RE: Giving or Taking - paying for schools and childcare | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Diane R. Margolis (diane![]() |
|
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 13:20:04 -0600 (MDT) |
This discussion really reinforces what I've always believed: that property tax should be abolished. It's just too divisive; too many reasons for too many people to feel it's unfair to them, while it in fact perpetuates class divisions because rich towns collect more and can afford better schools while they keep out the poor.We are non-parents, most of whose property taxes goes to pay for theand
local public school system. ...Many towns are resistant to cohousing-style homes, i.e. small and clustered, because they bring in lots of kids and little tax money. ... Everybody from the town planner to newspaper articles made it clear that the town did not want any more housing built, especially anything in the affordable (cheap=low taxes) range.
I agree with you David. And most countries that run public education systems run them centrally, or at least, as in Switzerland, on a state by state (or canton by canton) basis. But Americans have been very reluctant to give up local autonomy when it comes to schools. The reasons for that would require a very long post.Diane
(P.S. does anyone know why this response is in blue?)
-
Giving or Taking - paying for schools and childcare C2pattee, October 5 2001
-
Re: Giving or Taking - paying for schools and childcare David Mandel, October 6 2001
- RE: Giving or Taking - paying for schools and childcare Diane R. Margolis, October 7 2001
- Re: Giving or Taking Kay Argyle, October 10 2001
- Re: Giving or Taking Michael D, October 11 2001
-
Re: Giving or Taking - paying for schools and childcare David Mandel, October 6 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.