Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-14-2024, 04:06 AM
 
3,586 posts, read 1,816,957 times
Reputation: 1483

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by redplum33 View Post
The entire system would fail.
That's kind of the point. It would serve as a great deterrent for those who cannot afford to have kids to stop having them!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2024, 11:17 AM
 
16,308 posts, read 8,126,207 times
Reputation: 11337
Default re

Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgal123 View Post
That's kind of the point. It would serve as a great deterrent for those who cannot afford to have kids to stop having them!
Life would be much easier if people would just do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 11:27 AM
 
Location: The ghetto
17,677 posts, read 9,155,986 times
Reputation: 13322
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgal123 View Post
Here's an idea...why can't cities and towns assess taxes to folks based on what services they actually use based on the size of their families/#of kids using the systems? Nah, that would make too much sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redplum33 View Post
The entire system would fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgal123 View Post
That's kind of the point. It would serve as a great deterrent for those who cannot afford to have kids to stop having them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by msRB311 View Post
Life would be much easier if people would just do that.
They'd essentially be charging tuition for public schools. The cost would be astronomical. Very few would be able to pay for it.

And you can't deny children a public education. So, then what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 11:39 AM
 
16,308 posts, read 8,126,207 times
Reputation: 11337
Default re

Quote:
Originally Posted by redplum33 View Post
They'd essentially be charging tuition for public schools. The cost would be astronomical. Very few would be able to pay for it.

And you can't deny children a public education. So, then what?
I am talking about the program for 3 year olds that is free...sorry but that seems like a bit much. How nice for the parents that don't have to pay for daycare though and can go this route.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 12:36 PM
 
Location: The ghetto
17,677 posts, read 9,155,986 times
Reputation: 13322
Quote:
Originally Posted by msRB311 View Post
I am talking about the program for 3 year olds that is free...sorry but that seems like a bit much. How nice for the parents that don't have to pay for daycare though and can go this route.
But that's not what NEG is talking about.

3 year olds are not required to go to school. What you want is for the parents of the 3 year olds to pay for optional education (or daycare). That would have nothing to do with taxes...it would just be straight up tuition.

NEG wants parents of kids (mandatory education) to be the only ones responsible for the taxes that go towards public schools. This would be an absolute disaster.

https://www.learner.com/blog/states-...t-on-education

It's just under $30k per public student per year in MA. Very few parents can afford to pay that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 12:54 PM
 
16,308 posts, read 8,126,207 times
Reputation: 11337
Default re

Quote:
Originally Posted by redplum33 View Post
But that's not what NEG is talking about.

3 year olds are not required to go to school. What you want is for the parents of the 3 year olds to pay for optional education (or daycare). That would have nothing to do with taxes...it would just be straight up tuition.

NEG wants parents of kids (mandatory education) to be the only ones responsible for the taxes that go towards public schools. This would be an absolute disaster.

https://www.learner.com/blog/states-...t-on-education

It's just under $30k per public student per year in MA. Very few parents can afford to pay that.
Right my issue is anything under kindergarten being free in this situation...why should some people get that and others don't? I understand that ages K-12 have free public education. Now it starts at age 3 in some places?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 04:25 PM
 
3,586 posts, read 1,816,957 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by redplum33 View Post
But that's not what NEG is talking about.

3 year olds are not required to go to school. What you want is for the parents of the 3 year olds to pay for optional education (or daycare). That would have nothing to do with taxes...it would just be straight up tuition.

NEG wants parents of kids (mandatory education) to be the only ones responsible for the taxes that go towards public schools. This would be an absolute disaster.

https://www.learner.com/blog/states-...t-on-education

It's just under $30k per public student per year in MA. Very few parents can afford to pay that.
I'm thinking more like a weighted tax system. Everyone still has to pay but those who have kids (based on how many) should have to contribute more than say singles or couples with 0 kids or couples with only 1 kid. It's only fair, right? Why should it be my problem that Trevor and Angela are up to a flock of 4 but can't afford to pay? They should still owe their share of taxes based on 4 kids....even if it means they go on a payment plan to do so!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 05:44 PM
 
Location: The ghetto
17,677 posts, read 9,155,986 times
Reputation: 13322
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgal123 View Post
I'm thinking more like a weighted tax system. Everyone still has to pay but those who have kids (based on how many) should have to contribute more than say singles or couples with 0 kids or couples with only 1 kid. It's only fair, right? Why should it be my problem that Trevor and Angela are up to a flock of 4 but can't afford to pay? They should still owe their share of taxes based on 4 kids....even if it means they go on a payment plan to do so!
Property taxes are based on the value of your house, not what services you use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 05:56 PM
 
3,586 posts, read 1,816,957 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by redplum33 View Post
Property taxes are based on the value of your house, not what services you use.
I know...but what I was getting at is a re-vamp of how taxes are assessed would be good. Taxes based on value of your house is one thing but how about incorporating how many kids/folks in your household are using the services/systems then assess a portion of the tax based on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2024, 09:07 PM
 
Location: The ghetto
17,677 posts, read 9,155,986 times
Reputation: 13322
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgal123 View Post
I know...but what I was getting at is a re-vamp of how taxes are assessed would be good. Taxes based on value of your house is one thing but how about incorporating how many kids/folks in your household are using the services/systems then assess a portion of the tax based on that.
I get what you're saying. I just don't agree that it would be a good thing. And I don't have kids and I live alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top