Education funding fraud

[IrishEyes]

IrishEyes said:

4- I think that there should be a school choice initiative. I pay school taxes, but my children all stay home. My school district still gets my tax money, AND government funding for my children that do not attend. That's not right.

 

stargazer replied:

Do your tax money also go to streets and roads you do not use and clean water you do not drink? Isn't the education already underfunded?

 

Yes, my money goes to streets and roads, and the fire department, which is all volunteer, and I am one of them. I have a well for water though, but nice try.

 

Why does the school district get money for children that are not using their equipment? That's my main gripe here. Yes, I understand that school taxes are paid by everyone. But the schools should not receive money from the government, state or federal, for children that do not even attend. That's fraud, at its most basic. How can anyone say otherwise?

[Freethinker]

Show us how a "school district get money for children that are not using their equipment". Public Schools recieve a budget regardless of how many children there are. Yes budgetary numbers are based on population expectations. But if "little Johnny"'s folks decide to send him to public school this year after attending private school last year (or conversly) the Public Shool's budget does not change.

 

Interestingly, in my area, the Public Shool Budget pays for Highspeed Internet, Crossing Guards and Busses for the Private Religious schools.

[Stargazer]

Am I right when I assume that you think most taxes are fraud, since they pay for many things you do not use? I would think so.

 

As I see it, there are some things that are necessary for a society to function. For the public to be well-educated is something very obvious to me. They should get the opportunity to get an education even if they do not come from rich families and don't have the right connections. I believe a democracy works better with a well-educated public, and freedom is safer with a well-informed public.

[IrishEyes]

Am I right when I assume that you think most taxes are fraud, since they pay for many things you do not use? I would think so.

 

Oh, you got me there. Yep, that's right, I think most taxes are ridiculous. What can I say? I very strongly believe that there should be a flat tax on all income, that there should be NO exceptions to that flat tax, and that the government should be required to run within that limit. But that is, in part, due to me realizing that we have paid more in taxes already this year than what is considered 'poverty level' in my country. So maybe I'm just a little touchy on the tax subject. Sorry about that, don't mean to offend, but it really burns me when people complain about making very little, and I see such a large dollar amount in the YTD Tax column of the pay stub.

 

More to come on this, I have lots of opinions on this topic.

[lindagarrette]

A flat income tax would place most of the burden on the working classes for financing our economy, not that what we have is far removed. There are many other possibilities to consider. Even Bush is looking into the National Sales Tax (progressive consumption) option to replace the IRS. I don't think we are ready for it yet, though.

[IrishEyes]

A flat income tax would place most of the burden on the working classes for financing our economy, not that what we have is far removed.

 

I'm not an economics student, so maybe you can help me understand this one, Linda. If there is a flat tax on every income, if no exceptions to the across the board tax were allowed, how would the working class be responsible for financing the economy? I understand that there are currently ways to get around paying taxes, especially at the corporate level, but if some of the ridiculous exemptions (like Freethinker's Hummer tax) were removed, and every person were required to pay, how would this unfairly tax one group over another? I'm not trying to beargumentative, I really am curious.

 

As to the National Sales Tax, I'll have to read more about that. To me, it sounds like just another way for the government to make a few extra (million) dollars, at my expense.

 

One other thing - I really like your new avatar. I miss the heart, but it's nice to see your face, aside from your website. You look just like my ex-mother-in-law, but that's not a bad thing. I really love her!

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Am I right when I assume that you think most taxes are fraud, since they pay for many things you do not use? I would think so.

 

Oh, you got me there. Yep, that's right, I think most taxes are ridiculous. What can I say? I very strongly believe that there should be a flat tax on all income, that there should be NO exceptions to that flat tax, and that the government should be required to run within that limit. But that is, in part, due to me realizing that we have paid more in taxes already this year than what is considered 'poverty level' in my country. So maybe I'm just a little touchy on the tax subject. Sorry about that, don't mean to offend, but it really burns me when people complain about making very little, and I see such a large dollar amount in the YTD Tax column of the pay stub.

 

More to come on this, I have lots of opinions on this topic.

I agree that taxes should be kept at reasonable levels, but I also strongly believe that they should go to things like public education, public healthcare, police, fire department, etc.

[Freethinker]

Er, should I be the one to say this thread is WAY off topic? Or should I follow suit and explain my Tax Reform package?

[lindagarrette]

The advantage of a national sales tax would be to capture money based on goods spent. The more you buy and the higher price items, outside of necessities, the more you pay. Theoretically, those who can afford to spend can afford to pay more for their luxuries. There would be a horrendous black market, however, and hoarding would be rampant. I don't think sucy a system would be healthy for our economy.

 

The flat tas with no excemptions would be a disaster because, in a nutshell, the working class would have to support the idle rich. Even the so-called graduated tax structure we have now is inequitable because it tops out at around 35% (I think) but the most inequitable tax is the payroll tax which falls exclusively on middle class workers. They pay for the retirement of everyone, including those who paid into the fund a smaller portion of their earnings.

 

Simplified hypothetical example of a flat tax rate at 20%:

Let's examine a hypothetical example of a true flat tax (we have to use a hypothetical example because none of the actual proposals is a true flat tax) and compare it with a simplified example of a hypothetical progressive system. Let's imagine a progressive system with three rates: 15% on the first $25,000 income layer, 28% on the next $30,000 layer (from $25,000 to $55,000) and 33% above $55,000. A person who earns $25,000 would be entirely in the first 15% layer, for a tax of $3,750. His take-home pay is $21,250. A flat 20% rate would raise the working guy's taxes by $1,250.

 

A person earning $200,000 (the wealthiest 2% of the population) pays an exactly equal $3,750 for the first $25,000 layer. For the layer from $25,000 to $55,000 he pays the 28% tax of $8,400; and for the final $145,000 layer he pays the 33% tax of $47,850 for a total tax of $60,000. His take-home pay is $140,000 -- more than six times that of the $25,000 worker. With a flat 20% rate the investor's taxes would go down by $20,000! Then, there's unearned income which would not bet taxed at all.

 

In my personal iopinion, along with a strictly enforced and well designed national sales tax, there should be no income tax and a 100% tax on inheritance. Keep the money flowing.

[lindagarrette]

Don't forget, Earnings of the working poor (not those on welfare) go almost entirely for survival expenses such as food, shelter and clothing. At that level, every dollar is critical; even a small difference causes tremendous changes in the quality of life. Life not being fair, at least let's have some compassion.

[Freethinker]

OK, my ultimate solution to the tax problem.

 

The Total Life Cycle Tax

 

Now first let me state that I realize how difficult it will be to set up the exact monetary assignments for everything. But that issue aside.

 

Anything we use/ own/ ... has a cost which is seldom directly delt with. So we create a tax structure to cover different areas seperately. e.g. Garbage collection is built into some tax such as a property tax. Yet two people living next door in equal price houses will pay the same even if one has 1/2 the garbage. Maybe one uses glasses rather than disposable cups and dishes rather than disposable plates...

 

So Total Lifecycle Tax. Things are taxed, at the manufacturing level, based on the total lifecycle cost of that product. Thus when something is purchased, the total cost of that item is covered from manufacture to disposal.

 

Right now it costs more to buy a glass made of glass, less for a plastic and even less for disposable paper of styrofoam. Yet the glass glass costs less for society. The cheapest to buy, the styrofoam has an artificially low cost. But if manufacture of the styrfoam glass included the cost of everything from pollution control in manufacturing (including additional health costs for air pollution) to extended land fill costs for disposal. Suddenly the foam cup is NOT a bargin. It's cost reflects it ACTUAL cost to society beginning to end. If someone still wants to use one for convenience, THEY are covering the other costs at purchase rather than others thru other taxes.

 

Other governmental operational costs would be calculated and added to the base tax. Booze has social costs and it woould have taxes built into it's ourchase price to cover it. Things that have costs, such as education, that are not able to be assigned to specific items would be bundled in.

 

Instead of the current process of manufacturers find the cheapest way to make something, not wanting to fund polution control measures, safety concerns, ... would struggle with all their efforts to find the least poluted way to make something as it would reduce the tax on it and they could sell it for less. Thus market conditions would promote low polution, well made products because they would actually have a lower total lifecycle tax and cost less in the open market. Products imported fdrom countries without environmental protections and employee concerns would find their products so highly taxed, there would be no pricing advantage for them. They would find it to their benefit to improve these areas to be price competitive. Instead of the current process of ignoring them to be cost competitive.

 

Not only would this solve the tax problem, but it would solve polution and product quality issues as well. It would also dramatically reduce paperwork. No sales tax, no employment tax, no propoerty tax, no income tax, .... No tax advantages to promote corp relocation. Companies would locate based on most convenience, access to workforce, materials, and not benefit from going overseas, ...

 

There would be no benefit to making inferior, cheap disposable products.

 

We would not need expensive and complicated Corp Welfare to promote new technolgies, the companies would work hard just out of pure profit motivation as new technologies would reduce their product tax cost increasing their market share.

 

Better products, less pollution, less tax paperwork, few Gov Departs to handle all these taxes/ processes.....

[lindagarrette]

That doesn't make any sense, FT, or I'm confused. It looks llike your theory would disrupt the market system and lead to economic chaos. No thing has intrinsic value. Only labor does. It is generally true that the more labor invested in an object, the more it is worth; but it is also true that the more people want something regardless of how much or how little labor went into it – the more it is worth. Go from there.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

That doesn't make any sense, FT, or I'm confused. It looks llike your theory would disrupt the market system and lead to economic chaos.

Disrupt? Perhaps, ANY changes in basic taxation would. Chaos? Only in forcing a change in priorities due to significant changes in pricing relationships. Again, using the example of glassware compared to plastic cups. Right now people will buy plastic cups to use for a party because they are cheap and are thrown away after. Reducing both intital out of pocket and personnel resources immediately afterwards. But this ignores the additional pollution during manufacture and the significant increase in cost of handling the disposal long term. Thus the plastic cup is far from reflecting it's true cost to consumers over it's entire lifecycle. It reflects cheap raw materials, little manufacturing cost (since environmental effects are not fully addressed in basic manufacturing costs) and no direct out of pocket disposal costs. Pay $.05 for the cup and throw it away!

 

Where it costs more to make a glass. Materials, labor, shipping (breakable)... And it takes manual cleaning rather than simple disposal.

 

But we know that over the life of the glass the cost of manufacturing is amortized quickly and other than shelf space has no cost after it. Reuse reduces land fill cost and the pollution connected to it.

 

Over the potential decades of the life cycle of a single glass, thousands of cups need to be purchased and disposal covered.

 

But for that one time specific usage, the store price is dramatically in favor of buying the plastic cup.

 

yes there would be chaos in the reworking of processes to deal with the glass. But if the true lifecycle cost was represented at time of purchase, the decision would be made of "Do we pay MORE for easy of disposal?" rather than the current "It's cheap and we can throw it waway".

It is generally true that the more labor invested in an object, the more it is worth;

"Worth"? I don't agree. COST? Yes.

but it is also true that the more people want something regardless of how much or how little labor went into it – the more it is worth. Go from there.

And if they can justify paying MORE for disposablity, then that is their choice.

 

But is completely artificial to say a cheaper shelf price for a disposable product is justifyable based on it's true overall cost to society for the entire life of it's existence, including millenia in land fills and health problems fromn manufacturing pollution.