Doug Kanter wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:LmSTf.1281$Qm2.1278@trndny03...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
egroups.com...


John, will you please stow that kind of talk until they stop taxing
people without kids, to pay for schools?

Yeah...that'll work. Elderly voters in my school district tried it.
They'd come to town & school board meetings and complain about school
taxes, and how they didn't think it was fair to them to pay for
extracurricular activities. In the same breath, they'd bitch about how
"kids just hang around in gangs, all aimless & stuff, with nothin' to do,
and then they get in trouble. Something's gotta be done!"

As someone who doesn't have or want kids, I see it from a different
perspective. While I'm willing to contribute to the common good, why
should I have to do so at the same rate as someone who thinks it's cool to
pop out 4 or 5 kids? For that matter, why should anyone get a tax
DEDUCTION for having kids? Those who consume the most in services should
pay the most in taxes. If you don't force people to pay their own way,
they don't learn personal responsibility and they don't think about the
consequences of their (reproductive) actions. The welfare system taught us
that, in spades.


I'm OK with adjusting school taxes as you described. But, I'd qualify the
change as follows. Anyone who voted that way should have to wear one of
those electric training collars that some hunters use to teach Poopy to
retrieve dead ducks. If you complained about young stupid retail employees
who can't make change, you'd get shocked. Not sure how to monitor the
behavior, but I'm sure something could be figured out.

It's been shown over and over again that the problem with public schools
is not a lack of money. Besides, if you tax people without kids less and
people with kids more, there should be no decrease in revenue.

The government gives people with hybrid vehicles a tax break. Why
shouldn't someone who uses a bicycle instead get an even larger one? Not
only do they use zero fossil fuel and create dramatically lower emissions,
but the environmental cost of building, maintaining and disposing of their
vehicle is several orders of magnitude lower. People who don't own cars at
all should get an even bigger break. As much as I like cars, need a car
and actually enjoy driving, it's pretty obvious that our priorities are
majorly screwed up.

I like the bike idea. But, only if roads are REALLY designed to make it safe
to use bikes. One step in that direction would be mandatory annual driving &
vision re-testing for anyone over 50. A few years back, an old lady here hit
two girls who were standing ON THE SIDEWALK. She said she thought they were
garbage cans. As much as I love biking, there aren't many places I feel
safe.

While such incidents make for great headlines, they're not indicative of
the true level of risk involved. On balance, you're probably much safer
riding a bike than you are driving a car. The health benefits of the
exercise far outweigh the risks.