From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 13:09:49 MDT
Samantha Atkins [mailto:samantha@objectent.com] wrote:
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.
### The parents of those children, with incomes from 10 to 100 k/y, had a
(voluntarily assumed) debt burden of 16.2 to 17.4 % of their income in 1998.
Is it a lot? Why should I subsidize them? Many (40%) have a larger income
than me, built up debt by buying huge houses, and still want me to pay for
their kids. That is not nice, wouldn't you agree?
-------
> 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.
### I gather you did not verify your numbers by referring to primary
sources. Should you find such verification, please do not hesitate to share
it with us.
-------
> 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.
### The equation (gross income) - (poverty level) / (tuition x number of
children) > 0, is all that needs to be examined to state that the majority
could pay for private tuition , if they only wanted to.
-------
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.
### So what? If they can't, they can move to Oklahoma, Arkansas, or
Missouri, the three states with the lowest living expenses. Why should I
subsidize the life-style of Californians?
-----
> 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.
>
Samantha:
The notion that all of
us do not have a stake in the at least basic education of
children is not terribly defensible either.
### I do hope you are not implying I ever uttered this not terribly
defensible statement.
---------
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.
### If they insist on a big house, dining out, a snazzy car or two, they
don't have enough left for their kid's school. So what?
But what do you really mean by "seldom"? Is it "hardly ever", "once in a
blue moon" or maybe even " no way"? Please be specific.
-------
> 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.
### Nobody forced them to BWP (breed while penniless). Let'em pay!
------
> 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.
Samantha says:
You do not know what you are talking about.
### Are you saying I am not adequately cognitively endowed to make such a
judgement? Should I accept the judgements of others, who simply know better,
even without checking the statistcal data?
-------
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.
### Yes, these poor creatures, their minds remotely controlled by marketers,
they can't help themselves, they just have to buy a new car, and to take
vacations in Aruba to recover from credit card stress. I should just grit my
teeth, pay my taxes, never disturb the poor innocents with my grumblings.
------
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.
### Start doing what you preach. Make available the benefits of your
abilities to all citizens, they need it.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:28 MST