Rich kids should pay fees to attend public schools.

[crazytown]

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2019, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Why should lower income families ever subsidize schooling for wealthy families?

The extra monies should be used to improve disadvantaged schools, and schooling overall.

EDIT: Why should lower/middle income families ever subsidize public college for wealthy families? That's the argument for something like Pete's proposals. I support fee free public education, no matter how wealthy the parents are. That's the point of this thread.

[mopinko]

1. that is completely twisted logic.

but the answer- that is how you build a more perfect union.

[ehrnst]

2. I think that tax equity would do the same thing. That way, they don't have even more impetus

to enroll their kids to private schools, and advocate for more tax money to go to private schools.

We could also tax and fund schools more at the state and federal level, so that schools in areas with low income populations would get more funding.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Rich people should buy books and not use libraries.

[JDC]

4. I think paying their fair share in taxes is a better narrative

[PJMcK]

5. They already do

The fees are called local and state taxes.

[crazytown]

7. And citizens already pay taxes for public college

Upfront fees for schools are like upfront fees for college. Like Pete wants the wealthy to pay.

[Me.]

6. How Do You Determine Who Is Rich

and also, not make kids a target one way, poor, or the other, rich)

[crazytown]

8. The same way Pete would disqualify the wealthy from 'free' college.

[Voltaire2]

15. Well Pete is dead wrong on this, as he is on many other issues.

[crazytown]

53. I absolutely agree.

[mr_lebowski]

81. Should maybe have made your REAL point in the OP ... just sayin' (nt)

[Demsrule86]

51. I will tell you what happened in GA where they implemented the hope scholarship with no

income requirements...wealthy parents paid for tutors and special programs to get their kids into Georgia Colleges and universities...poor and middle class often couldn't get in...tuition went up a great deal as well...and the wealthy kids invested in hopemobliles...cars bought with money from the Hope Scholarship money...the poor and the middle class paid for this and often couldn't sent their kids themselves...many sent their kids to Alabama in areas which treat some Georgia students as instate...you have to have income requirements. What happens if you don't is that the poor and middle class pay for the wealthy...and public education should be free through High School but our system is not set up to do this in colleges...I like Biden's plan to have community colleges for the first two years. If you implement free college, you will drive up the tuition prices enormously...it will be unsustainable in the long run.

[Me.]

11. So Pointing Out Poor When Dealing With Kids

is a good idea?

[crazytown]

12. Pointing out the poor when dealing with college kids

is a good idea? Like Pete's proposals do?

[Me.]

19. What Are You Talking About?

Many on this thread have suggested dealing with this with tax equity which would leave any type of shaming for anyone.

[crazytown]

22. I am pointing out the same issues apply

whether we are talking about public schooling or college.

[Me.]

24. Discrimination Of This Sort May Sound Good To Some

but there are always unintended consequences of any well-meaning discrimination. A fair tax proposal where everyone pays their fair share is a better way to pay for schools.

[crazytown]

26. So why isn't 'a fair tax proposal where everyone pays their fair share'

a better way to pay for public college.

[Me.]

37. It Would Apply Across The Board

I don't see why there would be an exemption. But that's a differeny propsal than sorting poor/rich.

[Demsrule86]

62. Poor folks are barely putting food on the table ...they can't afford to pay...

[Me.]

67. But Does That Need To Be A Public Statement

like denying a child lunch in a child filled cafeteria. Those who are poor don't have the tax liability the rich do. The tax system, if we can get it to work properly, would tax those who can. The poor already know they are, it needn't be a public statement such as it might come to be...my farther/mother pays more than yours does.

[Demsrule86]

71. There is always a public statement...the thing is it shouldn't be used to shame folks.

[Me.]

73. But We Know It Is

and that is my objection

[Demsrule86]

77. Kids always know...no way to stop that and making it free for all even those who don't need it will

cost a fortune...and those who can least afford it will pay through the nose. You have to make whatever we do sustainable.

[Me.]

86. But That Is Exactly What NYC Has Done Regarding School Food

Anyone who wants/needs a breakfast/lunch can have one, no qualifications necessary.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Rich kids often don't go to public schools at all.

In any event, public schools are funded mostly by local property taxes. Lower-income families pay less property tax so there is less money for the schools in low-income districts, but since rich kids don't go to public schools in low-income neighborhoods, low-income families are not subsidizing schooling for wealthy families. If rich kids go to public schools at all, they go to those in their own upper-income neighborhood, and those schools are funded by the higher property taxes paid by the upper-income residents of that district. Poor kids don't usually get to go to those well-funded schools.

[crazytown]

10. Like rich kids don't often go to public college.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Some do. If Daddy can't get them into the Ivy League school he went to,

they might be stuck with the shame of having to go to a public university, and some public universities are well-regarded enough that even rich people actually want to go to them. Many of the best graduate programs are at public universities. I totally agree that the higher educations of wealthy students should not be subsidized, though I'm all for free or subsidized college for those who couldn't afford to go otherwise. Public universities are not funded by property taxes anyhow, so the whole funding mechanism for them needs a different analysis vs. public K-12.

[crazytown]

20. A question of degree

does not change the argument.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. I'm not sure what the argument really is.

Maybe public schools should be funded by some means other than local property taxes.

[crazytown]

29. There I absolutely agree with you.

Funding by local property taxes entrenches disadvantage.

[Demsrule86]

63. They did in Georgia after Hope...and the poor ended up subsidizing them.

[Journeyman]

13. My children both attended private school, K through college . . .

Please explain why I should not have paid taxes all those years to subsidize your child's education.

And furthermore, explain why I should not have opposed the two California state propositions introduced during those years that sought public money for my children's schools.

[mr_lebowski]

84. If you read the followups the CT posted you'll find this is actually an anti-Pete's position post

regarding college funding.

A point which should, IMHO, have been made in the OP, to avoid people wasting their time making an entirely different counter-argument than they otherwise would have (or not have posted at all).

But to each their own ... I've been known to be oblique a time or two, so ...

[Skidmore]

114. We pay for public education because

our society long ago recognized the value of an educated citizenry. It is nice that you could afford private schooling for your children. Your contribution to society is still needed.

[Journeyman]

115. Re-read my post. I voted to continue my contribution . . .

[Voltaire2]

14. Whenever public services are gated by income they become divisive and oppressive.

The recipients are examined and monitored to make sure they are "worthy' of aid, and opportunistic politicians exploit the situation to pit us against each other.

Also the definition of 'wealthy' invariably becomes: everyone who isn't in dire poverty.

The reason why social security and medicare have survived for so long is that they are primarily not means tested.

[crazytown]

17. Like public college?

Given that good jobs in the future will need a degree?

[Voltaire2]

21. I absolutely support universal public college.

[crazytown]

33. Yep

[Demsrule86]

25. Twisted and a losing issue...have you considered the general and how we craft a winning message?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. Dear lord no.

Chances are the rich families are already paying property taxes which are the main source of funding for public schools.

I chose to send my sons to a secular private school and was sometimes rather unpopular whenever another parent would say they shouldn't have to pay school taxes. We all have a vested interest in good public schools. Just as those who don't currently have kids in the public school, or maybe never had kids at all, even they should pay school taxes.

But rich kids' families shouldn't have to pay twice.

[crazytown]

30. All tax payers are contributing to public college.

The wealthy pay more State taxes. Why should kids' families have to pay twice?

[Demsrule86]

72. That simply isn't true...states have cut funding to the bone for state colleges...and the

rich have all sorts of schemes to avoid taxes.

[dsc]

98. In nearly all states that isn't even close to true

The vast majority of states have regressive taxation systems meaning the poor pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the rich do.

[crazytown]

101. But the wealthy pay more taxes in total.

It is still a double hit.

[dsc]

102. So talk about right wing talking points

yes the wealthy, who have vastly more money, do pay more dollars in taxes but they pay vastly less as a percent of their income.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. I agree that income-based tuition should not be required to attend a public school.

That "tuition" has already been paid through residents' property taxes. I think the real problem is that in low-income districts, where less property tax is paid, there's less money for the schools. There should be a more equitable way of funding the schools so low-income students can have access to public education that's as good as that offered by public schools in wealthier districts.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

91. The real problem, if we are talking about public colleges,

is that states have been systematically cutting their share of the funding for decades now. And I'm pretty sure that property taxes almost never go to funding secondary education, although there may be some states that do that. The education part of property taxes goes mainly to k-12 education, as I understand it. If I'm wrong, just let me know and I'm apologizing in advance for my ignorance.

That and the ludicrous costs of the football and basketball programs, and don't let anyone ever try to convince you that they somehow pay for themselves with alumni donations to the school. In fact, other than Princeton, the schools with the highest percentages of alumni giving are small liberal arts colleges.

In New Mexico, where the state lottery is intended to pay a substantial amount of tuition at the public universities, school administrators have simply raised tuition above and beyond the rate of inflation. Actually, almost every state has done the same (raising tuition far in excess of the rate of inflation) and it's not entirely clear why. Other than they can.

Several years ago I told my son that when I first started college (University of Arizona, fall of 1965) a summer job at minimum wage, provided you lived at home and saved most of the paycheck, would easily cover tuition and fees for the coming school year. Probably not room and board, but still. He round that incredibly difficult to believe. Granted, at the time the U of AZ was a relatively low cost school. We got a surprising number of students from New York State, because Arizona was a whole lot cheaper than any of the state schools there.

The overall paucity of funding for public education at all levels is disgraceful.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

92. I don't think property taxes are used for higher ed - they definitely aren't in my state.

Some big universities make a lot of money from sports, although they also spend way too much on that. The football coach often gets paid more than the school president, which is disgusting. The costs at all colleges, public and private, have become insane.

[elleng]

28. They/their families (and we) DO pay 'fees,'

they are called TAXES.

[crazytown]

31. And wealthy families pay taxes for public colleges as well.

It is the same argument.

[elleng]

32. Yes

[crazytown]

35. I am just pointing out that the arguments for free education

apply equally to public schools and college. Getting a degree has become pretty necessary for a good job.

[LongtimeAZDem]

38. The arguments only apply equally if you are advocating for making college compulsory

[crazytown]

41. No. Completing high school is not compulsory.

[LongtimeAZDem]

42. Only the last couple of years, depending on jurisdiction. College is completely optional.

[crazytown]

45. It's not optional these days if you want a good job.

Post war, high school was enough.

[LongtimeAZDem]

57. So, are you advocating for making college compulsory? If not, then you're just quibbling

[crazytown]

60. No, I'm arguing the state should pay for the education

necessary to get a reasonable job. In the 50s this meant high school (including the last two years). Today that is not enough.

[Demsrule86]

74. You can't force states to do this...so what is the point?

States have cut and cut...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Public universities are not funded in the same way as public K-12.

They do not depend entirely on taxes like K-12 schools. They get money from tuition, grants, donations and various other sources. The argument would be more persuasive if public universities were completely government-funded but they aren't. For example, here's the University of Minnesota's income:

[crazytown]

44. And ... ?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. The point is that public universities are not funded the same way as K-12,

that is, entirely by taxpayers. "Free college" would require not only increased tax allocations to the universities but increased income from other sources.

[crazytown]

59. It does not change the argument of whether government

should pay 80 of tuition fees (Pete's proposal) or 100%. Fees for the wealthy would mean Government would not have to pay 100% of public schooling. If the wealthy can afford fee's they should pay. Same thing.

[aikoaiko]

36. If public schools are funded by priority and local/ state taxes...

...aren't they pay more already for the common good of public ed?

[crazytown]

39. Public ed. includes public college

The wealthy are already contributing more here too. I'm putting up a critique of Pete's college policy.

[GemDigger]

43. Public school is for the public. That includes rich kids.

On the flip side if the parents of the rich kids don't think that public school is good enough then they can pay for a private school out of their own pocket.

[crazytown]

47. Public college is for the public.

[dsc]

99. No they aren't

they have admission requirements which tend to favor the rich.

[GemDigger]

113. K-12

[QualTest]

46. Question

How many "Rich Kids" attend "Public Schools"?

I'll bet if we look at the ratio of those paying greater taxes to pay for free public schools,
to those lower income people benefiting...
This becomes a red-herring discussion.

The assumption here is we are discussing "Higher Education", but I'll bet it applies elsewhere.

This sounds much like the "people want to keep their insurance Co's" argument.
People can't stand, and could care less about their Insurance Co's! They just like their Dr's!

I so much enjoy these silly class warfare, pity the corporation, arguments.

[crazytown]

49. How many "Rich Kids" attend "Public College"?

It's the same argument.

[Liberty Belle]

48. No, public school should stay free for everyone.

Who decides who is "rich" enough to have to pay?

I'm sick of being screwed as a middle or at times, upper middle income earner based solely on hubby's income. It does not take into account the high cost of living in San Diego, one of the most expensive cities in the nation for housing, utility costs, some taxes, etc. Or other costs you may have such as putting kids through college, caring for an elderly relative with dementia, unexpected car or home repairs, etc. Should the kids do without school if your car needs a new transmission or has happened to us this year, a sewer pipe under our steep driveway boost and cost us tens of thousands to repair everything? Should one have to take out a second mortgage to put junior through K-12 school?

Worst of all is our healthcare. Hubby just got a new job that pays slightly less; he observed unethical actions at his old company and left. This week we learned the healthcare policy at the new firm will cost $1,000 EACH - $2,000 total, for hubby and me. With deductibles that already make it unaffordable to access much healthcare. How are we supposed to afford $2,000 a MONTH and that's for a crummy HMO where if you don't like the doctors or referrals take six months to a specialist you're stuck, at least for a while. WE are in our 60s, too young for Medicare yet. We did price Obamacare and other companies, but it's no better. This is obscene and should not be happening in America.

We are not rich. We are now spending more than we make every month because of the healthcare and our savings is being tapped out. Our kids are grown, but if we had children of school age I would not that we have paid our taxes for many years, probably more than many others who are poor, and our children should be entitled to a free public education too. It's part of the promise of why we paid taxes diligently and never tried to cheat or claim gray areas.

Would you say that only poor people can drive on roads free and everyone else must pay a toll? Or that firefighters should only respond to poor people's house fires because middle class and rich folks should pay for private firefighters? That's a very dangerous road to go down.

Of course if someone wants to go to a private school they should pay for that. I oppose public "charters" that suck money out of the public school system except in rare cases.

[crazytown]

50. Agreed.

[Loki Liesmith]

52. That's not a public school then

And if you’re gonna do that to my kids I’m gonna work like hell to see my property taxes go down to make up the loss I’d take sending my kids to public school.

[crazytown]

54. State taxes fund public colleges.

It is the same argument.

[Demsrule86]

64. No, no they used to...but many states have cut the money sent public colleges...and many have closed

as well...you fund public college and the private ones will close and many kids will have no where to go in the end...you have consider all aspects of any program.

[brooklynite]

56. They do pay fees. They're called taxes.

[karynnj]

58. In most states the main funding of schools is the property tax

One of the few taxes where the wealthy pay closer to their share. In a diverse income town, the poor do not subsidize the wealthy.

[crazytown]

66. The poor pay state taxes too.

[karynnj]

82. Property taxes are town or city taxes and they are based on assessed value

As others note rich towns can have far more money for schools. Many states have addressed this by having state taxes, including income taxes, to subsidize schools in poorer areas.

[LiberalBrooke]

61. No, no,no

That’s not the way to get good public education or keep it.

[crazytown]

65. I agree.

And a good public education includes public college.

[crazytown]

68. The arguments for funding public college are the same, eom.

Why should lower income families, paying state taxes, ever subsidize college for wealthy families?

[MineralMan]

69. Most of them do not attend public schools.

One of the benefits of wealth is sending your kids to private schools. Most wealthy people take advantage of that benefit. That has been the case for decades.

[crazytown]

70. Most of them do not attend public college.

[MineralMan]

78. That is true, too.

[bitterross]

75. They, presumably, already do.

Their parents are probably paying property taxes. That's what pays for most public schools.

You are making a fallacy to assume they do not already pay for a service they are not using if they go to private schools.

[crazytown]

76. Their parents are also paying for public colleges through State taxes.

[Iggo]

79. That's insane.

[crazytown]

80. This thread is an argument of tuition free public college.

The same arguments apply. The wealthy can afford to pay fees.

[Iggo]

83. I know what it is. And it's still insane.

[Maine-i-acs]

85. it would be OK to stop diverting public education $$ to private schools

charters are the real grifting.

Taking money from poor kids to discount the for-profit charter schools that can then exclude the poor kids from attending.

[Pisces]

87. This is trolling

[crazytown]

88. No, it is a thread exploring the arguments for fee free education

taking as an example public schools, which are fee free for all.

[Pisces]

89. How about homeschooling households no longer get money for curriculum and p.e. Classes.

That money should go to public schools instead of individual households that teach mostly religious kids alternative science facts (sarcasm).

[crazytown]

90. No public funding for 'Liberty' University.

No public funding for 'abstinence' education. SCOTUS should revisit home 'schooling'. They won't, but they should.

[Hortensis]

93. No, it'd be bigoted discrimination against children of wealthy parents

who pay in. And imo shameful to even pretend there could be a valid argument for bigotry, inviting people who think racism is the only way our inner bigots are expressed to leap in. Pisces' response is actually more generous than mine.

We support universal, publicly funded education for the good of our nation as a whole and of its people individually and to encourage everyone's stake in democracy.

[crazytown]

94. No. Not at all.

I believe in free public education. It is a public good. I don't believe there should be discrimination against the children of wealthy families when it comes to public college. A high school education may have been sufficient in the 1950s, but it is not now. If the wealthy should pay more taxes to support public education, well and good, but don't charge the kids fees.

I'm sorry if you got that impression. It was not my intention.

[Hortensis]

95. Okay, but encouraging the more prosperous half of

our nation's voters to believe they're not as entitled to the benefits of belonging as everyone else would be disastrous and that's always been understood. The goal is a nation who believe in "us" and are willing to pay into the general welfare. Not various groups who believe in "us" v all the others they resent.

[Me.]

107. Very Well Said

You did it again

[LongtimeAZDem]

96. Have to agree

[dsc]

97. last I checked public high schools don't have admission requirements

public colleges do. For example ECU requires an 1110 SAT which is about a 22 ACT. I took a look at my school's and my districts ACT results. Only 33.9% at my school and 43.7% at my district scored 17 or above. State wide it is 57.9%. So an awful lot of people who can't get into college (most of whom are likely to be poorer than those who can get in) are going to be paying for the educations of those who can (including children of doctors and lawyers).

[crazytown]

100. Not everyone can get into the civil service either.

Education is a public good.

[dsc]

103. the civil service favors military vets which actually disfavors the wealthy who are less likely to

be vets.

[OhNo-Really]

104. Charter School was line item on my real estate tax bill. Furious

[aidbo]

105. I am completely flabbergasted by how many didn't get your real meaning.

Its like no one has ever heard of a ‘modest proposal’

[dawg day]

108. It was far clumsier a proposal-- not exaggerated or detailed enough to be satire.

Then again, maybe we're just getting used to proposals made insincerely and without evidence, and no one can recognize satire anymore.

[crazytown]

111. I put an edit in the the OP to make it clear what I was talking about.

Education is a public good, and a right. That's what I was saying. Finishing high school can no longer be counted as a good education, as it was in the 1950s - then the unskilled were hung up to dry

So the graduations hang on the wall
But they never really helped us at all
No they never taught us what was real
Iron and coal, chromium steel
And we're living here in Allentown
But it's getting very hard to stay
Allentown, Billy Joel

[dawg day]

106. In my kids' public school, there were two families who were very wealthy-

They felt a dedication to public education, donated more than generously to the PTO and the schools foundation, and have continued to do so long after their children are grown.

They had other choices, of course. But they believed their children should not separate themselves from regular people.
Public education is not 'public' if some children are barred from going unless they pay. And that includes rich people.

I'm not rich, but I think once we start discouraging people from sending their kids to public schools for whatever, we will lose the inclusiveness and community that is essential to public education.

Tax ALL the rich more, but don't penalize parents who care about public education.

[beachbumbob]

109. So you don't understand how property tax works? That's how public

education gets most of revenue. Don't force me to draw and connect all the dots

[crazytown]

110. As indicated in the OP

I am making an argument for fee free public college. Wealthy parents fund public colleges too - they pay more in State taxes.

[Blue_true]

112. No.

Their parents should pay their fair share of taxes and funding should be equal for each school, with differences only for the school level (elementary, pre-middle, middle, high).

[treestar]

116. They will just always go to private schools

In fact, mostly they already are.