🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TKpMe.3233$Hn3.2173@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, Uncle
Jimbo <jimbo@hunting.killing.net> wrote:

> But AFAIK, the DoE operates with constitutional parameters, it never FORCES
> states and counties to follow its recommendations, it simply withholds
> federal funding for them until they comply.  The federal government is not
> required to give money to states, the states have CHOSEN to accept it in
> exchange for complying with certain rules.  Just like the national 55mph
> speed limit or the 0.08% blood alcohol limit, the feds have no right to
> impose those things, they simply blackmailed ("greemailed" it's called)
> the states into adopting those rules or lose billions of dollars in
> federal highway funds.  It's not my fault if a school district is too timid
> to tax its residents sufficiently to fund the local schools and feels it
> must whore itself to the feds to get enough money to operate. 

As someone who recently paid $6500 in property taxes to the State of
California, $24,400 in state income taxes, and $65,000 in Federal
income taxes, (plus various utility, energy, gasoline, sales, etc.,
taxes), I think I am taxed quite enough, thank you.

Further, property taxes, which are set by the state as a percentage of
the assessed value, ARE SENT TO SACRAMENTO, then doled out for various
purposes. 

Inviting local school districts to FURTHER tax us, given the bloated
size of government already, and the kind of obscene tax levels
mentioned above, is absurd.

Lastly, I think you were the one who said you just moved here from
Texas. (If not, sorry.) You may not be aware of the "Lottery System."
The California lottery was proposed as a way to fund the schools. This
was how it was sold to the voters ("Our schools win, too!!," the ads
gushed). I voted AGAINST it, not because I don't like the idea of a tax
on stupidity--which is what lotteries are--but because it is never
permissable for government to run an operation (gambling) which they
outlaw when individuals do it.


(What's next, state-run brothels? Gives new meaning to "proposition.")

Our schools are crummy not because they aren't funded well enough...the
real dollars funding is higher now than it was in 1960, I recently
read. Which makes sense, given the real dollar taxation rates today as
compared to 1960. 

However, unlike in 1960, today's school districts are bloated-up with
"administrators" and "support personnel," the kind of jobs a lot of
teachers aspire to (gets them out of the classroom and into cushy,
unionized, civil service jobs where nobody really knows or cares what
they are doing in their cubicles). And today's schools are mostly
baby-sitting facilities for working parents...much of the local school
budget near me is spent on "after-school" programs, which is a fancy
way of saying "places to keep kids busy until their parent can pick
them up that evening."

Public schools can only rarely kick out disruptive students. Public
schoolsl are gladiator schools, where gangs recruit members, where the
minority hooligans chant "reading be fo whitey," and where the teachers
still in the classrooms are those without the political pull or
ass-kissing ability to get into "Administration."

The teachers union of course claims that all these problems would be
solved if only teacher salaries were increased still further. Ha.

Meanwhile, here you are saying that the funding problems are because
local communities don't have the guts to raise taxes still further.
Double ha. 

America is a kleptocracy, with an unprecedented amount of personal
wealth taken and spent by those working for the state. Not even in the
U.S.S.R. were such levels of effective taxation seen. Not even in the
days of serfs. (For the unitiated, "Tax Freedom Day" is that day each
year when the point between "working for the state" and "working for
oneself" is reached. This varies from person to person, and is earlier
in the year for less-skilled workers, and later in the year for
more-skilled workers (because they are taxed at escalating rates, in
true "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need" Commie Democrat style). This year the estimated average Tax
Freedom Day is 31 May. Meaning, we worked for Uncle Sam, Uncle Arnold,
Uncle Local Leader for the first five months of the year.

A summary of this is at <http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/>

And, actually, if Socialist Security taxes (which is what they are,
though they are called "contributions") are taken into account, Tax
Freedom Day gets pushed out still further.


Further, the "debt bomb" of 50-70 trillion (thousand billion) that is
part of the "unfunded liabilities" is likely to explode around 2025,
plus or minus a few years. ("Unfunded liabilities" are of the various
things the govenment has promised to pay out but for which no money is
currently set aside.)

It's likely that for nearly everyone of college age and younger today,
that in 20-25 years they'll be working 10 months out of every year just
to pay taxes. (Since many of the jobs are increasingly "McJobs," this
may not even be enough. That coffee slinger may have to pay 90% of
everything he makes to pay for this debt bomb.)


Meanwhile, taxes are already way, way too high. 


--Tim May