Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|
>:|Yes, but they still have the obligation to pay for public education,
right?
>:|
>:|Rather than vouchers, perhaps the option should be given to parents
that
>:|choose to send their children to alternate schools should be given the
>:|option to deduct the full amount of the tuition from their agi, as well
>:|as be exempt from taxes relating to public education.
>:|
>:|Problem solved.
A New Look At Vouchers.
(Permission of author to use this has been given)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A new look at vouchers
From: ai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wayne Aiken)
Date: 1 Aug 1995 19:13:36 GMT
This occurred to me the other day, while listening to a talk-show debate
on school vouchers.
Some people want a "rebate" on the money they give to the state to educate
their children, in order to spend that money in religious schools of their
choice. Fine, although that they get might not be what they expect.
The problem is, the money that a person pays into the system for schools,
via property taxes, sales tax, etc. is *NOT* for the education of their
own children, but for public education as a whole**. Many of the arguments
I've heard that sup****t this is that public education is supposed to be
good for the community as a whole, hence everybody pays. I have no
children
in the school system, yet I must pay to educate other people's children.
Other people, with children or not, do the same. The illusion inherent in
the system is that the money taken from them is taken for "their"
children-
it is not.
If there is to be any "rebate", then the amount given back is *not* the
total amount contributed, but the percentage ****tion represented by their
children versus the entire system. If a person pays $5000 into a school
system with 1000 children, then the total amount of *their* money paying
for *their* children is $5 per child. That is all they should expect
back for removing their children from the public school system; the rest
is the "common good" payment. Any more than that, received either
through tax credits or voucher payments, means that they have unfairly
****fted the "common good" burden to other people.
If instead, you look at it from the point of the "total" amount of money
for each child following that child, then you have still have the problem
that the vast majority of that total is from *other people*, who cannot
legally be forced to contribute to sectarian institutions against their
will. Despite claims of "choice", it is *still not a free-market system*
as long as the people paying are not the people directly benefitting, and
I find it perverse that many otherwise capitalistic-free-market-preaching
conservatives have no problem with such a special welfare system, as long
as its to *their* advantage.
Any voucher system, no matter how you cut it, is still almost entirely
*other people's money", and will remain a separation violation, as long
as the socialistic elements remain in the system.
[**] Whether people should be forced to contribute money for collectivist
social institutions or not is a separate issue altogether. As long as
the system exists, for better or worse, everyone has to be treated
equally.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
