Saturday, February 11, 2006
ONE IDEA
Let's see; as households, we pay for goods and services based on our choices. Even government monopoly services such as water, sewer, building permits, business licenses, parking, fuel taxes, transit fares - even pet licenses. All these, to a greater or lesser degree, are based on decisions we're free to make about whether or not, or the degree to which, we use them. The notion of benefit/cost analysis (to invert the phrase) applies to most decisions made in our dealings in the private sector and many decisions we make about government "goods" and services.
What about schools?
If you're a parent with a child, or children, in PPS, the model doesn't work. One kid? Eight kids?
Your choice.
Leaving aside "school clothes" and "school supplies", which, again, are tied to your choices, you pay the same. Nothing.
Well, you pay taxes, directly or indirectly, but not proportionally.
You say we should tax ourselves more "for the kids"? You think we should pay a city income tax "...whether we like it or not."? You think any talk of school reform, pension and benefit reform, the notion of real teacher contract negotiations is an indication that we "hate schools", "hate kids" or are "selfish"? You think the solution to school funding is, in a word, more?
OK, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Or, more accurately, where your kids are.
How about a sliding scale of tuition for PPS? How about a range from $100.00 to $2000.00 per student per year (no volume discounts, thanks)? Base the per-student annual tuition amount on AGI; $100.00 minimum for the "poorest of the poor". Payable over the course of the school year - think about twelve dollars a month (two packs of smokes or a 12 pack - oops, that was a "mean stereotype"). $2000.00 for households with AGI's over $300K. Tie increases in district costs directly to tuition increases - say 50% of increased costs to be borne by taxpayers in general and 50% by parents. Hell, tie tuition credits to grades or (EEKS!) an objective assessment of classroom teachers' performance.
It's for the kids!!!
Pick your own numbers, the purpose would be to erase the disconnect between cost and benefit. Let's see who really "cares about the children". When the district's lack of any real sense of fiscal responsibility (actually, simply, lack of responsibility) manifests itself in another plaintive cry for "more", we'll see if parents more financially "invested" in the system are so quick to call non-parent taxpayers "selfish". We'll see how well the OEA's BS plays when their demands translate into substantial increases in direct tuition costs - as opposed to increases shared by all the paxpayers in the district.
The system(?), as it now exists, DOES NOT WORK!
The legalized extortion we hear EVERY YEAR, like a broken record, (or a bad CD, for you younger folks :-)) has become intolerable.
Back in the day, I would throw away a broken record.
If I liked it (needed it), I'd replace it with NEW ONE.
What about you?
After all, it's all about choice. ¶ 12:55 PM
Let's see; as households, we pay for goods and services based on our choices. Even government monopoly services such as water, sewer, building permits, business licenses, parking, fuel taxes, transit fares - even pet licenses. All these, to a greater or lesser degree, are based on decisions we're free to make about whether or not, or the degree to which, we use them. The notion of benefit/cost analysis (to invert the phrase) applies to most decisions made in our dealings in the private sector and many decisions we make about government "goods" and services.
What about schools?
If you're a parent with a child, or children, in PPS, the model doesn't work. One kid? Eight kids?
Your choice.
Leaving aside "school clothes" and "school supplies", which, again, are tied to your choices, you pay the same. Nothing.
Well, you pay taxes, directly or indirectly, but not proportionally.
You say we should tax ourselves more "for the kids"? You think we should pay a city income tax "...whether we like it or not."? You think any talk of school reform, pension and benefit reform, the notion of real teacher contract negotiations is an indication that we "hate schools", "hate kids" or are "selfish"? You think the solution to school funding is, in a word, more?
OK, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Or, more accurately, where your kids are.
How about a sliding scale of tuition for PPS? How about a range from $100.00 to $2000.00 per student per year (no volume discounts, thanks)? Base the per-student annual tuition amount on AGI; $100.00 minimum for the "poorest of the poor". Payable over the course of the school year - think about twelve dollars a month (two packs of smokes or a 12 pack - oops, that was a "mean stereotype"). $2000.00 for households with AGI's over $300K. Tie increases in district costs directly to tuition increases - say 50% of increased costs to be borne by taxpayers in general and 50% by parents. Hell, tie tuition credits to grades or (EEKS!) an objective assessment of classroom teachers' performance.
It's for the kids!!!
Pick your own numbers, the purpose would be to erase the disconnect between cost and benefit. Let's see who really "cares about the children". When the district's lack of any real sense of fiscal responsibility (actually, simply, lack of responsibility) manifests itself in another plaintive cry for "more", we'll see if parents more financially "invested" in the system are so quick to call non-parent taxpayers "selfish". We'll see how well the OEA's BS plays when their demands translate into substantial increases in direct tuition costs - as opposed to increases shared by all the paxpayers in the district.
The system(?), as it now exists, DOES NOT WORK!
The legalized extortion we hear EVERY YEAR, like a broken record, (or a bad CD, for you younger folks :-)) has become intolerable.
Back in the day, I would throw away a broken record.
If I liked it (needed it), I'd replace it with NEW ONE.
What about you?
After all, it's all about choice. ¶ 12:55 PM
