Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Message-ID: <994@bunker.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 11:42:38 EDT Article-I.D.: bunker.994 Posted: Tue Sep 17 11:42:38 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:19:40 EDT References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <673@utastro.UUCP> <5878@cbscc.UUCP> <10395@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 97 (net.religion deleted from newsgroup list) > In article <5878@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > >>I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't > >>they get tax breaks? > >This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand since public schools > >don't pay taxes either. Private schools have to charge tuition. > >Parents paying this tuition must also pay taxes to support the public > >schools. (This is the argument for tuition tax credits.) > And I suppose we should give rebates to people who don't have children > at all, since they are taxed for a service they don't receive? If not, > why not? Sounds good to me. > Of course, I have a reason myself why I think why not. I think that > society at large gets real, substantial benefits from a generally > educated citizenry. Public school taxes make this benefit possible, > and thus are payed for the same reason you pay other taxes -- because > society at large, and thus you, (allegedly) benefit from the service... On this reasoning, everyone should be forced to support the private schools as well (see below). > ...and it could not be efficiently or properly provided any other way. Whether the public schools are efficient or provided proper education is a matter of much debate. In some people's opinion, they are the best way to educate the citizenry; but other people think otherwise. Their opinion should be considered as well. I don't have any figures handy, but I think I remember reading that the per-pupil cost for private schools was lower than for public schools. Anybody have solid information on this? > The fact that someone might have children they choose to educate some > other way is just as irrelevant to this as someone who has no > children. below: Why? Society at large benefits from the education of these other children also; so, by your reasoning, society at large should help pay for their education also. I propose the following: Assuming that society at large does benefit from a generally educated citizenry (which I'm not really questioning), let each individual decide what he or she thinks is the most effective way of accomplishing that goal, and support that method. This can be accomplished by allowing dollar for dollar tax credits, as opposed to the deduction from income allowed now, for educational expenses, including contributions to educational institutions, up to the amount of tax which currently goes to support the public school. That way, you can support the public schools if you think that is the best way to educate the citizenry, and I can support something else if I think otherwise. As it is, I have to support what you think is best *and* what I think is best, but you don't have to support what *I* think is best. Suppose that this program caused the public school system to go bankrupt (which is possible, but I consider it unlikely). That would indicate that most of the people who were paying for it didn't think it was accomplishing the goal of educating the citizenry, and wanted to support an alternative instead. More likely, the public school system would become more responsive to the public, whom they are ostensibly serving. On the other hand, if the public school system was not hurt by this program, that would indicate that most people did think that it was accomplishing the goal, and wanted to keep supporting it. I have no problem with this; as I said, each should be able to support the educational system or methods he or she finds most effective. Why not eliminate the tax altogether? Well, perhaps that action would eventually take place, if it became clear that the public schools were not what the public wanted. But, at least for me, there are two reasons why this would not be a good idea at this time. First is a matter of practicality; usually it is better if change occurs gradually. (In fact, it might be a good idea to phase the tax credits in; for example, 25% credit the first year, 50% the second, 75% the third, and 100% from then on.) The second reason not to eliminate the tax altogether at this time is to determine what it is the people really want. If everybody uses the tax credit to avoid supporting the public schools, then the tax and the public schools should be eliminated. Let me repeat myself, to avoid misunderstanding: if it turns out that people really *don't want* the public school system, but are supporting alternative educational systems, then the public school system should go away. On the other hand, if relatively few people use the credits, but most keep supporting the public schools, then that's OK, too; everyone has what he or she wanted. > Ken Arnold Gary Samuelson ittatc!bunker!garys Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com