 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
|
amother
OP
|
 Thu, Nov 28 2019, 12:38 pm
|
The reason public school has to exist is because education is mandatory. It would be extremely unfair to require something that costs so much and not provide it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 1
|
roses
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 12:44 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | | If everyone benefits from an educated society then why do we need govt programs such as food stamps and section 8 if we are paying people to get an education through public school? They are educated so they are able to fill the society roles without needing further assistance. A select few can become doctors or specialists and should be able to pay for college themselves instead of making it for everyone and driving up the tuition fee. So either you got the privilege of an education by using other peoples money and you can now give back by becoming a civil servant or serving in military etc. If not, then getting a public school education is not beneficial to anyone and should be abolished altogether leaving everyone to pay for their own kids education. So I ask again, why should someone without kids pay for the education of other peoples kids if these kids will go on to just be on govt benefits (that the person without kids will now have to fund as well)? |
Public education supports a basic level of education for all, which of course still benefits society. Think about societies in Africa and Asia where education isn't publicly funded. They can't keep up on the world stage, and are unable to compete meaningfully with other developed countries.
If higher education were publicly funded, such as in Canada (I think?) And Europe, the US would likely have an additional advantage. But that's a whole other argument.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
|
amother
Navy
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 12:48 pm
| amother [ OP ] wrote: | | The reason public school has to exist is because education is mandatory. It would be extremely unfair to require something that costs so much and not provide it. |
But why should people with no kids pay for it? And if every kid has the privilege of getting an education and society benefits from it because the kids give back by being civil servants, in the military, etc then why do we need govt benefits like food stamps and section 8 to begin with? Either everyone is educated and can stand on their own two feet or the system is not working so we can get rid of public schools altogether and make people be responsible for the kids they choose to have instead of forcing those with no kids to pay for other peoples decision to have kids.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
roses
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 12:58 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | | But why should people with no kids pay for it? And if every kid has the privilege of getting an education and society benefits from it because the kids give back by being civil servants, in the military, etc then why do we need govt benefits like food stamps and section 8 to begin with? Either everyone is educated and can stand on their own two feet or the system is not working so we can get rid of public schools altogether and make people be responsible for the kids they choose to have instead of forcing those with no kids to pay for other peoples decision to have kids. |
And this is where we come full circle!
Because college education isn't publicly funded, and it is prohibitively expensive for many people
Because many people have learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, mental illnesses, medical conditions, and other categories that lend themselves to poverty
Because of minimum wage laws that don't supply a living wage in most of America
Because wages haven't kept up with inflation for most Americans and it is harder and harder for families to keep up
Because the way Hashem made the world is that there will always be people that are poor and that need assistance
Because health care in America is prohibitively expensive and can bankrupt many families
Because we don't have good solutions for care and support of the elderly in America, many of whom need to rely on public support when their funds run out
Because humans are complicated, humans have limitations, humans have difficult lives, and in a civilized society it makes moral sense to have a (reasonable) safety net for those that need it
Because emergencies happen and people's best laid plans can fall apart with a child's illness, a car accident, a layoff, a business that fails, etc....
And I'm just getting started....
| |
|
| Back to top |
5
|
small bean
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:08 pm
In getting a headache going in circles.
Rose's can we start a new thread on minimum wage. It is a topic in and if itself. And on government spending?
Or maybe not. I haven't been here for a few years and now I'm spending too much time here.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
|
amother
Magenta
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:12 pm
| roses wrote: | Public education supports a basic level of education for all, which of course still benefits society. Think about societies in Africa and Asia where education isn't publicly funded. They can't keep up on the world stage, and are unable to compete meaningfully with other developed countries.
If higher education were publicly funded, such as in Canada (I think?) And Europe, the US would likely have an additional advantage. But that's a whole other argument. |
There is plenty of public funding for higher education in the US.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
|
amother
Magenta
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:14 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | | But why should people with no kids pay for it? And if every kid has the privilege of getting an education and society benefits from it because the kids give back by being civil servants, in the military, etc then why do we need govt benefits like food stamps and section 8 to begin with? Either everyone is educated and can stand on their own two feet or the system is not working so we can get rid of public schools altogether and make people be responsible for the kids they choose to have instead of forcing those with no kids to pay for other peoples decision to have kids. |
In no system can every educated person stand on their own two feet.
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
small bean
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:21 pm
| amother [ Magenta ] wrote: | Flat tax on all income, even if it means poverty? Are you getting rid of the standard deduction in the US?
Fine on whatever protection means.
If all income is taxed at 10% - those who earn more money will be contributing more than those who earn less. |
Yes. If I have a business and I want to make 30%. That dollar amount will vary based o the item. I'm okay with that.
The people who complain rich people dont give enough, give even less percentage wise. The people who are happy with what everyone gives, are usually giving more.
I think the public school system has to be revamped, but we do need education. It is for the betterment of society. I'm a fan of charter schools. I like the idea of private schools as well.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
|
amother
Magenta
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:24 pm
| small bean wrote: | Yes. If I have a business and I want to make 30%. That dollar amount will vary based o the item. I'm okay with that.
The people who complain rich people dont give enough, give even less percentage wise. The people who are happy with what everyone gives, are usually giving more.
I think the public school system has to be revamped, but we do need education. It is for the betterment of society. I'm a fan of charter schools. I like the idea of private schools as well. |
I don't understand the business 30% comment.
The government isn't looking to make a margin. They are looking to fund their budgets.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
|
amother
Navy
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:31 pm
| roses wrote: | And this is where we come full circle!
Because college education isn't publicly funded, and it is prohibitively expensive for many people
Because many people have learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, mental illnesses, medical conditions, and other categories that lend themselves to poverty
Because of minimum wage laws that don't supply a living wage in most of America
Because wages haven't kept up with inflation for most Americans and it is harder and harder for families to keep up
Because the way Hashem made the world is that there will always be people that are poor and that need assistance
Because health care in America is prohibitively expensive and can bankrupt many families
Because we don't have good solutions for care and support of the elderly in America, many of whom need to rely on public support when their funds run out
Because humans are complicated, humans have limitations, humans have difficult lives, and in a civilized society it makes moral sense to have a (reasonable) safety net for those that need it
Because emergencies happen and people's best laid plans can fall apart with a child's illness, a car accident, a layoff, a business that fails, etc....
And I'm just getting started.... |
Life is expensive, school is expensive, health insurance is expensive, rent is expensive etc. But it still doesnt answer the question why someone with no children should be responsible for the children of other people.
Not everyone needs to go to college to become a dr, not everyone is capable of going to college yet you keep pushing that as the narrative.
People can become bus drivers, taxi drivers, plumbers, electricians, care takers, join the military etc without ever having to go to college.
College should be for the few who are capable and they usually get scholarships anyway so paying for it should not be an issue.
People can get good jobs that can pay health insurance without having to go to college. People with disabilities are a special class and get special services in the first place as no one "chose" to have kids with disabilities so that is a separate issue.
And if everyone gets a public school education then there should be no reason why we need govt programs. Yet many people fail miserably even with an education so an education is not the only variable that helps people out of poverty.
At the end of the day the only thing we know for sure is that God is in control. So there is no need to tax anyone, especially the wealthy, more money because God can make sure that those people that need more money can get it without taking it away from those that have it. Unless you dont think that God can take care of everyone in the world which is why you want to take control and decide what is best for everyone by taking more money from the rich to give to the poor. And that is pretty much what this is about, control. Trying to even out the playing field when you have never read the blueprints that God created and you do not understand why the world runs the way it is so you want to rewrite it. Sad that this is even a viewpoint on imamother.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
Mommyg8
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:38 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | Life is expensive, school is expensive, health insurance is expensive, rent is expensive etc. But it still doesnt answer the question why someone with no children should be responsible for the children of other people.
Not everyone needs to go to college to become a dr, not everyone is capable of going to college yet you keep pushing that as the narrative.
People can become bus drivers, taxi drivers, plumbers, electricians, care takers, join the military etc without ever having to go to college.
College should be for the few who are capable and they usually get scholarships anyway so paying for it should not be an issue.
People can get good jobs that can pay health insurance without having to go to college. People with disabilities are a special class and get special services in the first place as no one "chose" to have kids with disabilities so that is a separate issue.
And if everyone gets a public school education then there should be no reason why we need govt programs. Yet many people fail miserably even with an education so an education is not the only variable that helps people out of poverty.
At the end of the day the only thing we know for sure is that God is in control. So there is no need to tax anyone, especially the wealthy, more money because God can make sure that those people that need more money can get it without taking it away from those that have it. Unless you dont think that God can take care of everyone in the world which is why you want to take control and decide what is best for everyone by taking more money from the rich to give to the poor. And that is pretty much what this is about, control. Trying to even out the playing field when you have never read the blueprints that God created and you do not understand why the world runs the way it is so you want to rewrite it. Sad that this is even a viewpoint on imamother. |
I don't have time to respond to many of the points here, but re the bolded:
Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “If your G‑d loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?”
Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “So that we should be saved from purgatory (in the merit of the charity we give).”
Said he to him: “On the contrary: for this you deserve to be punished.
“I’ll give you an analogy. This is like a king who got angry at his slave and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded If your G‑d loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?that he not be given to eat or to drink—and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, is he not angry at that person? And you are called slaves, as it is written (Leviticus 25:55), ‘The children of Israel are My slaves.’”
Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “I’ll give you an analogy.
“This is like a king who got angry at his child and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded that he not be given to eat or to drink—and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, does he not reward that person?
“And we are G‑d’s children, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:1), ‘You are children of the L‑rd your G‑d.’”
==============
Yes, navy, G-d can feed the poor but right now he is using the United States government as one of his shluchim  . I for one, am very grateful to live in a medinah shel chesed.
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
|
amother
Navy
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:44 pm
| Mommyg8 wrote: | I don't have time to respond to many of the points here, but re the bolded:
Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “If your G‑d loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?”
Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “So that we should be saved from purgatory (in the merit of the charity we give).”
Said he to him: “On the contrary: for this you deserve to be punished.
“I’ll give you an analogy. This is like a king who got angry at his slave and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded If your G‑d loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?that he not be given to eat or to drink—and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, is he not angry at that person? And you are called slaves, as it is written (Leviticus 25:55), ‘The children of Israel are My slaves.’”
Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “I’ll give you an analogy.
“This is like a king who got angry at his child and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded that he not be given to eat or to drink—and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, does he not reward that person?
“And we are G‑d’s children, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:1), ‘You are children of the L‑rd your G‑d.’”
==============
Yes, navy, G-d can feed the poor but right now he is using the United States government as one of his shluchim . I for one, am very grateful to live in a medinah shel chesed. |
Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from giving all your money to the government so that they can give it to the poor but that is not the same as the govt taking away money from the rich so your point is not applicable here.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
|
amother
Magenta
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:44 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | | Life is expensive, school is expensive, health insurance is expensive, rent is expensive etc. But it still doesnt answer the question why someone with no children should be responsible for the children of other people. |
Because the government long time ago has figured off that everyone is better off if the residents of the country are educated. Its a collective responsibility - and a collective benefit.
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
roses
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:45 pm
| Mommyg8 wrote: | I don't have time to respond to many of the points here, but re the bolded:
Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva: “If your G‑d loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?”
Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “So that we should be saved from purgatory (in the merit of the charity we give).”
Said he to him: “On the contrary: for this you deserve to be punished.
“I’ll give you an analogy. This is like a king who got angry at his slave and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded If your G‑d loves the poor, why doesn’t He feed them?that he not be given to eat or to drink—and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, is he not angry at that person? And you are called slaves, as it is written (Leviticus 25:55), ‘The children of Israel are My slaves.’”
Said Rabbi Akiva to him: “I’ll give you an analogy.
“This is like a king who got angry at his child and locked him away in a dungeon, and commanded that he not be given to eat or to drink—and a person came along and gave him to eat and to drink. When the king hears of this, does he not reward that person?
“And we are G‑d’s children, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:1), ‘You are children of the L‑rd your G‑d.’”
==============
Yes, navy, G-d can feed the poor but right now he is using the United States government as one of his shluchim . I for one, am very grateful to live in a medinah shel chesed. |
Amazing post!!!
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
|
amother
Magenta
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:52 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | | Nobody is stopping you or anyone else from giving all your money to the government so that they can give it to the poor but that is not the same as the govt taking away money from the rich so your point is not applicable here. |
As an aside "The rich" aren't taxed on their assets until they die - and even from that there is a tremendously large exemption.
Income is taxed.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
|
amother
Navy
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:53 pm
| amother [ Magenta ] wrote: | | Because the government long time ago has figured off that everyone is better off if the residents of the country are educated. Its a collective responsibility - and a collective benefit. |
And yet, public schools for the most part are failing and kids are not really getting the education that would enable them to stand on their own two feet. So why should people who choose not to have kids be responsible for the miserable failure of an education for other peoples children? And then they have to support these kids as adults as well since they failed out of public schools.
In the business world investors will stop giving money to a business that is failing and the business will close. Yet here you are asking people with no children to give money to failing schools. So you are taxing people with no children and not even educating the kids you claim the money is going to. That is theft and should not be tolerated.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
|
amother
Magenta
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 1:59 pm
| amother [ Navy ] wrote: | And yet, public schools for the most part are failing and kids are not really getting the education that would enable them to stand on their own two feet. So why should people who choose not to have kids be responsible for the miserable failure of an education for other peoples children? And then they have to support these kids as adults as well since they failed out of public schools.
In the business world investors will stop giving money to a business that is failing and the business will close. Yet here you are asking people with no children to give money to failing schools. So you are taxing people with no children and not even educating the kids you claim the money is going to. That is theft and should not be tolerated. |
You are confusing issues. You would not be satisfied that everyone should be paying towards public schooling even if the education was stellar.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
|
amother
OP
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 2:02 pm
|
If there were no public school, the United States would not have a near 100% literacy rate. You notice what the system is doing wrong because you take for granted the things it's getting right.
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
|
amother
Navy
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 2:10 pm
| amother [ Magenta ] wrote: | | You are confusing issues. You would not be satisfied that everyone should be paying towards public schooling even if the education was stellar. |
There are two issues, one is that the people with no children are paying for the education of people who choose to have children and two is that the education these kids are getting is not sufficient to allow them to stand on their own two feet so the people with no children now have to fund the govt benefits the adult children of other people receive. So the govt incentivizes people to have children and keeps them uneducated and in the system while punishing the people who choose to be responsible by not having children.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
small bean
|
Thu, Nov 28 2019, 2:44 pm
I don't think it is responsible or not responsible to have children. I think the reason we all pay into education, is because we need the children to become competent adults, so they are not all a burden.
The public school system should be a new thread.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
| Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
Spinning Babies class
|
5 |
Fri, Apr 12 2024, 2:55 pm  |
|
|
Online English Class Middle School/High School
|
2 |
Thu, Apr 11 2024, 8:14 am |
|
|
Poor experience with Milano pony wig any tips?
|
0 |
Sun, Apr 07 2024, 10:08 am |
|
|
Another s/o about middle class affording Pesach
|
30 |
Sun, Apr 07 2024, 4:12 am |
|
|
RSK assistance for middle class.
|
6 |
Thu, Apr 04 2024, 6:16 pm |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
