| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 2:54 PM: 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." Demanding less wasteful, more efficient, and more effective public schools - and getting off your ass and contributing to that - is different from whining about it and wanting them shut down so you can keep more of your own money. Most of them are far more concerned about the education of children than you are. Oh dear, you aren't making a judgement about me are you? How do you know what my level of concern is? You advocate socialism. Ipso facto you donąt care about the individual. 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. It will result in education for the wealthy. There is no free market incentive to provide education to the poor. Sure there is. Even industry realizes there is a genuine incentive to raise the next generation of workers so they are smarter and better able to adapt to the technological workplace. That's why big businesses support trade and vocational schools and colleges, as well as funding private elementary 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? Free market economics is quite simple. Which makes it all the more puzzling why you don't understand it. 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. There's no profit in educating people who can't afford to pay. Sure there is. You just have to take the long view. 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. How do you define free market economics Scotty? What is it you see in your definition that leads you to believe that private sector educational insitutions will be motivated to educate the poor in a free market economy? Because, for one thing, the companies that will be employing them in the future donąt want to have to provide basic remedial education in the three R's. It's far more cost-effective to put money into educating children when they are children and are receptive to learning than it is to try to teach an old dog new tricks in order to have a pool of reasonably well-educated potential employees to choose from. And as I said, and you have continuously elided, I believe that it's reasonable for society to fund basic education for the *truly poor*, but through the free-market system, not through government run bureaucracies. Those that can pay, pay. Those that absolutely cannot pay still get educated, but the overall costs to society to educate the truly poor is far, far less than what we pay today for inefficient, ineffective public schooling that far too often does no good at all and graduates illiterate dunces because it's too expensive or "socially stigmatizing" to keep them back until they actually learn what they need to know. -- 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 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/27/05 8:07 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/26/05 2:54 PM: 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." Demanding less wasteful, more efficient, and more effective public schools - and getting off your ass and contributing to that - is different from whining about it and wanting them shut down so you can keep more of your own money. Most of them are far more concerned about the education of children than you are. Oh dear, you aren't making a judgement about me are you? How do you know what my level of concern is? You advocate socialism. Ipso facto you donąt care about the individual. Ridiculous. I believe that education and health care should be fundamental priorities in society. My mother would roll on the floor laughing to hear someone call me a socialist. I find it pretty amusing myself! 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. It will result in education for the wealthy. There is no free market incentive to provide education to the poor. Sure there is. Even industry realizes there is a genuine incentive to raise the next generation of workers so they are smarter and better able to adapt to the technological workplace. That's why big businesses support trade and vocational schools and colleges, as well as funding private elementary education. Heehee. That's right, they are going to come into the ghettos of American and build beautiful hospitals and schools so all those poor kids can become executives in their company. You are so silly. 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? Free market economics is quite simple. Which makes it all the more puzzling why you don't understand it. 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. There's no profit in educating people who can't afford to pay. Sure there is. You just have to take the long view. Who has to? A company that is slashing costs to improve the outlook for their next quarterly report? You are so silly. 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. How do you define free market economics Scotty? What is it you see in your definition that leads you to believe that private sector educational insitutions will be motivated to educate the poor in a free market economy? Because, for one thing, the companies that will be employing them in the future donąt want to have to provide basic remedial education in the three R's. It's far more cost-effective to put money into educating children when they are children and are receptive to learning than it is to try to teach an old dog new tricks in order to have a pool of reasonably well-educated potential employees to choose from. It's much more economical for them to get their workforce from populations that require as little additional investment as possible. You are not only an incredibly selfish person, but you have no clue about business either! And as I said, and you have continuously elided, I believe that it's reasonable for society to fund basic education for the *truly poor*, but through the free-market system, not through government run bureaucracies. There is no incentive for the free market to educate the truly poor or any other poor. Those that can pay, pay. Those that absolutely cannot pay still get educated, but the overall costs to society to educate the truly poor is far, far less than what we pay today for inefficient, ineffective public schooling that far too often does no good at all and graduates illiterate dunces because it's too expensive or "socially stigmatizing" to keep them back until they actually learn what they need to know. How will you ensure universal education (including the truly poor) through the free market system? Hint: "free market" means that you can't ensure that anyone will do anything. It's a free market, Scotty. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
