Re: 2221 --Throwing good money...
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
on 8/9/02 7:48 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:
all those kids attended the public school, that school would get more money
from the tax collection agency, since funding, is based on bodies in the
building. Fine.
many kids live in the district, not on how many kids attend the school.
Then, no matter how many kids withdrew, the school would continue to be
funded at the same rate by everyone in the district. By this method, the
fewer kids in the school, the higher the spending per kid. The school would
have an incentive to reduce its enrollment -- less work for the same pay --
and no incentive to achieve since its revenue would not depend on satisfying
its students and parents. Whooopeee... Total absence of accountability.
Sandra says:
Nobody needs me to say that's nonsense.
Now, did I say anything libertarian, such as "I want choices"? No. Sandra's
plan would reward the schools more and more, even while more and more
families decide they're lousy and take their kids out. Meanwhile, every
taxpayer in the district is forced to pay the same school taxes every year
even though fewer and fewer children attend. Only a socialist government
could create such a monster. Only a socialist could imagine it.
Sandra's collectivism is showing. She seems to like spending other people's
money. The school system does that to its employees.
Let's try it with shoes....In a free market (the real world), if a shoe
company makes shoes that fewer and fewer people buy, their revenue goes down
because the company is not satisfying the needs of shoe buyers.
Now let's say that the state takes over the company and pays it to keep
making the same amount of shoes as before, when there were more customers.
Under this situation, it doesn't matter how lousy the shoes are, because the
company doesn't get its money by satisfying customers anymore, it gets it
for making shoes, whether anyone wants them or not. The company has no
incentive to improve its product or its efficiency -- it is dependent on the
government instead of on direct paying customers.
And where does the money come from that pays for the (unsold) shoes? The
state takes it by force from all the taxpayers. This is the way the USSR
finally broke down until nothing was left but debt and piles of unwanted
shoes, so to speak. The population was broke and the shelves were empty.
Where did all the money go? The government employees and the politicians
(the bureaucratic empire) took everything.
What's the lesson?
Nobody deserves to be paid for doing unneeded or bad work, and nobody
deserves to be taxed in order to pay for unproductive activity. Bad schools,
like bad businesses, should close, and not be subsidized by taxpayers.
Parents -- not politicians or government employees -- should choose how
their own money should be spent for their own children's education.
Nobody has a right to anyone else's property.
Ned Vare
[email protected] wrote:
> Message: 8Sandra first admits this:
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:11:08 EDT
> From: SandraDodd@...
> Subject: Re: Re: 2217 about the NEA
>
>
> In a message dated 8/9/02 2:35:13 PM, nedvare@... writes:
>
> << BTW, may we hear how Sandra would change the schools'
> method of funding?
>...schools hate homeschooling because we cost them money<Then she gives her answer:
> If all the homeschooled kids in our littleNed interrupts briefly: HUH? What money? Whose? I guess she means that if
> area here and all the privately schooled kids were all in public school, that
> would be some amount of money. <<
all those kids attended the public school, that school would get more money
from the tax collection agency, since funding, is based on bodies in the
building. Fine.
> If they calculated that and gave it to theNed tries to translates: Sandra wants school revenue to be based on how
> school regardless of who was enrolled, just by local kid-population, then my
> having my kids out would lower the teacher/student ratio, allow those kids
> more attention and less crowdedness. That wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit.
many kids live in the district, not on how many kids attend the school.
Then, no matter how many kids withdrew, the school would continue to be
funded at the same rate by everyone in the district. By this method, the
fewer kids in the school, the higher the spending per kid. The school would
have an incentive to reduce its enrollment -- less work for the same pay --
and no incentive to achieve since its revenue would not depend on satisfying
its students and parents. Whooopeee... Total absence of accountability.
Sandra says:
>>If you say "nonsense" or start a libertarian rant, it won't help or change myNed returns:
>>mind.<<
Nobody needs me to say that's nonsense.
Now, did I say anything libertarian, such as "I want choices"? No. Sandra's
plan would reward the schools more and more, even while more and more
families decide they're lousy and take their kids out. Meanwhile, every
taxpayer in the district is forced to pay the same school taxes every year
even though fewer and fewer children attend. Only a socialist government
could create such a monster. Only a socialist could imagine it.
Sandra's collectivism is showing. She seems to like spending other people's
money. The school system does that to its employees.
Let's try it with shoes....In a free market (the real world), if a shoe
company makes shoes that fewer and fewer people buy, their revenue goes down
because the company is not satisfying the needs of shoe buyers.
Now let's say that the state takes over the company and pays it to keep
making the same amount of shoes as before, when there were more customers.
Under this situation, it doesn't matter how lousy the shoes are, because the
company doesn't get its money by satisfying customers anymore, it gets it
for making shoes, whether anyone wants them or not. The company has no
incentive to improve its product or its efficiency -- it is dependent on the
government instead of on direct paying customers.
And where does the money come from that pays for the (unsold) shoes? The
state takes it by force from all the taxpayers. This is the way the USSR
finally broke down until nothing was left but debt and piles of unwanted
shoes, so to speak. The population was broke and the shelves were empty.
Where did all the money go? The government employees and the politicians
(the bureaucratic empire) took everything.
What's the lesson?
Nobody deserves to be paid for doing unneeded or bad work, and nobody
deserves to be taxed in order to pay for unproductive activity. Bad schools,
like bad businesses, should close, and not be subsidized by taxpayers.
Parents -- not politicians or government employees -- should choose how
their own money should be spent for their own children's education.
Nobody has a right to anyone else's property.
Ned Vare
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/9/02 10:51:38 PM, nedvare@... writes:
<< Sandra first admits this: >>
<<Ned tries to translates: >>
Nobody needs me to say that's nonsense.
You asked me to explain. Did you ask JUST so you could be personal and
snarky?
Nobody needs you to keep ragging on political boogey men, but you do.
And you saying something is nonsense doesn't make it so, although you DO deal
more in nonsense than most people so you might be the expert, except you
don't see your own rants as nonsense at all.
<<No. Sandra's
plan would reward the schools more and more, even while more and more
families decide they're lousy and take their kids out.>>
"Reward" the schools?
Those people aren't making a lot of money who work there.
Undoing the schools would NOT benefit most of those who are there now. New
schools would replace the old in a heartbeat, but for MUCH more money and
with much more bullshit involved.
How are phone systems and rates after Bell was forced to split out to prevent
a monopoly?
How do privately-funded schools fare?
<<Meanwhile, every
taxpayer in the district is forced to pay the same school taxes every year
even though fewer and fewer children attend. Only a socialist government
could create such a monster. Only a socialist could imagine it.>>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing in your life lives a day without becoming a
sensationalist political slogan.
<<
Sandra's collectivism is showing. She seems to like spending other people's
money. The school system does that to its employees.>>
You're going too far now. I was asked what I thought and I made a "maybe
this" response. It wasn't spending people's money. I didn't learn it from
being a teacher. This level of insult is not friendly, not productive, and I
doubt it will earn you any support for your already tenuous position in this
forum.
<<Now let's say that the state takes over the company and pays it to keep
making the same amount of shoes as before, when there were more customers.
Under this situation, it doesn't matter how lousy the shoes are, because the
company doesn't get its money by satisfying customers anymore, it gets it
for making shoes, whether anyone wants them or not. >>
Some parents neither know how to make shoes nor would they forego a fifth of
whiskey to buy a child a pair of shoes. And in that case, if the child can
get government shoes that's better than barefooted in the broken glass. I
think more families than not are doing more damage to their own children than
they are doing nurturing. And kids need options. And it's a damned shame
but a truth that school is more nurturing for some kids than their own
families are.
<<The government employees and the politicians
(the bureaucratic empire) took everything.
<<What's the lesson?>>
That your political faucet is stuck to "on" and there's no filter on it.
School employees are not getting rich. They're not shareholders in some
giant corporation siphoning millions in profits from World's Finest Chocolate
bars.
<<Parents -- not politicians or government employees -- should choose how
their own money should be spent for their own children's education.
Nobody has a right to anyone else's property.>>
Ned, why don't you go to a country with no taxes then? b'bye!!
Which countries would those be now? Tell us where you can go to have
absolute control of all your vast earnings and not have to give any money to
the government, and have the freedom to unschool.
Sandra
<< Sandra first admits this: >>
<<Ned tries to translates: >>
>>If you say "nonsense" or start a libertarian rant, it won't help or changemy
>>mind.<<Ned returns:
Nobody needs me to say that's nonsense.
You asked me to explain. Did you ask JUST so you could be personal and
snarky?
Nobody needs you to keep ragging on political boogey men, but you do.
And you saying something is nonsense doesn't make it so, although you DO deal
more in nonsense than most people so you might be the expert, except you
don't see your own rants as nonsense at all.
<<No. Sandra's
plan would reward the schools more and more, even while more and more
families decide they're lousy and take their kids out.>>
"Reward" the schools?
Those people aren't making a lot of money who work there.
Undoing the schools would NOT benefit most of those who are there now. New
schools would replace the old in a heartbeat, but for MUCH more money and
with much more bullshit involved.
How are phone systems and rates after Bell was forced to split out to prevent
a monopoly?
How do privately-funded schools fare?
<<Meanwhile, every
taxpayer in the district is forced to pay the same school taxes every year
even though fewer and fewer children attend. Only a socialist government
could create such a monster. Only a socialist could imagine it.>>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nothing in your life lives a day without becoming a
sensationalist political slogan.
<<
Sandra's collectivism is showing. She seems to like spending other people's
money. The school system does that to its employees.>>
You're going too far now. I was asked what I thought and I made a "maybe
this" response. It wasn't spending people's money. I didn't learn it from
being a teacher. This level of insult is not friendly, not productive, and I
doubt it will earn you any support for your already tenuous position in this
forum.
<<Now let's say that the state takes over the company and pays it to keep
making the same amount of shoes as before, when there were more customers.
Under this situation, it doesn't matter how lousy the shoes are, because the
company doesn't get its money by satisfying customers anymore, it gets it
for making shoes, whether anyone wants them or not. >>
Some parents neither know how to make shoes nor would they forego a fifth of
whiskey to buy a child a pair of shoes. And in that case, if the child can
get government shoes that's better than barefooted in the broken glass. I
think more families than not are doing more damage to their own children than
they are doing nurturing. And kids need options. And it's a damned shame
but a truth that school is more nurturing for some kids than their own
families are.
<<The government employees and the politicians
(the bureaucratic empire) took everything.
<<What's the lesson?>>
That your political faucet is stuck to "on" and there's no filter on it.
School employees are not getting rich. They're not shareholders in some
giant corporation siphoning millions in profits from World's Finest Chocolate
bars.
<<Parents -- not politicians or government employees -- should choose how
their own money should be spent for their own children's education.
Nobody has a right to anyone else's property.>>
Ned, why don't you go to a country with no taxes then? b'bye!!
Which countries would those be now? Tell us where you can go to have
absolute control of all your vast earnings and not have to give any money to
the government, and have the freedom to unschool.
Sandra