Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:57:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: hoek@hwcn.org, softweyr@xmission.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970810113330.127A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <199708101044.DAA15799@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
> Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in this
> > particular province here, those going to a private or religious
> > school find themselves paying twice, once for the public system,
> > and then again for themselves. Would a change to the tax system
> > so that those going to a separate system pay only the difference
> > twice seem reasonable to you? (ie. if one normally had to pay 7$
> > to the public system, but one currently had children privately
> > educated, paying 10$, one would pay only the difference, 3$, to
> > the public system).
If one school cost $12 instead of $10, the parents of a child in that
school would pay $5 instead of $3. I think what you want to do is
cover a minimum.
The proposal that's been around for quite a while, in different forms,
is the school voucher. The parents get a voucher for a child worth
say $1500 (probably something less than the full cost of sending the
kid to public school). They can take this to any school, public or
private; if public, they pay no more. If private (including parochial
schools) they pay whatever the school charges in addition.
Some voucher programs exist, especially in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
There is powerful resistance from teachers' unions, especially to
including private schools in a "school choice" program; parents often
have a choice among public schools (in San Mateo County, where I live,
parents can send a child to any of its public schools). (The
Constitutional question of separation of church and state is pretty
much taken care of by giving the vouchers to the parents and not
directly to the schools, although some people still consider it
unconstitutional.)
The argument for school choice/vouchers is that there would be competition
among schools and thus some improvement; proponents argue that it is
especially important in inner cities where schools are more likely
to be appallingly bad and also dangerous.
There are a lot of arguments against vouchers; what we really need
is an experiment in a large state (e.g., California) that goes on for
long enough to produce some results.
The argument against vouchers from the libertarian perspective is
that it will lead to more government control of private schools, and
in fact all schools will be subject to the same rules & regs that
hamper public schools.
> > Incidentally, if you say "No, this is not reasonable; people
> > going to a private school have tons of money to spare, anyways",
> > I will be tempted to yell at you very loudly.
>
> currently, you have to pay twice. taxes to support the local
> public school system and then tuition to the private school.
> yes, it is hard on families, i am currently paying over $10k
> a year to private schools. one way of easing the burden is
> to restore the personal tax exemption to the value it had
> in the 1950's....if i reember correctly that would be
> nearly $10k rather than the current amount of $2500
>
> the tax revenue would have to be recovered eslsewhere.
> removing all "special interest tax breaks" would b a good
> start.
> jmb
I like the school voucher approach better than increasing the
personal exemption, because it provides choice at all income
levels.
Annelise
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970810113330.127A-100000>