On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict sense,
but #5?

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism. If I send 'em to private
school, I should be able to at least deduct the cost of the private school
from taxes...even if it's a deduction off of AGI instead of a true
"credit".

By not allowing tax breaks, you create such a strong disincentive for people
to send their kids to private school, that they're effectively being forced
by the government to accept a government-controlled program...which is
socialism.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay teachers'
salaries?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but
it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for
my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay
teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

The funds are only "public" because some "private" citizen was forced to
give them to the government. There is no such thing as "public" funds...so
let's just call them publicly held private funds.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict
sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but
it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for
my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay
teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

The funds are only "public" because some "private" citizen was forced to
give them to the government. There is no such thing as "public" funds...so
let's just call them publicly held private funds.



You need to get your head out of newsmax.

--
Email sent to is never read.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:42:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism. If I send 'em to private
school, I should be able to at least deduct the cost of the private school
from taxes...even if it's a deduction off of AGI instead of a true
"credit".

By not allowing tax breaks, you create such a strong disincentive for people
to send their kids to private school, that they're effectively being forced
by the government to accept a government-controlled program...which is
socialism.

Rather interesting definition of socialism. If I'm reading it right, any
government controlled program is socialism? As a country, we have decided
government is to provide certain services, a military, roads, education,
amongst others. It seems reasonable to me.

I would add, public education is government funded, but not
totally government controlled. Boards of education keep much of the
control local. All tax payers can have a say. You are proposing taking
your funds from that pool, and placing them in the private sector where
other tax payers will have no say. I say unfair.

I have no children, but gladly pay for public education, as education is
most important to the future of this country. If I have to pay for
educating our children, I think it's only fair that you have to pay as
well. Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
news
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

Oooh.....good one. :-)

"thunder" wrote in message
news
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my money.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
news
Now, do you want to talk about my subsidizing your raising children
(tax deduction for children)? ;-)

A tax credit or tax deduction is *not* a subsidy. I'm only getting back
money I shouldn't have paid in the first place...but it's still my money.



Because I fractured a bone in my hand last night and I'm trying to type with
a cast on, I'll let you get away with that silly comment for now. But I'll
be back for you, Mr Molar. :-)