OT: How one School District got rid of the Greedy Teachers Union

[paramount]

I guess there is hope and the best part: Parents got Real Choice.

A short video.

[svelte]

There is no Douglas County in California. The Douglas County being discussed is in Colorado.

So I looked it up. It contains Highlands Ranch (home of the most recent school shooter) and is just north of Colorado Springs – one of the most religious communities I’ve seen in quite awhile based on my experience with residents there.

That got me suspicious that the real reason for the vouchers was to fund religious teaching – so I did some Google searches and it appears the ACLU agrees with me:

The ACLU said Thursday the program, called the Choice Scholarship Program, violates the state constitution because it provides money to religious schools.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/aclu-petitions-colorado-supreme-court-to-overturn-douglas-county-school-voucher-decision

If you want to teach your kids about your religion, do it on your own dime. Not my tax dollars.

[CA renter]

Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you’d like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you’d like. But you can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime.

[paramount]

[quote=CA renter] But you can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime.[/quote]

I don’t want to teach any of those things on the taxpayers dime, just mine. Refund my confiscatory school tax dollars that fuels the religion of the secular-progressive , so I can use that money to send my kids where I want.

“And I definitely don’t get the idea that low-income families should be the only ones who can’t make the choice to seek out a better school. Remember, parents with resources have fled for the suburbs or townships for decades. Families of means have flocked to private schools for generations.”

[njtosd]

Would you suggest, paramount, that people who don’t have children would not have to pay taxes to support schools? And if they do, why don’t they get a choice about where the money gets spent?

[svelte]

[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter] But you can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime.[/quote]

I don’t want to teach any of those things on the taxpayers dime, just mine. Refund my confiscatory school tax dollars that fuels the religion of the secular-progressive , so I can use that money to send my kids where I want.[/quote]

Personally, I don’t use churches.

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

I think churches should have to pay their fair share like the rest of us. You want a refund of your unused dollars in schools? I want infrastructure usage fees on churches.

[paramount]

[quote=svelte].

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

[/quote]

That’s a myth, churches do pay taxes.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you’d like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you’d like. But you can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime.[/quote]oh really… so, can I take the $ the government would spend on my kids in public school and use it to pay for part of the tuition at La Jolla Country Day/Bishops/etc? Or how about using that money to send my kids to the many other private schools that doesn’t have any religious affiliation?

[njtosd]

[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Parents do have real choice, paramount. You are free to educate your children in any way you choose. You can even make them wear purple bunny suits and have them recite Pink Floyd songs over and over again if you’d like. You can teach them about God, Allah, the Master of the Universe, or Nothing, if you’d like. But you can’t do it on the taxpayer’s dime.[/quote]oh really… so, can I take the $ the government would spend on my kids in public school and use it to pay for part of the tuition at La Jolla Country Day/Bishops/etc? Or how about using that money to send my kids to the many other private schools that doesn’t have any religious affiliation?[/quote]

Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn’t get you very far – maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount][quote=svelte].

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

[/quote]

That’s a myth, churches do pay taxes.[/quote]

In some places they pay property taxes. They don’t pay income taxes. But worse than that, not only are their profits (or more appropriately, collections over expenses) tax free, contributions are deductible, so it’s a double tax bonus. Estimates range as high as $71 billion dollars a year in tax subsidies to churches.

[an]

[quote=njtosd]Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn’t get you very far – maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.[/quote]You should seriously reread my post and CAR’s post that I was responding to again. Just in case you still don’t see it after rereading, I’ll point it out to you. CAR’s statement was that parents do have choice, and I call BS. Maybe some might be fine with the status quo faux choice. I wouldn’t call that much of a choice. I’m fully aware of the status quo and I don’t expect any change to happen, at least not in CA. I just like to point out the faux choice that some love point out.

What make you think the other contributors would want to lock the kids into worse schools. I bet you that if you take a poll today and ask if kids should be sent to LJCD school or Hoover HS, I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority would say LJCD. Why wouldn’t anyone want the kids of next generation to have the absolute best education possible?

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount][quote=svelte].

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

[/quote]

That’s a myth, churches do pay taxes.[/quote]

In some places they pay property taxes. They don’t pay income taxes. But worse than that, not only are their profits (or more appropriately, collections over expenses) tax free, contributions are deductible, so it’s a double tax bonus. Estimates range as high as $71 billion dollars a year in tax subsidies to churches.[/quote]

Note to self. Start the church of flu.

[svelte]

[quote=paramount][quote=svelte].

But churches collect money tax free while using public services such as streets and infrastructure.

[/quote]

That’s a myth, churches do pay taxes.[/quote]

Myth my ass.

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub48.pdf

states:

California property tax laws provide for three exemptions that may be claimed on church property:

– The church exemption, for property that is owned, leased, or rented by a religious organization and used exclusively for religious worship services.

– The religious exemption, for property owned by a religious organization and used exclusively for religious worship services, and certain school activities. The exemption may also apply to leased personal property.

– The welfare exemption, for property owned by a religious organization and used exclusively for one or more of the above activities with any other religious activities. The exemption may also apply to leased property if both the lessor and lessee qualify.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=njtosd]Why would you get all the money the government would spend on your kids? You have contributed only a portion of that money. The few thousand dollars that you contributed wouldn’t get you very far – maybe 10% of a LJCD educution. The other contributors should have as much a right as you to send their money where they see fit.[/quote]You should seriously reread my post and CAR’s post that I was responding to again. Just in case you still don’t see it after rereading, I’ll point it out to you. CAR’s statement was that parents do have choice, and I call BS. Maybe some might be fine with the status quo faux choice. I wouldn’t call that much of a choice. I’m fully aware of the status quo and I don’t expect any change to happen, at least not in CA. I just like to point out the faux choice that some love point out.

What make you think the other contributors would want to lock the kids into worse schools. I bet you that if you take a poll today and ask if kids should be sent to LJCD school or Hoover HS, I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority would say LJCD. Why wouldn’t anyone want the kids of next generation to have the absolute best education possible?[/quote]

You have an incredible amount of freedom where education is concerned, but you don’t have that freedom at the taxpayer’s expense. We ALL pay taxes for things we don’t like and/or don’t use. That is the price we ALL pay for living in a civilized democracy.

We homeschool and get NO public funding, subsidies, or support of any kind (some can get public funding if they HS through a public school or publicly-funded private charter). I’m willing to bet that we pay some of the highest property taxes (the primary funding source for public schools) in the county, relatively speaking. We’re not asking for “our” money back, in the same way that the senior citizens or childless people can’t ask for their prop tax money to be returned. And people who never use parks or libraries, etc. don’t get to ask for their tax money to be returned, either.

California has some of the most liberal laws WRT schooling and/or homeschooling. You can pretty much do whatever you want. You can replicate the LJCD education at home, if you wish. You can hire private tutors, or take your kids around the world, or do pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it on the taxpayer dime? No, but why should you be able to do so? Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else’s) children to an education at a public school. That’s all you’re entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]You have an incredible amount of freedom where education is concerned, but you don’t have that freedom at the taxpayer’s expense. We ALL pay taxes for things we don’t like and/or don’t use. That is the price we ALL pay for living in a civilized democracy.

We homeschool and get NO public funding, subsidies, or support of any kind (some can get public funding if they HS through a public school or publicly-funded private charter). I’m willing to bet that we pay some of the highest property taxes (the primary funding source for public schools) in the county, relatively speaking. We’re not asking for “our” money back, in the same way that the senior citizens or childless people can’t ask for their prop tax money to be returned. And people who never use parks or libraries, etc. don’t get to ask for their tax money to be returned, either.

California has some of the most liberal laws WRT schooling and/or homeschooling. You can pretty much do whatever you want. You can replicate the LJCD education at home, if you wish. You can hire private tutors, or take your kids around the world, or do pretty much whatever you want. Can you do it on the taxpayer dime? No, but why should you be able to do so? Your taxes entitle your (and everyone else’s) children to an education at a public school. That’s all you’re entitled to; nothing more. Whatever you want to do in addition to that, or outside of that, is on your dime.[/quote]Thanks for proving my point that there is very little choice in our current system. You fail to see that the freedom you’re talking about is strictly reserved for the rich. The dual income middle class and below do not have the same freedom you described.

I’ve never said anything about getting my tax dollar back. I just want every kid to have the same opportunity whether you’re rich or poor. Which is why I take huge offense to your claim that we all have a lot of choices and freedom. It’s easier for those who are rich to say that we do, because they can afford those freedom.

As for California school, again, we CANNOT do whatever we want. Only the rich can do whatever they want because they can afford it. Those who are not rich, well, you’re SOL.

The key objection from me is your statement that we all have a lot of choice and not that I want my tax dollar back. FYI, I’m fully aware of the status quo and I’ve accepted that. That doesn’t mean I have to accept the lies that all parents have a lot of choice in where to send their kids to school.

I want my tax dollar to educate all the kids with the best school, be it private or public. I want all kids to have that opportunity, not just the rich. I’m not asking for higher taxes to do it. I just want parents to have the choice, and not be stuck with no choice due to their economic status.

[Author]

Posts