Owing your home today is nearly impossible, but even if you did the ever increasing property taxes will bury you
Owing your home today is nearly impossible, but even if you did the ever increasing property taxes will bury you
You're viewing a single thread.
-
For many states property taxes are the majority of funding for public schools. If that's the case for the pictured person, the sign could also read:
"I got my public education for free from age 5-18 funded from others paying property taxes including learning how to read and write to make this sign you're reading. Now that I've received that free public education and benefited from it, I'm not interested in paying for any kids to be educated using my dollars. F you, I got mine."
-
We could also just pay for education differently.
-
Yes and. How most of the US funds their school system is super fucked up. Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers. This translates to much more equal levels of education, regardless of how wealthy a given neighborhood may be. I was shocked to find out that schools are paid for by catchment area taxes in must of the states - it makes the history of redlining so obvious when the is literally a "wing side of the tracks".
-
Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province
-
Property tax is the mechanism through which the taxes are gathered, but funding is through the province. This is very different than how allocation happens in most states, where schools are directly funded by their catchment area.
-
-
Here in Canada, primary education is paid for by the province, and school funding is based on student enrollment numbers.
So the source is the provincial government, but in that system where is the province deriving the revenue to pay for schools? What is being taxed by the province to bring in the money it uses to fund schools?
-
Property taxes is the answer
-
-
-
property tax is more equitable than sales tax because it is based on wealth instead of consumption.
-
Using property tax to fund education simply leaves poor areas poor and uneducated.
Now if they restructured it so the property tax went to the state level and was distributed to those schools that needed it most, not those schools that were in proximity of the land, I'd be for it.
-
It’s this way by design
-
that is true.
-
-
And progressive tax rates collected at the state level distributed based on student density and district need are better than both options.
-
It's based on wealth that matters for rich people. For the average person it's extremely regressive. We're telling people that they must sell and move if they aren't rich enough. There are better ways to tax people and assets in the 21st century.
-
-
I love the "but it pays for schools" argument, like how about we drop 3 less bombs per year and just pay for all the schools out of the existing tax pool like it should be.
-
I agree with the sentiment but to put some numbers into perspective we spend about 850 Billion a year on K-12 education. The US military budget is about 850 Billion. Now I would fully support switching about 200 Billion of that and throwing it at the most underfunded schools in the country. Another source would be police budgets. Police are massively overfunded and take most of a local region's money. So we could easily grab some of that funding too.
Generally wealth transfer taxes should be higher though, so buying houses (especially second and third houses or out of state houses), buying vehicles over the "budget" category (ballpark 35K these days?), any boat that's not a primary residence or a 10 foot fishing boat, etc etc... This idea that anything other than income tax should affect everyone equally is pretty ridiculous, as is the idea that the only way to tax wealth is to tax stocks.
-
-
Until we do, we can't stop the current funding source. Feel free to present your argument on your proposed alternate method.
-
Have the rich actually pay taxes. Use that.
-
If you're actually serious, you have to do better than that for an answer. How are you going to tax them? What are you going to tax them on? Who is considered rich?
-
It's as fine tuned a proposal as, "tax property".
-
"Tax property" has finely enumerated rules completely spelled out in the letter of the law in hundreds of different variations across many states and cities. You can certainly disagree with it, but its a fully formed and executed system that is funding many schools today.
What you've got so far in this discussion is "stop what is currently in place and make someone else pay somehow". Thats not even fully formed thought much less an argument that can be defended. Your first statement, and now this follow up tell me you're really interested (capable?) of proposing a better alternative.
-
I'm not going to "finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations" for you.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I'm not serious is not serious.
-
I’m not going to “finely enumerate and spell out the letter of the law in hundreds of variations” for you.
I didn't ask you to. I asked you to add some actual substance to what you're proposing instead of simply hand waving "someone should do something somehow" which is useless and ineffectual. Your stance will mean the status quo is maintained, and I personally don't want that.
Income and wealth taxes also have hundreds of variations and fine tunings. Saying I have to invent a whole new system on my own right here and now or else I’m not serious is not serious.
How about even just one part of your propose solution? You've given absolutely nothing except "rich people". You've offered nothing that can be acted on. If you want change, you have to be able to talk about what change you want. If you can't talk in reality, then yes, you are not serious.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-