3 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      
Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Progressive Property Tax?

by: Hopeful

Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:36:15 PM EST



Chris Robertson at Warren Reports, inspired by his state's property tax problem, makes a simple proposal:


As far as I can tell, nobody is talking about what may be the simplest and fairest solution, which also encourages individual home ownership: a progressive property tax system.

The concept of a progressive property tax is simple, and just like income tax. The more income you make pushes you into a higher tax bracket. For property taxes, we could likewise set brackets in terms of the owner's income.

Alternatively, the brackets could be set in terms of the assessed valuation of your property or the total square footage of your property, both in comparison with the the median property in your state or town. By pegging it to the median, rather than an arbitrary number, we protect against the general increase in property values over time.

What do you think of these proposals?  I tend to think the biggest problem with property taxes is relying on them as the main source of school funding, and secondly, the poor structure of New Jersey government.  But given existing tax levels, would income or property brackets be fairer?  With the income test portion of the new 'credit' program, we have a small step in this direction.
Hopeful :: Progressive Property Tax?
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Progressive Property Tax? | 78 comments
Issues (3.00 / 1)
That's fine for individuals who own houses. 

But how does this apply to corporations that own property?

And to multiple ownerships?

And it allows people who make a good income but live rent-free in someone else's house (24 yo living with Mom and Dad, etc.) to skip out without paying anything.

It also allows people who live in non-profit housing -- colleges, nuns, etc. -- to not pay taxes.

The final issue I have with it is you are basing a property value tax on a progressive income rate.  Why not just do it by income tax instead of adding complexity.

It's a Great General Principle..But Not a Specific... (4.00 / 1)
...set of fleshed out policy proposals as Huntsu points out off the top.

I suspect that, over the years, all of us have at one time or another thought about how regressive property taxes are.

The fact that some little old lady living on a pension pays the same property tax rate as a millionaire does on a vacation home "down the shore" is an obscenity (yes, I know...she get some rebates and credits but those are relatively miniscule).

Let me try to address some of the excellent issues raised above:

But how does this apply to corporations that own property?

Even corporations can be progressively taxed.  The mom and pop restaurant that is struggling shouldn't pay the same rate as a corporate headquarters that is having a bang up year.  Formulas can be developed that factor in the variables in a way consistent with a generally progressive framework.  Yes, done wrongly, it could be cumbersome and unfair.  Done right, it would be fair and clear cut.

And to multiple ownerships?

Some kind of averaging formula could be determined to tax the individual owners based on their overall income.  Obviously this would create incentives for property to be owned by low income people...but would that be a bad thing?

And it allows people who make a good income but live rent-free in someone else's house (24 yo living with Mom and Dad, etc.) to skip out without paying anything.

One could include the total income of the household in the formula that determines the taxrate...obviously; to avoid a situation where a rich kid is freeloading of of pliable poor grandparents in this situation...there could be a linkage to the kids income taxes and then, if the home owners really are poor...they would pay no taxes and if this hypothetical rich freeloader made really big bucks, his assessment would, in part, be rebated to the poor grandparents.

It also allows people who live in non-profit housing -- colleges, nuns, etc. -- to not pay taxes.

So?  If the non profit is truly a nonprofit doing work that is beneficial to society then some one living there who also is low income shouldn't have to pay this tax.  If the CEO of the cancer society who earns 286k a year has a rent free home on "company property" that's another story.

The final issue I have with it is you are basing a property value tax on a progressive income rate.  Why not just do it by income tax instead of adding complexity.

Yup.  Whatever tax "schemes" we come up with to make things truly fair/progressive will be torn apart in legislatures that are, pretty much, bought and paid for by folks who have lots of cash to spread around and want to maximize that reality by paying as few taxes as possible.

Let us not forget that the rich have armies of tax layers and accountants to find or (through "lobbying") CREATE all manner of targeted loopholes.

So long as the people who write our laws feel more beholden to their campaign contributors (and or the interest that is going to make them rich after they leave office) than they are to the actual human beings who are their constituents; there will be no really major changes.

Until we find a way to really take the corrosive corrupting cash out politics we are just playing a game of "wack a mole" with the rich and powerful who laugh at the poor and/or idealistic progressives who dream up progressive policies.

Until the grassroots of the Democratic party actually make policy, and become the Party establishment,  there can only be incremental sporadic unreliable change for the better. http://www.dorneypar...

[ Parent ]
thank you both (3.00 / 1)
for the great comments.  I have the sense the system would work very badly when it comes to companies -- I bet the small business owners will get hammered as 'high income' while the big corporations play accounting games or buy off lobby politicians.  And increasing the complexity of taxes will surely increase resentment among the middle class. 

It would be better to invest the huge amount of energy required into a more meaningful reform of our government. 



I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

[ Parent ]
re: Collective Income (3.00 / 1)
Doing collective income for a property as you suggested in answer to the problem of a high income earner living in someone else's house would be even more problematic.

First, you have the privacy issues related to requiring someone to say who is living in their home.  Right now you can file your income taxes with a PO Box if you want, and requiring identification of living arrangements smacks of Big Brotherhood to me.

Second, it risks raising the rate a person with a low income pays based on high earners in the house, or lowering the rate a high income earner pays based on who else lives in the house.  How do you differentiate between a 25 year old man going to college and living with his parents from a 25 year old woman making $55,000 a year as a banker living with slacker friends?

And here's a new issue I didn't think of last night: basing property tax revenue on income levels puts actual tax receipts  on a pretty uneven level.  Today property tax revenue is set before the rate paid is determined, so the municipality/school/whatever knows how much it will make ahead of time.  It adds more time to a process that is four steps now.

Today: 1) determine property values; 2) determine $$s needed by governing entity; 3) set rate based on total property values/$$s needed; 4) bill each property individual $$ amounts based on rate * individual property value; 5) collect taxes.

Under a system basing property taxes on a rate from income, you are adding ANOTHER step in there.  Once the general rate in step three is determined you have to then set an individual rate for each property based on income.

It just seems unweildy to me.

[ Parent ]
The problem is... (3.00 / 1)
that so much funding of public schools and public services at the municipal and county level comes from property taxes.  If we had a truly progressive income tax, and if corporations were appropriately taxed on a progressive basis, we could end our over-reliance on property taxes.

A progressive income tax could be keyed to the federal income tax, which also needs to be made really progressive--as it used to be before Reagan and Bush got hold of it and gave all those tax breaks to the richest people in the country and the big corporations.

Additionally, NJ's "farmland exemption" should be revisited.  Real farmers--that is, people who actually farm--are very different from people like Christine Todd Whitman, whose "farmland exemption" is derived from the fact that once a year she sells a cord of wood to her brother-in-law. (I don't know what her situation is now, but that used to be the case.  Really.)

 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

Of course if we had an actual progressive tax system (4.00 / 1)
Then we would be worrying about property taxes? Certainly not like we are these days.

  But over 25 years tax burdens have been shifted from the wealthy to the middle class, and as federal monies were cut to states, states cut the monies going to localities.

Seems like low top rates cause recessions, note the yellow lines.

SS taxes go up, corporate rates go down, as do income tax rates

And yet GDP goes up regardless of tax rates. Its just if the tax rates are not progressive, you tax the middle & working classes out of the economy. SO they can't afford to send their kids to college. SO the country has fewer going to college, learning cool stuff & inventing even cooler stuff. Why on earth would you advocate that?

Certain people don't get it.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

Certain people don't get it... (3.00 / 1)
Like economists.
[ Parent ]
Economists (0.00 / 0)
Care to cite some?  Or are you just going to pretend you didn't understand the question?
[ Parent ]
Your charts (0.00 / 0)
Your charts show declining tax rates and growing GDP. If you had rising tax rates and growing GDP, you would have a point.
[ Parent ]
Not my charts (0.00 / 0)
How are these my charts?
[ Parent ]
You posted them, (0.00 / 0)
Right?
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Do you even know how to use this site?
[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
My mistake. I didn't see that I was not conversing with the gentleman who posted the charts. Sorry.
[ Parent ]
And what relationship do you see (0.00 / 0)
between GDP & Tax rates?

GDP goes up with some consistanty, regardless of the top rates.....

Right?

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

[ Parent ]
He has a point... (0.00 / 0)
in that the graph would be more meaningful if included revenues vs. top tax rates.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
[ Parent ]
My point is that very often tax rates have nothing (0.00 / 0)
to do with revenues. My point is that with a regressive tax system you tax the working and middle classes out of the economy.

The GDP chart makes it clear that growth of the economy has little, in fact nothing to do with the up & down of tax rates.

This chart shows fed taxes as % of GDP, not exactly what was requested, it will have to do. Even the right wing Heritage Foundation admits its so. Below you will find the Heritage Foundations chart.

the graph would be more meaningful if included revenues vs. top tax rates.

The current population of the US is 300 million people, and earlier in this century there were probably under 200 (150?) million people. SO a chart of revenues would really be worthless.

So wouldnt revenues go up over time?

Wouldn't inflation cause a similar effect.

the graph would be more meaningful if included revenues vs. top tax rates.

SO I took the opportunity to offer a chart that should be more meaningful because its shows Federal taxes as a % of GDP. What it also shows is that, again tax rates have nothing to do with revenues. Engaging more people in the economy does raise revenues. FDR used this concept to get the US out of the depression, Clinton also used the same concept to increase revenues.

Median Family income is 1.7% under the inflation rate over 25 yrs, nearly keeping up with inflation. Median individual income has gone down over 25 yrs, even if you don't count inflation.

Any more requests?

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

[ Parent ]
Interesting, but ... (3.00 / 1)
How does one perform evaluations under this plan? Locally, as today, or statewide. One assumes that since there is only one progressive property tax scheme statewide (you can't be advocating 566 of them!), assessments would also be statewide.

And thus, who then controls local budgets? If assessment and collections are done at the state level, then how does the school district raise the rate to cover a new school? Or the township, a new fire engine?

No obstacle is insurmountable -- except maybe for home rule in NJ. But I don't think this plan has more than academic interest.

It would be most excellent to put the entire state on a progressive tax plan, but I don't see it happening. It's hard enough to get re-evaluations done in a timely manner.

Separate Schools from the property tax (4.00 / 1)
I think citizens should be taxed by considering both the burden and the benefits they cause to the town.  For example, schools benefit everyone, even childless folks like me.  Why?
1) They educate the future firemen, police officers, doctors, engineers, etc that we as a society will rely on in the future.  They are an investment for everyone, not just the parents of those children.
2) Schools are the glue that hold a community together.  They draw new residents to town and encourage those folks to stay and grow roots in a town. 

So, everyone benefits from the school system, so everyone should pay into that system.  I think money should be distributed in equal measure from the state level to every child in the public school system from every taxpayer regardless of owning property or not.

Property taxes, however, should be charged to the cost that property places on the town it is in.  The larger the impact on the community, the larger the tax should be.  Charging based only on income won't work for the reasons stated in previous posts here.  Some folks have a small impact on services.  Larger properties and how they are used produce more stormwater, more garbage, more sewage, more traffic, etc.  And wealthy taxpayers often have accountants that can reduce what their income looks like on paper.  That system can be gamed.

Charging based simply on simple square footage won't work.  It is not fair to the elderly widow living on a fixed income in a tiny house on a large forested lot. Property taxes should be based on both the size and the amount that a given property is developed.  The less green space, the more that property costs the community. 

People live how their situations dictate.  When your income is reduced, you move to a smaller place.  Nobody is always rich or always poor.  Money is a matter of current circumstance.  Assessing property taxes based on the property itself rather than on the person makes sense simply because taxpayers with modest incomes don't live in huge homes they can't afford to heat and furnish.  They also don't often own huge commercial buildings either.

You could argue conversely, that a wealthy person who lives modestly and does not impact the community, could have lower property taxes.  But that's a good thing. It would encourage even the wealthy to use less resources, and think about their impact on the world.

So, I think the answer here is to provide the money for the schools from the state based on the actual number of children - taken from state taxes - from every taxpayer.  Property taxes should be assessed on both size and development. 

I firmly beleive that having the school portion thrown into the property taxes for a town is exactly what makes the current system unfair.

 

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

I agree with many of these posts (4.00 / 1)
I believe in progressive income taxes.  I believe the school funding is too tied to property taxes in this state.  I do not agree with some sort of progressive property taxes because some people with more income make a choice to live a more modest life in order to save for retirement or whatever and they should not be taxed for their 1950s ranch home at the same rate as a McMansion.  I agree that people without kids should pay into the school system (as all the other things that make society civil).  However, I am about to get very un-popular by proposing that there be a limit to tax exemptions for children.  For the first 2.5 (pick a reasonable number) there should be tax exemptions.  Beyond that, there should not be.  The more population we have, the more resources are needed.  Too much population is contributing to the demise of the planet.  And, the argument that there are not enough people to do the jobs that need to be done is bogus.  With fair wages, good training and education, there will be enough people.
End Public Education (0.00 / 1)
I like all the assumptions that we all benefit from the education of other peoples children, but the logic is flawed. Those being educated benefit from the education they receive. If someone else makes a good living, it could be said to be good for society, but that is hardly an argument for forcing others to subsidize that.

Also, some of you really need to study your economics. Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Any tax charged to a corporation is passed along in higher prices.

The reason taxes are so high is that we insist on asking government to provide us with all these services. If we educated our own children, we would see a dramatic decrease in taxes.

And I totally disagree that schools are some sort of glue for the community.

Using arguments laid our here, I could justify taxing people to pay for churches, since they are a glue to the community and church goers are less likely to commit crimes or some such other nonsense.

Let me keep what I earn, and I will educate my own kids.

Study your economics (0.00 / 0)
You know who I love?  Republicans who say things like "study your economics" even though they clearly haven't done so themselves outside of high school-level macro 101.

Hey, learymortgage -- that's you, dude!

[ Parent ]
Econ 101 (0.00 / 1)
Can you please tell me what is wrong with my statement that corporations don't pay taxes? I work in the financial department of a corporation, and I can tell you that I have studied economics beyond high school. However, I am open to you educating me on this matter.

Also, because I get frustrated paying high taxes does not make me a Republican.

[ Parent ]
What corporations pay (4.00 / 1)
Corporations don't pay taxes, people do because the taxes get passed along to consumers in the form of higher blah blah blah blah.  That kind of deep economic theorizing might play at your neighborhood barbecue, but it's hardly serious or realistic.

I suppose corporations don't pay for their facilities, either.  Or coffee.  Or Windex.  Or janitorial services.

What's wrong with what you said is that it's a non-sequitur.  Just because the cost of paying taxes is passed along to consumers -- spreading said cost out over such a wide field as to be considered negligible to the individual consumer -- doesn't mean that corporations don't pay taxes.

Go to the head of the corporate financial department where you work.  Tell him that the corporation doesn't pay taxes.  Let me know how long it takes him to stop laughing.

[ Parent ]
Blah Blah Blah (0.00 / 1)
I am the head.

I am still laughing at your comments.

If you don't agree with me, fine. But you are wrong.

As a corporation, we don't pay taxes. For example, when we are calculating what salaries should be, we calculate the total "burden" for the employee, meaning salary, health insurance and FICA that we will pay. We include our portion of FICA as part of the total compensation for the employee, so the employee pays it, not us.

All companies do this.

We also estimate our year end tax liabilities and make adjustments accordingly. Since we are a private corporation, we take most of the profits out as bonuses before year end. The owners pay the taxes, but the corporation does not.

Your other comments about corporations paying for other expenses, you are exactly right. Prices are set by markets, but the average costs are figured into the price. In other words, if it costs more to make something than  the market price, no one makes it, or the price has to go up.

To put it simply, you say that prices will not go up and then you say they will and will be spread around so no one will care. It is a typical argument for raises on corporate taxes...you will tax the people, but so broadly that they will either not know or won't care. Either way, it is the people who will pay.

So I guess I was right blah blah blah.

[ Parent ]
Clever trick (4.00 / 1)
I like how in order to be "right," you had to completely misrepresent my comments.

And that's funny that you went from working in the financial department of a corporation to running it.  I'm not saying you're lying, but if that were true, you probably should have just said it up front.

[ Parent ]
Another Possibility (4.00 / 1)
It could be a very teeny tiny itsy bitsy corporation.....

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.
[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
It is a small company. I used to have my own consulting business where I worked for many small companies helping them set up their financial reports and what not. However, my resume was not brought up to be the issue. I was trying to show that I have experience in the financial world, and that I am not just a guy who took high school econ 101. If I was not clear up front, I apologize. I didn't think it was that important.
[ Parent ]
very teeny tiny itsy bitsy...... (0.00 / 0)
what?

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.
[ Parent ]
Aw, be nice :) (4.00 / 1)


One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.
[ Parent ]
Ok, I'll put down the baseball bat, brassknuckles (0.00 / 0)
knives and chains.

I ain't cut no one, since I was in the "joint".

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

[ Parent ]
Wait a minute (0.00 / 0)
Your argument that corporations do not pay taxes is predicated on the idea that they incorporate all their costs into determining the price of their product.

Then you say that prices are set by the market.

Which is it?

[ Parent ]
Both (0.00 / 0)
Markets set prices, but prices also cover costs. If the market price does not cover costs, the product/service is not produced. Producers will pass on the costs as long as it is feasible to do so. For example, if all producers incur the same new cost, all will raise their prices. If the market cannot tolerate those prices, those producers go out of business. As the number of producers declines, the remaining producers can hold the declining market share and continue to produce at the new higher price.

Hope that was helpful.

[ Parent ]
learymortgage , YOu are right, in simle terms, though, on an annual basis (0.00 / 0)
The Government does get revenue from Corporate taxes. More importantly is that you are right in basic terms, and there in lies the problem. Corporations don't pay their fair share to support the Jeffersonian commons.

YOu smell of supply side economics, Merest swill it is, based on a failed man called Strauss.

http://i38.photobuck...

Why is U6 at 15% ? That is the crux of what supply side has wrought. U6 is nearing 1929~1933 numbers. I deem that as a failure.

Not pablum nor swill, a blog that concerns itself with the 3 Pillars that hold up our Jeffersonian form of Government, Education, Labor rights, and Progressive taxes.

http://rdanafox.blog...

The most important document never posted on bluejersey.net. WEll, at least this month.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

[ Parent ]
Not Supply Side (0.00 / 0)
I am getting way off topic here, but I would like to ask this question, because I see that comment all the time:

What is someone's fair share?

For example, if a person makes 100k, what should they pay to support government functions?


[ Parent ]
I like the fairness debate... (0.00 / 0)
At what levels are the rates 'fair', and who or what determines that? Is 'fair' even a consideration or just revenue needed.
Maybe a topic for seperate thread?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai
[ Parent ]
Thread (0.00 / 0)
Did you start a new thread on this?
[ Parent ]
One other thing. (0.00 / 0)
Your charts above show tax rates declining and GDP rising. I fail to see what point you are making with them. If I were a supply-sider, I would conclude that lowering tax rates did indeed spur growth.
[ Parent ]
wrong (0.00 / 0)
gdp goes up, consistantly over decades, regardless of the top rate. The chart on top tax rates shows rates going up, down, up, down, obviously having little or no effect on GDP.

My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet. Labor unions were at the zenith of their power, our eductaional institutions were the envy of the world, corporations made money, the wealthiest made money. The American Dream was born.

Its not generating more revenue with a progrssive tax system, if you think I am making that claim, you may not have gotten my drift....

Its about taxing the working & middle classes out of the economy.


Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

[ Parent ]
End public roads (4.00 / 2)
I like all the assumptions that we all benefit from paying for the roads we all use, but the logic is flawed. Those driving on the road benefit from the roads that are built. If someone else makes a good living, it could be said to be good for society, but that is hardly an argument for forcing others to subsidize that.

The reason taxes are so high is that we insist on asking government to provide us with all these services. If we each built our own roads, we would see a dramatic decrease in taxes.

And I totally disagree that roads are some sort of glue for the community.

Let me keep what I earn, and I will build my own roads.

[ Parent ]
I see (0.00 / 1)
I see. Education and roads are the same thing? Nice argument.

However, there are such a thing as toll roads. And there are private schools. I went to private schools. My kids go to private schools. So, your right, I don't need government to educate my children.

And to continue your comparison... the government didn't build my house, or provide it for me. There are, contrary to what you may believe, some things government shouldn't do.

Using your "argument", anything that benefits society is a function of government. Schools are good. So are roads. So are lots of other things. But that is not an argument for taxing people to pay for them. Because something is a public good does not mean it should be supported by public funds.

Lastly, I have a sidewalk in front of my house. I maintain it, not the town, even though you are free to use it. It is a public good, and yet it is provided for privately.


[ Parent ]
sidewalk economics (4.00 / 1)
Are you proposing to cut the US workforce in half so people can stay home and school their children? Or are you trying to convince people that they can get a private education for their children for anywhere near what they pay in property taxes?

Clearly, you're the one with the economics background here and everyone else needs to learn themselves some basic economies of scale. Either way, good luck with that novel plan.

[ Parent ]
What (0.00 / 0)
I really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't understand what you mean by cutting half the work force and all that.

I can tell you this. I pay enough in school taxes to send both my kids to private school. I live in the same town as Nathan Rudy, and voted for him when he was on the council.

I have watched as the elderly in my community have had to move away because of the high taxes.

Our school district spends 12,000.00 per student. I can send both of my kids to private school for less.

What I am really getting at here is that taxes will not go down in NJ if the people of NJ do not give up some of the services they have asked for. And if you just shift that tax burden around, you will not solve the problem.

If you have a progressive tax, you will tax people with children more than the elderly or single people who would have lower incomes. If you tax corporations more, you will simply raise prices for everyone, or force them to leave the state.

I do agree, however, that the property tax is unfair. It forces the elderly out, and inhibits the poor from owning homes.


[ Parent ]
taxes (0.00 / 0)
Let me keep what I earn, and I will educate my own kids.
I assumed that to mean you wanted to home school your children. In order for people to do that, one parent would have to stay home and not work. I'd guess roughly half the US work force who would have to quit their jobs in order to pull off a plan like this.

I'm glad you have the means to send your children to private school. Are your savings backed up by the publicly funded FDIC or do you pay for your own private insurance?

Did you develop your own private internet to access this website or are you using the one built with public government investments? Did you launch your own satellites into space to get a weather report every morning or are you using the ones the government paid for with your tax dollars? Do you have the means to provide for your own security force or do you rely on the police for that?

Some people in this country can afford to do some or all of those things on their own. I get the feeling you only want the publicly-funded services you can't afford to pay for on your own. But if I'm wrong, I'd like to know how you decide where you draw the line.

[ Parent ]
You are missing my point (0.00 / 0)
My point is that it is not free. We are all paying for it. I can pay for it privately or through force of government. As long as people prefer the later, taxes will be high.

Stop arguing for all the things government does. I get it. We need roads. Had I argued for private roads, you would have me solid.

However, I can assume you do not own a home. If you did, you would see that you pay enough for the schools to buy a private education. I live in a modest 1800 foot home in NP. I pay over 8000.00 a year in property taxes. Our family income is about 100k. I am an average NJ resident. Not some big wig capitalist (I live right down the street from N. Rudy).

I made the primary point that as long as we want public education and all these government services, we will have to pay. What you all are complaining about is that you want other people to pay. However, there are no other people, just me and you, so we can drop this whole conversation.

We have to pay for it. It is not free. Making others pay for it is not going to make it free.

And no, I am not some right-wing home schooler. I just think that we waste too much money by having government provide things for "free".

[ Parent ]
not missing the point at all (0.00 / 0)
Your primary point was that there shouldn't be public education and that everyone should be allowed to pay to just educate their own children. What's your proposal for how a family living on two minimum wage jobs in New Jersey should educate their children outside of the public school system?
[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, I was having trouble connecting to the site.

To answer your question:

1. How many families with two minimum wage earners do you think live in NJ?

2. I have no problem subsidizing their education with tax money.

I have no problem with food stamps. That is not an argument to government providing ALL citizens with food. I don't want ALL citizens to live in public housing because some people need help.

Help those that need it, and let the rest take care of themselves, the way we do with so many important aspects of our lives.

[ Parent ]
A wee boo boo, 100k family income is not (0.00 / 0)
average in NJ, not by any measure currently employed.

Nationally median Ind income is about 33k/annum.

100k family income is at least upper middle class possibly putting you into the top quintile nationally, IRCC starting @ about 88k/annum.

Coming into this community and advocating for a fuedal economic system is one thing, but not having your facts square, while claiming to be "average: is just illuminating how distorted your world view is. Wasn't it David Frost who told Richard Nixon... "fold it 5 times and put it where the moon doesn't shine".

Whats next, having lords in castles, charging us tolls to use their roads? I think someone tried that, back in midevil times, we have progressed, a wee bit from then.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
Your right, the median in NJ for 2003 was only 56,000.00. My bad.

However, all your blustering and yet not one god damn person here has said why we should have government funded schools as opposed to private. Not one.

You have argued eloquently why education is important, why we have public roads, why you hate George Bush (Impeach, Indict), and yet all I ask is to educate my own children and for this I am selfish and medieval? Are you people insane?

Last I checked it was very medieval, as you have pointed out, for an elite to take from the people and dictate what they should do. I am asking for freedom, not a handout.

For even suggesting there may be a better way you all jump all over me with nonsensical arguments. In the meantime, the noble poor, who you profess to be so concerned about, are getting a crap education. Well, at least you got yours.

[ Parent ]
Schools are a societal benefit (0.00 / 0)
I want to thank you for your votes, and for your faith in putting me on Council.  It was a fun eight years, but I am glad to have my nights back to myself and my family.  I can tell you my daughter is happy, too!

I also wanted to take a second to respond to your suggestion that parents should school their own kids and keep their tax dollars.

The implication there is that schools are only a benefit for the kids and their parents receiving the schooling, but that is not the case.  Public schools are a societal benefit that has, as much as any other single governmental program, resulted in our great economy, culture and society.

By guaranteeing that every child in the country gets at least a basic education, we create a workforce that is the best in the world.  Kids who grow up in Newark can -- though it is not easy -- wind up in college and get educations to become scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, middle management, inventors, writers, politicians, ministers, whatever. 

Were they to rely on only their parents' resources they could not do that.  Public schools offer the chance for people of all economic strata to be economically and socially mobile.  That is part of what makes America great.

America as a whole benefits from having an educated populace.  While most of us would probably disagree many years, having an educated voting base results in better quality government than countries where most people can't read. 

And because society benefits from public education, we all benefit from public education.  And because we all benefit from public education, we all have a responsibility to pay for it.

That doesn't mean that we should be charging seniors on a fixed income the same as a 35 year old with a good income.  The property tax system we use now is patently unprogressive and unfair.  It needs to change to a system that doesn't drive people out of their homes, but recognizes that they paid more when they were younger and can't afford as much now.

But the concept of every parent, ever child for themself will harm our country and make it much less than it is today.

[ Parent ]
Schools are a societal benefit (0.00 / 0)
I want to thank you for your votes, and for your faith in putting me on Council.  It was a fun eight years, but I am glad to have my nights back to myself and my family.  I can tell you my daughter is happy, too!

I also wanted to take a second to respond to your suggestion that parents should school their own kids and keep their tax dollars.

The implication there is that schools are only a benefit for the kids and their parents receiving the schooling, but that is not the case.  Public schools are a societal benefit that has, as much as any other single governmental program, resulted in our great economy, culture and society.

By guaranteeing that every child in the country gets at least a basic education, we create a workforce that is the best in the world.  Kids who grow up in Newark can -- though it is not easy -- wind up in college and get educations to become scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, middle management, inventors, writers, politicians, ministers, whatever. 

Were they to rely on only their parents' resources they could not do that.  Public schools offer the chance for people of all economic strata to be economically and socially mobile.  That is part of what makes America great.

America as a whole benefits from having an educated populace.  While most of us would probably disagree many years, having an educated voting base results in better quality government than countries where most people can't read. 

And because society benefits from public education, we all benefit from public education.  And because we all benefit from public education, we all have a responsibility to pay for it.

That doesn't mean that we should be charging seniors on a fixed income the same as a 35 year old with a good income.  The property tax system we use now is patently unprogressive and unfair.  It needs to change to a system that doesn't drive people out of their homes, but recognizes that they paid more when they were younger and can't afford as much now.

But the concept of every parent, ever child for themself will harm our country and make it much less than it is today.

[ Parent ]
This Thread is Metaphoric.... (0.00 / 0)
...as the themes herein can be applied to virtually every other "issue" that is before us.

Thanks to Juan for allowing it to extend to this length without "breaking it up".

Congratulations Nathan, now you're "in the thick of it" and faced with the challenge of struggling to make angel cake in the sausage factory of local politics.  (and THANKS to learymortgage for having the courage to actually engage in a discussion where he/you must have felt unfairly put upon...please stay with us and keep on challenging us!!!)

Hang in there and don't compromise easily...if they ask you to ok something that really stinks....or if you have an initiative that may seem too progressive; call out for "tactical air support".....get THE PEOPLE involved and have a bunch of them show up to push.

It seems nothing really good happens easily eh?

OK, now that I've lectured y'all about stuff you already knew...I'm outta here. 

Good Luck!!!

[ Parent ]
Been in the thick of it ... (0.00 / 0)
Nick -- I was a Councilman for eight years and had to review five school budgets. 

I started in politics when I was four and worked on the McGovern campaign.  I've been in the thick of this for years!  :-)

[ Parent ]
I googled "jeffersonian commons federalist" (0.00 / 0)
http://www.google.co...

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.
[ Parent ]
The Grover Norquist view just won't die (0.00 / 0)
I find it depressing even after Hurricane Katrina that your worldview still persists. The "get government to the point you can drown it in the bathtub" view does not work.  We have seen that we need to GOVERN and it takes money to do that.  I bet some balked at having to pay taxes to fix the levees in New Orleans - BEFORE the levees were breached.

You may not drive on roads and feel no need to pay for them, but if you needed an ambulance or your house was on fire, you would probably feel better knowing they could access your house and you by driving on a public road.  You would probably want the ambulance to have good roads that lead straight to the hospital. What about the fact that foods you eat get here travel by trucks on public roads? As for toll roads, I'm sure folks in NJ would just LOVE another toll road (sarcasm). 

You say your children go to private school.  I attended private school for 12 years too, but I feel passionately about the need to publicly educate children - even though I have none of my own.  My comment about schools being "glue" is absolutely true.  It was not a Hallmark sentimentality.  Watch what happens to ANY town when the school system fails.  You can have churches anywhere, especially in parts of the country with terrible poverty.  In fact in some places, churches are about all that is left.  That and total utter despair.  Churches and schools aren't the same thing here.  You can throw one rock in any direction in America and hit three churches.  Good schools harder to find.

I also have trouble with closed communities of empty nesters who for years sent their own children to public schools and now move to senior communities to avoid paying taxes to educate other people's children.  That is quite the "I got mine" mentality.  It is like cherry picking people for health insurance.  It hurts the system and puts an unfair burden on the ones who are left.  Systems to pay for schools would work best when everyone is invested in the system.

The selfish view you have of not wanting to pay for educating other people's children or for services you don't think you use at this very moment in time, was how it was in the Gilded Age.  Read "The Jungle".  It is only 100 years old but extremely timely.  The only reason I believe we were able to even have a Social Security Administration (I know that is payroll taxes) was because "the rich" realized after the stock market crash that they could suddenly become "the poor" in a heartbeat.  Suddenly they had a little more sympathy for "the poor".  You haven't had the same epiphany yet.  I hope you never do. 

Like jmelli said, you are using the public internet.  Like Thom Hartman says, you are also driving on public roads, drinking water checked to be safe by the government, eating foods inspected to be safe by the government, flushing your toilet away and having your town pay to have that as well as your garbage disposed of. You are using the government even though you have convinced yourself you don't need the government.

Do you also think you don't leave footprints when you walk on the beach?

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

[ Parent ]
Just a note: (0.00 / 0)
You are very right, in that Progressives made huge inroads in American society in the early part of the twentieth century.

I made one, and only one, argument. That we should not educate our kids the way we are. I have never said anything about home schooling, the internet (which I pay for as do you), roads, and a multitude of other things that are being addressed. I did not "complain" about taxes. That was brought up by the thread, and I was trying to input my idea to the conversation.

If you disagree, and feel that government is the only way to educate our kids, fine. But don't assume that because I don't agree with that position, that I am advocating a whole host of other things.

Also, changing the formula for taxes will accomplish little in my eyes, as I will just pay for it elsewhere. Clearly, you disagree, and many here feel some people should pay more than they currently are. It is okay to disagree on how things should be done. I don't think anyone here has any motives but the best. I don't think it is right to assume any differently about me.

As far as your retirees moving, I don't see how you could stop that even if you wanted too.

[ Parent ]
That's a "pass-thru" myth (4.00 / 1)
The idea that corporations don't pay taxes is a myth created by Republican and/or right wing think tanks.  It is one of their many efforts to make their ideas sound populist when really they hurt most people.

The idea is that because a corporation passes on its costs to its customers, and that taxes are one of their costs, it is not the corporation that pats taxes but the customers.

Corporate costs include leases, employee benefits, insurances, etc.  They pass these costs on to their customers as part of their product price, so by the "corporations don't pay taxes" argument they don't pay their leases, employee benefits, insurance or anything else.

In fact, by that reasoning corporations never pay a dime for anything: the customers do!

The reason the right wingers like to use this argument is that it makes regular middle class folk get upset when corporations are asked to pay taxes at a fair level.  The right wing think tanks use the line to build grassroots "outrage" at corporate taxes so they will not be levied. 

But remember the other half of the argument: customers pay the taxes. If we don't levy the taxes on the corporations, then we will levy them on individual earnings.  So if you have a problem with asking corporations to pay taxes at a level similar to those payed by individuals, then the individual property taxes will go up.

That's right.  By arguing that corporations don't pay taxes, you are arguing to only levy taxes on individuals.  And by doing that, you are asking the government to either raise your taxes or go into debt.

Their goal is to get you to advocate for their interests and against their own.  And it works almost every time.

The right wingers are very good at misdirecting your attention to their left hand while their right hand is in your wallet. 

[ Parent ]
Too complicated (0.00 / 0)
Simply, the concept might seem to have merit, but is badly flawed: 1.) it maintains a tax on property, leaving in place a system that enforces municipal fragmentation and inequality. 2.) It is overly complicated and could result in a logistical nightmare.

If we are going to use incomes to create brackets, why not just tax income?

taxes, taxes, taxes (4.00 / 1)
"Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society."  I forget who said it, but he/she was right.

We all pay for fire departments but hope we'll never need their services.  Similarly for police--and other public services as well.  My husband and I haven't had to pay for a marriage license for nearly 43 years, but I sure am glad that there are places people can go to get them.

Public education and all other public services are public investments.  So are roads, traffic lights, courts, and all the rest.  We all pay for them--and we should--whether we need them or not, whether we use them or not.

The real issue is whether those services should be paid for from regressive property taxes or progressive income taxes.  A progressive income tax is simply more equitable.

Discussions of home-schooling, etc., are really not relevant, since most parents can't afford to do that or to send their kids to private schools.  It's too bad there are so many people who want to keep every penny they earn and let the other folks fend for themselves.  (Some of those people even call themselves Christians.)  But that attitude is socially irresponsible--we all live here!

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

income tax is also simpler and cheaper to administrate (4.00 / 1)
In addition to being a more progressive way of determining how much someone can contribute towards their community's public services, income taxes are much easier and cheaper to measure.

As big and bureaucratic as the IRS and State Dept. of Taxation might be, I'll bet that if we added up the budgets for every municipal and county tax assessors's office in the state, the numbers would be staggering.

There would also be economies of scale savings from transferring certain administrative functions like payroll and purchasing from 600+ district offices to one state office.

There is no doubt that it is better to pay for education with state income taxes than local property taxes.  The question is how, short of running primary challengers against every state legislator who disagrees with us, do we get them to change, especially when the Governor is steadfastly opposed to state income tax increases to pay for property tax decreases?

[ Parent ]
Oliver Wendell Holmes (4.00 / 1)
and, yes - he was right.
[ Parent ]
Wow (1.00 / 1)
I just got on here again today and am floored with what is being said. I never said anything about Katrina, or private roads. I am not advocating the drowning of government.

My primary points are:

1. Not all services should be provided by government.

2. Taxes will continue to be a burden if we continue to have government provide the level of services we want.

However, that being said, Katrina was an odd example since it was the most incredible failure of government on the city, state and federal level. But that is another story.

The most interesting thing about this thread is that no one has argued why we should continue to have public education as it exists. I have already agreed that we should subsidize the poor, and for that I am selfish?

The rich already make choices by deciding where they live. The also have the option of private schools. The poor do not.

So let me educate my own kids, let the rich educate their own kids and let us all help educate the poor.

As it is now, we waste a fortune and the poor that you are so concerned about don't get educated. Only the rich do.

And I am selfish?

As for taxes, I willing pay my taxes. That is no the problem. The problem is also not your willingness to pay taxes. The problem is that you want other people to pay more. It seems to me to force other people to pay for what you believe in is selfish.

Touched a nerve (4.00 / 1)
Sorry I seem to have touched a nerve there, but the arguments you brought up are the same ones used to justify the "I got mine" mentality.  I don't just BELIEVE that good schools affect the entire town, like I would beleive in the Easter Bunny.  I know it to be actually true that schools DO impact everyone in the town.  For everyone to invest in the school system IS fair, because everyone benefits. 

If everyone pays into the system, then the average taxpayer will actually pay LESS not more.  Call me silly, but in math when you average and divide a number by an even larger number than before, the answer DECREASES.

Those folks who are conspicuous consumers who live large and use up more resources and cost the town more should pay more.  Property taxes should really be linked to property. Education should be linked to everyone.

Why so enamored of home schooling?  Most parents can't even help their kids with homework, you want to have THEM teach the kids?  I have just one word for that.  Yikes!

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

[ Parent ]
Nerve (0.00 / 0)
I guess you guys did touch a nerve. I never said anything about home schooling.

I agree that education is good. I think food is good too, I just don't think we would get better food if the government supplied it.

I think I have a valid argument, and you do too. Yes, If everyone contributes, the cost in theory should be lower. However, it costs several times more to educate a student in a public school than in a private one. (I know there are some private schools that are more expensive as well)

The arguments made are why schools are important and why education is important which I agree with. They are not why it should be done by government. Tell me why government run schools are the best way to educate the population.

If I want the freedom to choose the schools my kids go to, and to let everyone else do that, I don't think I am the "I got mine" guy you think I am. I want everyone to educate there own kids. And I want to subsidize the poor.

Let me get to the heart of it. I make a decent living, and my wife is a stay at home mom (we do not home school nor have I advocated that) However, my property taxes are the same as other people who have twice the income. They are the same as people with half the income as well.

Now, as far as your good deal, consider this. I will pay those taxes long after my kids are no longer in the school. I'd pay them even if I have no kids. So, no, it is not cheaper.

For example: If I pay 6000.00 per year in school taxes, and it takes 12,000.00 to educate each of my two boys, you would think I am way ahead. But I looked into the alternatives, and I can educate both for 12,000.00. Since they will go to school for twelve years, I would pay a total of 144,000.00 in private tuition. However, I will pay property taxes forever. Assume I live in my house until 70. I will have lived in the house for a total of about 35 years. That means in shcool taxes I will pay 35  x 6000 for a total of 210,000.00 (I have deliberately simplified the math here by assuming no increase in either cost, but the point is valid).

It is not cheaper to send them to "free" public schools.


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I misunderstood (0.00 / 0)
I misunderstood the home schooling thing.  Ah, now we get to the heart of things, though.  My point is to separate the school taxes OUT from the property taxes.  That would lower your property tax bill. In most towns 2/3 of the property taxes go to the school.  I don't think property alone should dictate how much we should pay into the school system.

Right now in Tenafly, we have the unfortunate situation of people in single family homes, including our own mayor, who consistently disparage 2 family homes (and by association - the folks that live in them) because they mistakenly assume that more children come from these and put a burden on the school system.  That is NOT reality but it is a common misperception.  If single family home owners thought that the burden of paying for the schools was shared more equally by everyone, I think they would be in favor of it.

Your other point is valid - about having the gov't run the school.  That is a key issue.  Most of the boroughs around here were originally incorporated because of home rule ideas about how to educate the children. It was mostly all about local control of the schools. 

Couldn't we have the school taxes collected at the state level and the funds distributed to each municipality based on how many children are in the schools in that municipality, but have the schools actually operated under local control?  Funding schools and teaching are two completely different things.  Wouldn't it be possible to still allow each municipality to decide how to spend their lump sum payment to operate each school locally?

Although state taxes would be higher for everyone, more folks would be paying taxes to fund the schools, and everyone's property tax bill would be 1/3 of what it used to be.

I wonder if anyone has ever figured out what the savings would be for a system like that?

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

[ Parent ]
Good idea. (0.00 / 0)
That is not a bad idea, collecting it at the state level. However, I would be afraid of all the politics that might go on with everyone arguing about formulas and whatnot. It goes on now in regional school districts.

Could work though.

[ Parent ]
Thanks - this was a healthy debate :) (0.00 / 0)
I know what you mean about worrying how it could play out.  We might have certain districts padding the numbers of kids they have.  And there is always a danger in creating another beauracracy.....

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.
[ Parent ]
Schools Should Not Be Funded by Local Property Taxes... (0.00 / 0)
...in an ideal world.

We are all misunderstanding each other all the time...that's clear enough.  lol

Obviously, the rich localities like it this way and the poor ones generally get screwed.

Even in places where the per pupil spending (Newark etc ) is high because of all manner of aid/subsidies...the quality of education is lower because of a complex of social/structural factors.

Let's face it...good teachers AVOID inner city schools for all manner of reasons.  Simply throwing money at the problem is not a solution.

This question of how to get consistently high quality education across the whole state is highly complex and goes way beyond the progressivity arguments.

Also, there are indeed too many people who are unmotivated and unqualified feeding off of the public school system and lots of contractors and vendors getting filthy rich off of legalized corruption, sweetheart deals etc etc etc.....and the unions DO have to back off when a teacher is genuinely incompetent. 

Again, this is complicated stuff and real solutions will have to come from a place that totally transcends the hackneyed "right v left" dichotomies.

[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I just want to find the best way.
[ Parent ]
Wow? You Ain't Heard Nuttin' Yet!!! :-) (4.00 / 1)
learymortgage says...  My primary points are:

1. Not all services should be provided by government.

Who could disagree with that?  LOL

2. Taxes will continue to be a burden if we continue to have government provide the level of services we want.

Which taxes? Which services? How would you cut the services?  Be Specific.  What are you talking about? 

However, that being said, Katrina was an odd example since it was the most incredible failure of government on the city, state and federal level. But that is another story.

So you AGREE with me.  The fact is that the largest "government" in that triad is the FEDERAL government headed by GEORGE BUSH...and the fact is that most of the taxpayer  money appropriated by congress and ADMINISTERED by BUSH to help Katrina victims has gone into the pockets of contractors who have scammed the taxpayers...the solution is NOT to eliminate the government; but to pass REAL ethics laws that would put crooked contractors and pols in JAIL for long no parole sentences in maximum security prisons where they will "live" with the general population for terms starting at 25 years.  Do you have a problem with that?

The most interesting thing about this thread is that no one has argued why we should continue to have public education as it exists.

In a nutshell.  We need to implement a level playing field that allows EVERY American child to have a 1st class education that is as good, if not BETTER than the "private" elites can provide to their own children of privilege.  Without that level playing field we will become an even more  stratified society of Balkanized isolated "true believers" in thousands of sectarian cults.

We have a long way to go in achieving that ideal...but the kinds of "privatization" plans Bush favors would destroy public education, enrich private contractors (many of whom would be teaching "faith based" education), and we would wind up with a nation that has no common heart, spirit, or vision.  You might ask what that sentence refers to?  Try reading THE CONSTITUTION

I have already agreed that we should subsidize the poor, and for that I am selfish?

To the extent that you believe that as a general principle, you are not selfish...the devil is in the details; precisely HOW do we "subsidize" the poor?  My way would be to eliminate that category all together by whatever humane progressive means necessary.

The rich already make choices by deciding where they live. The also have the option of private schools. The poor do not.

When we have uniformly 1st class public educations for ALL there will be NO incentive to move to a better school district. When decent affordable housing is available FOR ALL then "the rich" can enjoy their riches in good conscience.  Frankly, as a Christian and as a Progressive Democrat,I don't know how anyone can enjoy being "rich" when so many Americans are still homeless and hungry.

So let me educate my own kids, let the rich educate their own kids and let us all help educate the poor.

You have the right to "educate" you children as you wish...though I have to wonder how much of what people really mean by that is that they want to brainwash their own children to see the world precisely as the parent does?  Of course the people who do this believe "it's for their own good"; but I submit that, in many cases, ideological/"religious" private education is the imposition of indoctrination and is little more than an ego/power trip on the part of the parents.

As it is now, we waste a fortune and the poor that you are so concerned about don't get educated. Only the rich do.

ONLY the rich "get educated"?  LOL  Now THAT (if true) would be a rationale for tripling our spending of effective public education!  As for your sarcastic comment re the "poor" we are so "concerned" about; they are just that, sarcastic.

And I am selfish?

I don't know you personally, and can't answer that question with precision.  Suffice it to say that we are ALL tempted to be selfish...the problem with selfishness is that we do NOT exist in some kind of infinite abstract non material universe...we are ALL dependent on EACH other to survive in the lifeboat that is our global biosphere.  I realize that that reality is one that is anathema to many; but that's the way it is.

We humans have a choice.  We can learn to live in a symbiotic relationship of co-operative "reciprocal maintenance" and continue to evolve as a species OR we can go the parasitic route of "every man for himself" and become DESERVEDLY extinct.

I request that you read and reread that last paragraph three times and to spend at least ten minutes after each reading in quiet contemplation of what the words mean to you.

As for taxes, I willing pay my taxes. That is no the problem. The problem is also not your willingness to pay taxes.

Agreed

The problem is that you want other people to pay more. It seems to me to force other people to pay for what you believe in is selfish.

I'm glad to hear that you do actually believe in government and in the need for taxes.  It seems that you feel that progressivity in taxes is unfair.

It comes down to how humane and how wise we are on a collective level.  In our democracy, we have laws passed by majorities by elected officials put into office by majorities.

As things are now...the corruption of good government by the rich and the powerful in an attempt to reinforce their own status has engendered a disgust with government and the whole idea of a collective/progressive effort to improve our common lot. 

The problem is not government; it is bad/corrupt government.

The problem is not that the "private sector" is somehow "evil"; the problem is that too many in the private sector abuse the "rules of the game" by BUYING government and by perverting TRULY free and FAIR markets.

The problem is that there is a severe shortage of individuals capable of acting in harmony with their deepest Conscience.

The simple injunction; "do unto others as others, as you would have others do unto you" is one simple formulation of what I like to refer to as common human decency.

I believe that we are ALL, Republicans and Democrats alike, being SHAFTED by very corrupt interests who are playing us off against each other....while they laugh all the way to their offshore banks.

I could go on at much greater length; but I have already exceeded the bounds of this framework, eh? 

Thanks to any of you who have actually (skimming doesn't count ;-) made it to the end of this comment. 

[ Parent ]
Huh (1.00 / 1)
I did read all your comments, and you went into several divergent topics.

If you think that the children in Camden and Trenton are getting a level playing field with Chester and Peapack, your nuts.

I agree with you in theory. In practice, though, I think your wrong. The government wastes too much, is too influenced by special interests, as you duly noted, and therefore is NOT in a good position to educate your kids.

If it did indeed result in a level playing field, I might be convinced. However, my original point remains. And since most of the people getting this "free" public education are wealthy, how is this some benefit to the poor? Could we just help those that need it?

What I want is the best result. We do not have that. It would be better, in my opinion, if people educated their own children.

I have not, however, said any of the following:

1. We should have private roads.
2. I am Republican
3. I hate government.
4. I am sending my kids to religious schools (I am not)
5. I supported GWB.
6. I want anything but the best for our kids.

If government schools are wasteful and ineffective in poor neighborhoods, and I can get more for my moeny elsewhere, what is wrong with that?

[ Parent ]
One Final Point (0.00 / 0)
One final point and then I'll leave.

How is asking my community to stop paying to educate my children, that I will do it myself, and I will take responsibility for the education of my own family....how is that selfish when what most people here are advocating is taking money from someone else to pay for it? All of you have advocated a way of increasing taxes on other citizens and corporations, unless I am mistaken and some of you are millionaires and intend on paying those higher taxes.

I am not Daddy Warbucks. I am asking you to stop paying for me, since I have two kids. BTW they are very young. They may very well attend public schools. I feel I need to say that lest I be called a hypocrite. That is because I, like you, am not rich and may not always be able to afford to pay for schooling twice, as I am now.

Thank you all for a stimulating discussion, and I hope we can do it again.

Educating your children (0.00 / 0)
I appreciate your "up by the bootstraps" offer to not burden me with the cost of educating your children.  I think that idea was lost in the heat of the discussion.  I guess it all comes down to the idea of self-reliance which is a frequent theme in discussions between progressives and conservatives. 

It is just that I know that "the poor" and "the rich" are not people.  They are adjectives.  Words matter here.  Money is a matter of circumstance, not humanity.  You may be able to provide for your children at this moment in time.  But what were to happen should you not be able to?  I lose sleep thinking about that, simply from pure bitter experience. 

A long time ago, I wound up in the hospital for ten days, shortly after leaving a well paid job to start my own business.  After being out of work for three months and with all the medical bills, even though I HAD insurance, I had a very tough time.  It took me a good ten years just to recover financially from a fiasco that was none of my own fault.

I would urge you to read "The Jungle".  Upton Sinclair said he was trying to reach people's hearts but he got them in the stomach instead.  I am not telling you to read it for the meat packing horrors of it.  It is a novel about what happens to people who live in a world of every man for himself.  What happens when someone does the best they can, plays by the rules, but gets hurt, and falls through the cracks of society.  And how they rise up again.  It is about politics.  Upton Sinclair actually ran for Congress in NJ after writing that book. It is a powerful statement about why I should care about your children even if you think I don't have to.

One Vote. Yours. It really does matter.

[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
I have not read "The Jungle" but it was recommended more than once. It is a novel though, not a study. I promise I will read it, but it is after all a work of fiction.

I agree that I may not always have it so good, and have not always in the past. But you are not feeding my kids, or clothing them. I understand you are a very heartfelt and sincere person, and I know you care, but so do I.

I don't think we can agree on this. I see it as bad to have government educating our kids, and for this it is assumed that I am somehow not caring. I have had many conversations with many people who all advocate different positions. I don't question their motives.

It would be really great to meet some of you in person. I think you are getting a really distorted view here in this blog. I think you would be surprised to see who I really am...just a regular working New Jersey guy. I am not Dick Cheney.

[ Parent ]
Fiction & reality (4.00 / 1)
This has been an interesting discussion! 

Yes, "The Jungle" is a novel--but so are "Animal Farm" and "The Grapes of Wrath."  I recommend all of them.

For empirical data on the "benefits" of "government progams," look at the difference between the 1930s and the 1990s in the percentage of senior citizens living in poverty.  Social Security and Medicare--both government programs publicly financed and administered--have made a tremendous difference, as the data clearly show.

As for "government schools," the only real government schools are the military academies such as West Point.  Local public schools are essentially run by local communities--by a school board which is either elected by the voters or appointed by locally elected officials.  The great thing about public schools is that they are available to all children, regardless of the income of their parents.  The fact that public schools are better in some districts than in others is a result of the way they are financed--largely by property taxes--so that wealthy communities have better public schools than poor communities have.  Making a quality education available to all children is a public service we should all be willing to pay for, whether or not we wish to have our own kids in public schools or private schools--the payoff benefits all of us. 

You might want to read the State Supreme Court's decision in the Abbott v. Burke case involving educational quality and the disparities between school districts.  Nothing fictional about that! 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

[ Parent ]
Please explain (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Please explain how we all benefit. No one has done that yet.
[ Parent ]
IMHO, this is a very simple and narrow view of the issue (0.00 / 0)

2. Taxes will continue to be a burden if we continue to have government provide the level of services we want.

Taxes in general are a burden because we have a regressive tax system. This places the burden on working class families. RE: Most of us.

TO view this issue as just more services equals more taxes is narrow minded and does not do justice to our predicament.

With a regressive tax system the "Burden" is on most of us. The Tax burden, taxes working families out of the economy. We all want working families engaged in the economy, for this to happen, for the tax burden to be lifted, it needs to back where the tax burden was...

When the middle class was created in the first place...

& the top rate was 92%....

Labor rights were spelled out under the Wagner Act.

The GI BILL gave Vets a free college education.

With out Labor rights, Education, Progressive taxes, there will be soon be no middle class left.


Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

I agree...to a point (0.00 / 0)
The middle class was not "created". The facts you state are IMHO, irrelevant to the argument. If you look at your property tax bill, you will see that most of it is for schools. My argument is that all you will do is shift things around, not reduce the burden, because we will still be asking the government to provide services such as education.

I find it incredible that no one, except maybe a socialist, would argue that the government should supply food, water, clothing and shelter for the average citizen, yet these things are essential to stay alive. But education is so important that it cannot be left to people to do themselves? Makes no sense to me.

And you still haven't argued why government is the best way to educate the populace.

[ Parent ]
This is what we pay for... (0.00 / 0)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Large percentages of high school seniors are posting weak scores on national math and reading tests even though more of them are taking challenging courses and getting higher grades in school, say two new government reports released Thursday.

"The reality is that the results don't square," said Darvin Winick, chair of the independent National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the national tests.

Nearly 40 percent of high school seniors scored below the basic level on the math test. More than a quarter of seniors failed to reach the basic level on the reading test. Most educators think students ought to be able to work at the basic level.

The reading scores show no change since 2002, the last time they were given. "We should be getting better. There's nothing good about a flat score," Winick said.

The government said it could not compare the math results to old scores because the latest test was significantly different.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress -- often called the nation's report card -- is viewed as the best way to compare students across the country because it's the only uniform national yardstick for how well students are learning.

The tests were given in 2005. The government released the scores along with a report examining the high school transcripts of 2005 graduates.

The transcript study shows high school students are earning more credits, taking more challenging courses and getting higher grade-point averages than in the past.

In 2005, high school graduates had an overall grade-point average just shy of 3.0 -- or about a B. That has gone up from a grade-point average of about 2.7 in 1990.

It is unclear whether student performance has improved or whether grade inflation or something else might be responsible, the report said.

More students are completing high school with a standard curriculum, meaning they took at least four credits of English and three credits each of social studies, math and science. More students also are taking the next level of courses, which generally includes college preparatory classes.

But the study showed no increase in the number of high-schoolers who completed the most advanced curriculum, which could include college-level or honors classes.

On the math test, about 60 percent of high school seniors performed at or above the basic level. At that level, a student should be able to convert a decimal to a fraction, for example.

Just one-fourth of 12th-graders were proficient or better in math, meaning they demonstrated solid academic performance. To qualify as "proficient," students might have to determine what type of graph should be used to display particular types of data.

On the reading test, about three-fourths of seniors performed at or above the basic level, while 40 percent hit the proficient mark.

Seniors working at a basic reading level can identify elements of an author's style. At the proficient level, they can make inferences from reading material, draw conclusions from it and make connections to their own experiences.

As in the past, the math and reading scores showed large achievement gaps between white students and minorities.

Forty-three percent of white students scored at or above proficient levels on the reading test, compared with 20 percent of Hispanic students and 16 percent of black students.

On the math test, 29 percent of white students reached the proficient level, compared with 8 percent of Hispanics and 6 percent of blacks.

The gap in reading scores between whites and minorities was relatively unchanged since 2002.

The federal No Child Left Behind law has put added emphasis on math and reading, largely in the elementary- and middle-school grades. It also requires states to separate out their test scores by race so officials can track and try to narrow achievement gaps between groups of students.

ADVERTISEMENT
Progressive Property Tax? | 78 comments
Featured Stories
Tea Party wins a round against Menendez
by: Rosi Efthim - Mar 16
10 Comments
Standing Up Not Down
by: Jason Springer - Mar 14
4 Comments
Redistrict New Jersey Yourself
by: Hopeful - Mar 13
12 Comments

Blue Jersey Radio
The Voice of NJ Politics
» Next show: Tues @ 8:00p
» Hosts: Jeff Gardner & Jason Springer
» Call in: (646) 652-2773
» iTunes Subscribe | Archives


Follow us on Twitter @bluejersey
Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials
 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
 Jason Springer

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 bytheshore73
 Hopeful
 Jeff Gardner
 Scott Weingart
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 Vincent Solomeno
 Jason Springer
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll
» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Barista of Bloomfield Ave
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Fresh Jersey (Mike Kelly)
» Garden State Grapevine
» Gloucester City News
» Green Jersey
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» The Inside Clamdigger
» Jersey Blogs
» Lassiter Space
» Latinos NJ
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons
» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search












Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.


Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.

Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

 		Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
5730 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.