Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:50:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu (Annelise Anderson) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, hoek@hwcn.org, softweyr@xmission.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199708102250.PAA21205@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970810150349.807A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> from "Annelise Anderson" at Aug 10, 97 03:27:53 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Annelise Anderson wrote: > > California school funds don't stay where they're raised; the state > moves the money around. I thought this was the result of a Supreme > Court decision, but maybe it's just California. So, there's equal > funding per student, roughly. in maryland the money is tied to the local property taxes and does not move...i believe the same is true in texas. > > > vouchers pay people to segregate themselves from the rest of > > the community increasing the factionalism that we suffer from > > today. for the ills that compulsory military service entails, > > one benefit is to create a common experience shared by a > > large number of the adult population. an experience that can > > serve to unify the citizenry (provided its not abused, as it > > was during the vietnam war) > > No, vouchers come much closer to equalizing the opportunity to select > a school; in Washington, D.C., almost no members of the Congress send > their kids to public school; neither does the president; and neither, > it seems, does jmb. :) true, true, yet i am not in favor of vouchers nonetheless. i'm not too bright ;) > > > > I like the school voucher approach better than increasing the > > > personal exemption, because it provides choice at all income > > > levels. > > > > i dont understand. the personal exemption is availabel to > > all income levels--equally--everyone subtracts "number of > > dependents" * "personal exemption" from their income". > > > > for the very poor, there is the earned income tax credit, > > or at least there was until recently. > > > > jmb > > The personal exemption means there's some income on which you don't > have to pay taxes; but it doesn't give you the right to take funds > that would otherwise go to the public school to educate your kid and > go shopping with them (shopping only for education!). School vouchers > are sort of like.....food stamps. In fact that's why some proposals > call them "scholarships" instead of vouchers. well, john dyson said that poor people care about their kids. i can believe that. anyone who is working to support their children is doing something right already. but why should "we" decide how they have to spend the money? if the parents feel that private school is the right thing, let them purchase it...or let them use the money to move to a neighborhood where the public schools are better...or whatever. hwo are we to decide that for them? wow! now is sound like a libertarian :) bottom line....return the personal exemption to what it was before inflation eroded it to its present state. the additional money for families will alleivate a number of stresses that families face. living on a single income will be an option for more people, should they wish to do that. if not, both of them can continue to work. jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708102250.PAA21205>