[geeks] Re: Taxes (was: Computerfests)

[Andrew Weiss]

On Apr 17, 2004, at 6:17 PM, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:

> <snip reasonable stuff>



> I don't believe that education should be the responsibility of the
> taxpayer.  We're okay with the idea of paying for college, why aren't 
> we
> okay with the idea of paying for -all- education?  School finance is a
> hot issue in local governement.  Texas and California rank near the top
> in school spending.  CA has the last or second-to-last ranked education
> system in the country.  TX isn't too much better.  More funding is not
> the answer.  More efficient use of funding is.
>
I'm okay with paying for education and I should have that choice, but 
if I could not pay for education, it is the one thing I feel everyone 
is entitled to.  The ONE thing.  There should be education all the way 
through college level that is available to everyone for free... period. 
  Those people (crackwhores/welfare et. al. could never again complain 
that their status in life was because they couldn't obtain a decent 
education)

We would still have "for-pay" "better quality" education available.

> <...>

> If you take away fiat funding, and schools are funded directly by the
> parents of the students attending, you have a competitive incentive to:
>
>    1) Use money efficiently, because there's no guarantee of it being
>       there next year.
>    2) Provide the best education possible and otherwise keep parents
>       happy so that they'll get more students in the future.
>
3) Exclude those who cannot pay.

Nope... instead we should have said parents dictate the budget... or 
perhaps work with a tight budget on an "as-needed" basis with quarterly 
review.

> You and I have fundamental differences of opinion on this.  I'm a
> libertarian, and you're slightly more socialist.  Both are equally 
> valid
> ways of getting the job done.  In fact, if I have to be totally honest,
> I'd -love- to see a socialist society work out without the inherent
> corruption on behalf of those governing the socialst machine.  Because,
> hell, if all we had to do was put in an honest day's work, and
> everything would be guaranteed, we could ALL put a lot more of our
> energies into out craft after-hours and we'd all benefit.
>
I'm actually more socialist than that. (as in quite a bit more than 
slightly... but thanks for the deference)

Andrew