A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity" is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.

It's all about levelling the playing field.

When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you
drive the opportunities to excel into the ground. Level playing fields are
for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to
succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you
reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest
in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues
the struggle of actually climbing the mountain.

Not everyone is destined for fame and fortune, and it's ridiculous to try to
ensure that every child will be successful. One of the worst things we do to
our children is the systematic, socialistic excision of competition from
education. From soccer leagues that don't keep score to banning running
races because somebody has to lose, this anti-competetive "level playing
field" agenda is destroying the motivation for innovation and excellence
that helps the poor become not-poor.

That's a lot of what having a
society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of
family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to
giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into.

The question is how far down that road society can go without destroying
itself through "leveling" everyone out.

As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I
have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My
argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that
public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many
children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more
effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education
does not.


Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.

But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"

I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.

Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden
of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the
government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The
distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to
provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the
benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of
another individual's "rights."

However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a
dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than
merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social
benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation.

That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?

It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.

A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.

It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future.


Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.

Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?

Figure it out.

Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?"

From their parents.

is all they know is poverty?

Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every
human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity
and success.

Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?

They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in
"leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on
their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support
and encouragement towards success.


FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.

Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.

Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.

No, the parents should.


You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.

Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I believe in a hand up, not a handout.

Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.

I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults.


Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten,
browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part
of
their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all
they
know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he
can feed the world.

How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor
people should not have access to education.

I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public
education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public
education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else.

If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs
like yourself obviously aren't going to support it.

So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.

It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.

Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for
society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this
really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.

And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are
private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide
free health care for the indigent. There's lots of charitable foundations
and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to
provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the
participation of the government...at lower expense to the public.

So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to
provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt
out."

Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt
out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet
society continues to provide services to them.

What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other
people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and
socialistic egalitarianism. You think that everybody should suffer equally
on that "level playing field." Unfortunately, even in your Canadian Utopia,
not everybody plays on the same field or pays their "fair share." That's
life.

There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for
the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or
merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.

The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and grab
one.

I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.

Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.

I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.

Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like.


If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.

LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.

Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.

Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?

Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood
into the country to take these jobs.


I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.

And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those
benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations
are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government
operations.


The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the
graduates
might be capable of thinking.

True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential,
largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure
and
muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses.

Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist
propaganda
and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and
every one who does is universally a conservative thinker.

In your fantasy world.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL.

His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than
half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently
intelligent to be President of the United States.

You didn't really answer the question.

Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer.

Sure I did. It was a dodge.

Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates?

Yes or no.

Asked and answered.


FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.

Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?

Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.

And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college, flew fighter jets in the
military (which I'm betting you've never done), was the governor of Texas
and is now the President of the United States.

I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and
ignorant proclamations.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do. That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.
Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do. I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics. The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 6:55 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================
For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools.
But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and
thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish
prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
============

And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you
think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way
of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must
be very charitable indeed.

Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord
may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that
there
is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same
for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no
matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in
an
apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on
the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are,
essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to
public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay.
And I don't have any kids in public school at all.

A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually
use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a
per-capita
basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden
on
property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free.

And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private
schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the
tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the
*children*, no matter what school they attend?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

That's precisely what I want to do.

I know.

That's what a lot of people who have
some intelligence and understanding of free-market economics want to do.

That's what selfish prigs want to do.

Not everybody who wants to eliminate government waste and inefficient,
ineffective public schools is a "selfish prig." Most of them are far more
concerned about the education of children than you are. They simply realize
that the free market, combined with a minimal amount of taxpayer-funded
stipends for the truly disadvantaged will result in a much better system of
childhood education.

I have a perfect understanding of free
market ecomomics.

Remarkable. Why is it then that you are not the world's leading economist,
to whom all others, with their imperfect understanding, go to for advice?

Could it be that you overestimate your understanding?

The outcome of applying free market economics to education
and health care is marginalize the poor and divide society into a rigid
system of haves and have-nots.

Socialist twaddle.


Doing so will result in better, cheaper, more widely available education,
and combined with a modest stipend for the very poor, garnered from a
consumer goods national sales tax, it will provide the closest thing to
high-quality, universally-available education we can have.

Absolutely insane.

What an erudite and reasoned rebuttal from the only person on the planet
with a "perfect understanding" of free market economics.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scotty asserts:
================
Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the
property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income
from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system.
==================

Perhaps that's how property tax is calculated in CO. In BC, your
millrate is a function of your property's assessed MARKET VALUE.
(Acreage is thus irrelevant)

So, for a multi-unit apartment building, the market value will
presumably be quite high, and thus the tenants do carry a tax burden.

frtzw906
=================

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scotty asserts:
================
Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the
property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income
from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system.
==================

Perhaps that's how property tax is calculated in CO. In BC, your
millrate is a function of your property's assessed MARKET VALUE.
(Acreage is thus irrelevant)

So, for a multi-unit apartment building, the market value will
presumably be quite high, and thus the tenants do carry a tax burden.

Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in both
use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while the
mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every five
years. There is no direct link between the income the property generates
from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the
renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott:
==============
Mill levies are set based on the "assessed value" which does factor in
both
use and comparative property values along with parcel size, but while
the
mill levy is set each year, the assessment is changed only about every
five
years. There is no direct link between the income the property
generates
from year to year and the assessable value of the property, so no, the
renters don't pay their "fair share" of the school taxes
===============

Semantics.

frtzw906