in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties? Because the system is shot. Anyway, just my .02... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #32 May 29, 2003 >Although you benefit from other people being educated, you should not >be forced to pay for it. It simply does not follow. We as a society place a much greater premium on the welfare of minors than on the welfare of adults. This, I think, is the way it should be. There are more rules against minors using tobacco, alcohol, and working in dangerous jobs. There are more requirements on the use of safety devices for their protection. In most states we spend more money on health care for children than for adults, and we definitely spend more money on their education. I am very glad that I live in a country where we spend a lot of effort in making sure children get the best shot they can at a long life, good health, and success. There is almost nothing that's more important than that - and there is no better investment in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MC208B 0 #33 May 29, 2003 Hi Bill, I have two kids that will get me the 400 bucks each. I'm going to enjoy spending the 800 bucks I'll be receiving soon, as I see fit. I live in Vancouver, WA and I fully support the schools here, have never voted against a property tax increase (yes, I am buying my home, not a renter) to benefit the Vancouver school district. Near as I can figure, the problems with money for education go far beyond the costs of education alone. The government (all of it from city hall to DC) waste enormous amounts of money. So, if they want to throw a bit of my taxes paid back to me, great! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #34 May 29, 2003 Paul, I generally agree with you, and I'm one of the folks that will be getting the check. Along with being "for the kids", the tax cut is being pushed through as being "for the economy". When our check comes, it will be put toward Lucy's best interests, whether directly or indirectly. Most likely, it will go straight into her 529 (college savings) plan. 100% benefit to her. The benefit to the economy will be zero for the next 18 years. Truthfully, I don't think the tax cut is intended to be for the children or for the economy. It's purpose is "for re-election", plain and simple. Reducing taxes at a period of record spending makes no fiscal sense. But this is veering off into another topic entirely. Lets just say that I am against the tax credit/refund, but when it comes, I'll put my share to good use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymama 37 #35 May 29, 2003 Late July/early August? Well, that means the soccer team will be paid for the year for my son, my daughter can get contacts as she goes off the high school and if there's anything left it will probably be spent on school clothes and supplies. That'll about take care of it all. Boy, that was a quick $800. She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man, because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #36 May 29, 2003 How do you feel about PBS programs like Reading Rainbow?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Pammi 0 #37 May 29, 2003 Paul, I understand where you're coming from but parent's are going to be spending money on their kids regardless of whether or not they get a tax credit. Does it really matter if THAT $400 goes to the kids, or the $400 out of the paycheck? Personally, I see it as a relief since I'm going to be spending $400 a month per kid for day care this summer anyways... Ditto. It means that I might be able to start putting a rig back together after selling mine to pay for daycare, kids' glasses, POS car, and hopefully some summer fun for them, etc. As long as people aren't neglecting their kids' needs, it all goes into the same pot and all comes out of the same pot with the kids getting the first helping. If that means the pot's empty when the parents get to it, so be it. The $400 will just help keep the pot sustained a bit longer. QuoteThis is a welcome relief to me. Almost everything my wife and I make goes to the kids. This gives us a chance to spend a little on us for once. Exactly. Pammi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #29 May 28, 2003 QuoteAlthough you benefit from other people being educated, you should not be forced to pay for it. How far do you carry this. You live in California. Your road tax dollars go towards all of the roads, not just the ones you use. Your insurance/HMO dollars go to a giant pot that's used by more than just you. But you're welcome to pay for all of your own medical care out of your pocket. You're not forced to pay for their choice of private schooling (unless, of course, the vouchers plan comes to be). You are forced to invest in the public good of an educated citizenry. Ardent pacifists are forced to pay for the armed forces, too. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #30 May 29, 2003 QuoteI would have been a lot more happy if the feds would have given that money over to the states for k-12 education purposes. The school administrators would just use the money for new offices in the hills where they could look down on everyone, or new cars to carry their obesity in comfort. Kids get ahead when their parents spend quality time with them. I know this from experience having two kids in the public school system where it is easy to spot the kids that get little attention at home. Unfortunately, they just fall further behind year after year despite an alphabet soup of costly acronym programs. Taxpayers should only have to pay for programs that produce quantifiable results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #31 May 29, 2003 Couple of observations. Like Ltdiver, I was privately schooled through 6th grade, and my brother was privately schooled through HS graduation. My parents paid their taxes, too. Not being a parent, I think that if the parents choose to spend the money on themselves - for once putting themselves first - as long as the children's needs are met, then who cares if it goes to jump money or a nice weekend for two away? I suspect that there are a lot of parents who work very hard and make sure their children's needs (and often "wants", like cel phones, pagers, and other non-essential "toys") are addressed prior to their own needs and wants. Further, Wendy makes a good point about a larger apartment, better car, etc. which is a "general family benefit" rather than a specific child benefit. Lastly, I was reading at 4, my brother was reading at 4, and my nephew is just starting to read - and he's just 4. My niece, 2 1/2, can count and uderstands numbers and groupings - it's not just recitation of a sequence - and can identify her alphabet letters and sing the song. There is a significant issue in effective parenting and time spent with primary teachers - parents - which is directly related to the ability of a child to learn higher information and logic skills. And the budget is in such turmoil with such lack of oversight and no accountability here in CA that there is a serious issue with giving it to the state for the state school funds, not to mention the local school boards' inability to fund the schools in a proper way - even when the till is flush. And lest anyone think I am bagging on teachers - I most certainly am not...it's the administration I have issues with. Why do you think home schooling has become so popular in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties? Because the system is shot. Anyway, just my .02... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #32 May 29, 2003 >Although you benefit from other people being educated, you should not >be forced to pay for it. It simply does not follow. We as a society place a much greater premium on the welfare of minors than on the welfare of adults. This, I think, is the way it should be. There are more rules against minors using tobacco, alcohol, and working in dangerous jobs. There are more requirements on the use of safety devices for their protection. In most states we spend more money on health care for children than for adults, and we definitely spend more money on their education. I am very glad that I live in a country where we spend a lot of effort in making sure children get the best shot they can at a long life, good health, and success. There is almost nothing that's more important than that - and there is no better investment in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #33 May 29, 2003 Hi Bill, I have two kids that will get me the 400 bucks each. I'm going to enjoy spending the 800 bucks I'll be receiving soon, as I see fit. I live in Vancouver, WA and I fully support the schools here, have never voted against a property tax increase (yes, I am buying my home, not a renter) to benefit the Vancouver school district. Near as I can figure, the problems with money for education go far beyond the costs of education alone. The government (all of it from city hall to DC) waste enormous amounts of money. So, if they want to throw a bit of my taxes paid back to me, great! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #34 May 29, 2003 Paul, I generally agree with you, and I'm one of the folks that will be getting the check. Along with being "for the kids", the tax cut is being pushed through as being "for the economy". When our check comes, it will be put toward Lucy's best interests, whether directly or indirectly. Most likely, it will go straight into her 529 (college savings) plan. 100% benefit to her. The benefit to the economy will be zero for the next 18 years. Truthfully, I don't think the tax cut is intended to be for the children or for the economy. It's purpose is "for re-election", plain and simple. Reducing taxes at a period of record spending makes no fiscal sense. But this is veering off into another topic entirely. Lets just say that I am against the tax credit/refund, but when it comes, I'll put my share to good use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymama 37 #35 May 29, 2003 Late July/early August? Well, that means the soccer team will be paid for the year for my son, my daughter can get contacts as she goes off the high school and if there's anything left it will probably be spent on school clothes and supplies. That'll about take care of it all. Boy, that was a quick $800. She is Da Man, and you better not mess with Da Man, because she will lay some keepdown on you faster than, well, really fast. ~Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 May 29, 2003 How do you feel about PBS programs like Reading Rainbow?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pammi 0 #37 May 29, 2003 Paul, I understand where you're coming from but parent's are going to be spending money on their kids regardless of whether or not they get a tax credit. Does it really matter if THAT $400 goes to the kids, or the $400 out of the paycheck? Personally, I see it as a relief since I'm going to be spending $400 a month per kid for day care this summer anyways... Ditto. It means that I might be able to start putting a rig back together after selling mine to pay for daycare, kids' glasses, POS car, and hopefully some summer fun for them, etc. As long as people aren't neglecting their kids' needs, it all goes into the same pot and all comes out of the same pot with the kids getting the first helping. If that means the pot's empty when the parents get to it, so be it. The $400 will just help keep the pot sustained a bit longer. QuoteThis is a welcome relief to me. Almost everything my wife and I make goes to the kids. This gives us a chance to spend a little on us for once. Exactly. Pammi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TequilaGirl 0 #38 May 29, 2003 And in the mean time - let's screw the single people out of as much as possible to help pay for everyones kids..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #39 May 29, 2003 HI, quade. I really am not familiar with PBS's children's programs, except that they depend on private donations. If a family wants to send it's check to them, so be it....as it is privately funded, it would be dependent on generosity from people (not the government) to promulgate it and get it handled. And as a point of reference, there really aren't too many shows which stay on the air for 20 years, commercial or private. Kudos to them. As to the quality and/or success of the show I cannot speak, as I do not have children who have used/watched it. It's sound in it's premise, but again, I can't comment further about that. I would not be happy to see it off the air, as it seems to be helpful to children, but I also think it's mixing apples and oranges because of the private v. public funding. If you are asking about my early reading experiences, it came from severe limiting of television and lots of exposure to parents reading to me. I know the same occurred with my niece and nephew, as not only do their parents have a reading time with them, their babysitters do, as well...I know this, I am the primary babysitter (LOL)...and we read and play and count a lot! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Danl 0 #40 May 29, 2003 Quote We as a society place a much greater premium on the welfare of minors than on the welfare of adults. This, I think, is the way it should be. There are more rules against minors using tobacco, alcohol, and working in dangerous jobs. There are more requirements on the use of safety devices for their protection. In most states we spend more money on health care for children than for adults, and we definitely spend more money on their education. I am very glad that I live in a country where we spend a lot of effort in making sure children get the best shot they can at a long life, good health, and success. There is almost nothing that's more important than that - and there is no better investment in the future. Nice speech! If you ever run for office, I'm sure you'll win. As for me, I don't believe any statement of the form "We as a society...". Anyway, I'm glad I didn't completely kill the thread. Dan'l Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #41 May 29, 2003 >Nice speech! If you ever run for office, I'm sure you'll win. Right . . . and that will happen shortly after hell freezes over. >As for me, I don't believe any statement of the form "We as a society...". We do a lot of stuff as a society. We like football, so we watch it. This has the effect of generating salaries for football players in the tens of millions. This doesn't happen in a vacuum; there's no secret mafia threatening death to any team that pays their players less than a million a year. They get it because we, as a society, support the sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #42 May 29, 2003 as a side note, I read in the paper this AM that the $400 is an advance on next years child tax credit, just like the advance 2 years ago. Interestingly enough, the article also mentioned that the tax cut would not really be noticed until next year when people file their income taxes and have to pay lessI promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #43 May 29, 2003 QuoteOTOH, to anyone who goes out and has a really great party for all your friends with the money, YOU SUCK. What!!!!!! Who earned that money? Who has raised the kids all year. Who should decide where the money goes. Not you, not the gov't but the person the tax money was return to. As you know because you have rug rat(s) the $400 was spent long before this time in the year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #44 May 29, 2003 QuoteAnd in the mean time - let's screw the single people out of as much as possible to help pay for everyones kids..... It's called "government." No matter what you do, you are going to "screw people out of money." My uncle rarely drives (he always rides his bike wherever he goes.) He's getting screwed out of having to pay for construction on roads that he doesn't use. That's the beauty of our government...we discovered that if we all pitch in, even when it's not for our sole benefit, we're all much better off. When I jumped on a public airport, I was certainly glad that people who weren't using it were paying for it (I think maybe 10 other people besides the jumpers actually used it.) I guess I see this $400 as the government recognizing that parents may be "double paying" for their child's education. In my state, even though everybody chips in for education, parents still have to spend money on books/tuition/etc for grades K-college. Congrats on getting money, Pammi! I like money, too!There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeremyneas 0 #45 May 29, 2003 OMG, i know all of you haven't taken economics. but doesn't this ring a bell to those who did? C + I + G + Nx = GDP democrates like to push G while republicans like to push C, hence this is why we have tax cuts from republicans Ok, here's the plain and juicey: Give money to people. Can't give it to all. Give money to the people that will mostlikely blow it, and NOT invest it. OK give it to the people with children. They need more crap, single people will MOST LIKELY invest it. OK, I got my $400, what to do? Need gas. Buy gas. Is gas taxed?!? Guy who ownes gas station, needs to replenish his gas and the snickers you bought. Does that get taxed also? What about the guy that pumped it? Does he get a paycheck becuase you brought more business? Doesn't his paycheck get taxed? Look more people need gas, gotta hire more people. Isn't there more taxes there? Don't i have to hire more people for to meet the demand? OK so C (Consumer Spending, 60% of entire GDP) goes UP UP UP And more people are employed...oh yeah and since they are employed they get to buy crap too. Is that taxed? And the government gets many moneys back in taxes in the end. THIS IS GOOD FOR ECONOMY! GDP goes up therefore standard of living in USA goes up. Happy days. Jeremy Neas Later I'll talk about the democratic plan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #46 May 29, 2003 >THIS IS GOOD FOR ECONOMY! If it worked like you said it would, I would agree. However, most of this tax cut is going to the rich, on the theory that if the rich are richer they will hire more people, give money to charity, buy more companies etc. Unfortunately, they are the people LEAST likely to "need crap." Warren Buffett will get a $310 million tax cut as a result of the Bush tax plan; families making under $26,000 will not even receive the $400 per child thing. Who is more likely to run out and buy gas for their Chevy that they wouldn't otherwise - Warren Buffet or that family making $25K a year? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #47 May 29, 2003 And who is more likely to give a welfare recipient a job? ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #48 May 29, 2003 >And who is more likely to give a welfare recipient a job? Neither one. Poor families don't usually hire people; Warren Buffet does not get $310 million in tax breaks from the government and figure "Well, I will now hire a hundred people I don't need!" If he did things like that, he wouldn't _be_ rich to begin with. However, if those poor families can now afford to pay into a 401k, and one of the funds is managed by Buffet's people, he may just hire a few people to take care of the new demand. That way he makes more money and the formerly-poor people now have invested retirement savings, easing the burden on social security (which is now pretty much doomed.) Everyone wins. The theory that if you make rich people richer they will give poor people money and jobs was disproven a long time ago. There's a reason it was called "voodoo economics." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #49 May 29, 2003 Lets see how much taxes did that family making $26,000 pay to start with. The poor do not get included in tax cuts because they are not paying those taxes to start with. I just had a conversation with a 39yo and his wife with a new 3month old. He wants her to stays at home and take care of the baby. And he wants to work only part time, under the table, because he does not want to lose his Oregon health benefits, child assistance, and other welfare. Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #50 May 29, 2003 The ironic thing is that Warren Buffet agrees with you, despite the fact that he will pocket a lot of money from the change. He can explain until he is blue in the face why the plan makes no sense, but when money arrives in his mailbox, he won't turn it down. He's no dummy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
