How is that a strange concept?
When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?
When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?
It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.
Families get a lot of financial breaks in our society, not just education. The IRS certainly gives families a break. Practically everywhere you go, you see half price for kids, kids eat free, half price to families. Apply for just about any social service and families get a break.
I don't see that very much, but even if you did, they still pay more than a single person or couple.
The point is, the more you use a product or service, the more you pay except when it comes to education where you may pay the most for not using the service at all, or may even pay the least for using the service the most.
Thus far, nobody has been able to explain how that concept is fair.
If nobody else has been able to explain the concept of taxes for public education as being fair, I doubt I can but I will get it try.
Let's take a hypothetical example. Mr. Jones, wife and 4 kids live in your town, and rent a small cottage. He sends all 4 kids to public school to get an education because he is required by law to do so. Thru sales taxes he pays part but not all of the cost for education of the kids.
What does Mr Jones get for the money he paid in sales taxes to educate the kids. Absolutely nothing. So if the parents themselves get nothing tangible, why should they be expected to pay the full cost of an education mandated by the state when others are the major beneficiaries of that education. So if Mr. Jones is not the primary beneficiary, who is?
Businesses who will have an educated trained work force which allows them to make money and thus pay taxes which provides not just education for young people but all kinds of services that benefit the community.
Mr Jones's kids will be able to get a job or go to college and contribute to the community, paying taxes and producing goods and services in lieu of being dependent on the community as they most likely would be without education.
Property owners like you have enjoyed a big appreciation of their property value over the years, in large part due to the education of the young who are contributing to the community rather than being dependent on the community.
You are correct on one thing, that made no sense whatsoever.
Our schools are funded by property tax. The sales tax we pay go for other things; something else I'm against, but perhaps a discussion for another time.
What happened where I live is the exact opposite. The schools brought property values down.....way down.
When the neighborhood started to go downhill, the first good people to move out were those with children. People were wiling to stick around and put up a fight, but they would not sacrifice the safety of their children in our public school. That left them with two choices: send their children to private school which most couldn't afford, or use that money to just move to a better area with safer schools.
All this wonderful stuff about kids being able to grow up and work is fine, but what does that have to do with me paying for it? When I think of the tens of thousands of dollars I was forced to give to the school, let me tell you, I don't see that return you speak of.
This entire premise (excuse) about me paying for the education of other people's kids is ridiculous; as if I were not contributing, nobody would get an education.
As time went on, we relieved parents of THEIR responsibility to educate their children and put that responsibility on the community. And if it's not bad enough I pay for your kid to go to school, couldn't you at least get them there? Of course not, so I have to pay for their transportation as well.
I'm sick of paying for other people's kids. I didn't have them--you had them.
