From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 13:40:28 MDT
Smigrodzki, Rafal wrote:
> Samantha Atkins [mailto:samantha@objectent.com] wrote:
>
> Smigrodzki, Rafal wrote:
>
> > ### Yes, you are right about the beneficial effects of
> > education, bad quality of public schooling notwithstanding.
> > Yet, the parents who avoid fully paying for their children's
> > education by accepting public assistance are in their great
> > majority *capable* of paying unassisted. They just don't
>
>
> Data please. The great majority of parents of college age kids
> are in debt up to their eyeballs and have almost no savings
> except maybe 401K.
>
> ### First, let me point out that my statement refers to grade and high
> school education (which is the primary target of public assistance).
>
The parents of grade and high school children are also in a lot
of debt. The price of private schools is beyond the means of
the majority of them, even if they got to keep the perecentage
of their tax money that goes to fund public schools.
> 85 % of parents of high-school-age children have incomes exceeding $25,
> 000 (see 216.110.169.143/Books/Challenges%20for%20New%20Century/
Ah, so 85% are above the poverty line.
> Gifs/Tab_07.htm for details). Since the 2002 poverty level is 15,020 for
Actually, I am pretty sure it is more like 20,000. Which is
irrelevant in any case since in many parts of the country it is
utterly impossible to support a family of 3 on $25,000.
> a family of 3 and 18,100 for a family of four, it is obvious that almost
> 85% of US families provably have the means to pay for private tuition
> which at present is about $3200 per year per pupil, even using the
> inflated and politically charged federal definition of poverty line.
>
It is not at all obvious from the above figures as you would
have to examine the rest of the budget, not simply gross income.
It is not at all clear that families at $25,000 a year or even
$50,000 a year in many parts of the coutnry, can afford an extra
$300/month or so per child.
> Insistence that coercive transfer of funds to all parents is needed to
> allow their children to attend school is in view of the above numbers
> patently indefensible. It is *their* duty to pay, if they can.
>
Your argument is patently indefensible. The notion that all of
us do not have a stake in the at least basic education of
children is not terribly defensible either. The costs of
parenting are quite high already. Many families in the US have
both parents working fulltime just to make ends meet and they
still seldom do. To turn on this modern reality and claim they
should also pay $300 extra a month per child is to disown a
large segment of the public and to disown any interest in the
education of children if they are not your own.
> Of course, educational loan vouchers might need to be supplied to the
> remaining 15%, to be repaid by parents later.
>
!!! The remaining 15% will likely never get out from under. To
put them further in debt is attrocious.
> Poor state of many (but by no means the great majority) a family's
> finances you allude to is caused by rampant consumerism, lack of
> prudence and laziness. These features should not be rewarded by a free
> dispensation of benefits.
You do not know what you are talking about. The average
American today works more hours (if they have work) than they
did 20 years ago and today both parents often work. The level
of savings is negative. The level of consumer debts is
sky-rocketing. And it is not altogether the fault of the
consumer. Modern states, industry and advertising have worked
diligently for over 60 years to drive citizens into being
consumers for life even far beyond their real means. We have
considered it "healthy for the economy"! Yes people spend
themselves to death. But that was what they were deeply trained
to do. Put a bit of the blame also on the trainers.
What really should happen is that the benefits of our growing
abilities should be available to all citizens rather than a
continuing spiral of costs rising as fast or faster than real
wages.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:25 MST