I'm taking a day off from my usual health diary to talk about an interesting debate I had with a co-worker on the state of public education. In California each School District is funded based on the property values of the neighborhood. This means that in wealthy areas students get the best books and facilities and teachers. It also means there are poor schools where students are sharing books that are twenty years old in classrooms that are falling apart. I suggested that instead of basing school funding off the property values of each neighborhood that funding should be equitable statewide and based on the number of students each school has. That way there would be no inherent discrimination. My co-worker told me that is "socialism" and she did not feel she should have to pay to make sure all kids are given the same opportunities at an education. Her attitudes was kind of like "Why should we have to pay for them?" This from someone who has no children and already pays for the rich kids in Westlake Village! I guess my frustration with this is that there seems to be an attitude that poor people are responsible for their own circumstances so they deserve what they have. When we are talking about education though it seems most people would realize that children have no control over where they live rich or poor so why should there be a disparity in the education they receive. It's not like I'm suggesting we raise taxes, just make sure that the taxes that are collected are spread around more equally. So this is where I ask for your opinion. Is the current system fair? (Yes I know life is not fair) Is my suggestion socialism? Is my co-worker right? What's your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Living in California, as a homeowner, one quickly learns that property taxes are 1% of the adjusted mortgage rate (as set by the county Tax Collector's office) plus "voted indebtedness" which can be as high as another 1/2 to 1%. Yes, if you paid a lot for your home, then your taxes are going to be very high; from that money is allocated the amounts paid for local water, sewer, schools, etc. (check out your yearly statement to see what all you pay). In San Diego County, a teacher goes to college and whether they graduate with a Bachelor's or a Master's Degree, that County requires another 2 years for "teaching credentials". Not so in Los Angeles County; whose teachers get by with 1/2 of SD's education. Not having any children at all begs the question "Why should we have to pay for them?" but, the funding of schools will still get funded out of your taxes regardless, and that seems more like "socialism" than the inequity you describe above. Schools are funded by their local city & county taxes, and if you live in a poor, or run-down neighborhood, you don't pay as much for a house, hence, lower property taxes, and poorer, more run-down schools. Capitalism, Sunshine ~ love it or leave it. I usually get an "F" on tests that require an opinion, so disregard this if it doesn't make any sense. It's 1:15 am and the world doesn't need to hear my opinions this time of night/day!! Good Luck with your debate though.
ReplyDeleteMy co-worker wasn't complaining about having her taxes go to pay for the kids in her area (which is extremely wealthy) but the idea that her taxes would go to pay for "other" kids. My question is what difference does it make whose kids your tax dollars are going to if you still have to pay? I can see her argument if she was complaining about having to pay taxes for schools when she doesn't have children but this just doesn't make any sense to me.
ReplyDeleteAs far as socialism, well... Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. I have been called a socialist in many instances. This won't be the last...lol
ReplyDeleteI agree with you totally sis...you have to pay anyway, so spread it around ALL schools regardless of location, evenly. Your co-worker's (capitalist) mentality is exactly why we are where we are with education and funding for schools.
Hey Sunshine: I've been thinking about this for several days now; I actually think a system of social organization is already in place for schools that are paid for by city and county taxes. This socialism advocates the control of the tax money distribution as a whole in the community and is used in whatever county where someone lives. What you're describing is living in a utopian socialism environment; an economic system based on the premise that capital would be voluntarily surrendered and its payments would go to the State; theoretically, money would then be spread across the state-funded schools equally.
ReplyDeleteIf you remember a few years back, the infamous "they" suggested that we do away with public schools altogether; privatization would take over and the children would go where their parents could afford to send them. The ones who didn't have children didn't have to pay. Quickly that vanished because there would have been too many kids not in school at all. I don't think there's an easy answer here.