Totally agree with ginwilly. Money is not the issue at all. We spend more on education than any other country and still suck. The problem is our system is run by an oversized, bumbling, inefficient and inept government which is under the stranglehold of teachers unions.

Our government should never be involved in promoting or helping one race over another. Any action they take should be to the benefit of all equally. To Give anything extra to anyone based on race is racist. Surprised so many people can't see that.

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

lol

And all political leanings aside, I'm not trying to be argumentative - I really do not fully understand how it all works, and the rationale behind it. Seems to me that if there's a max due to higher income people being more responsible with their retirement, then by extension there should be tiers of what % you pay in FICA based on gross salary, eg, someone making $25K per year would have an employee rate of 6.2%, someone making 50K has 4.2%, and someone making 90K has 2.2%, or something to that effect.

Pretty sure there is a max because it was originally sold as an "insurance" plan.

 

Originally Posted by StlngMyChps

Totally agree with ginwilly. Money is not the issue at all. We spend more on education than any other country and still suck. The problem is our system is run by an oversized, bumbling, inefficient and inept government which is under the stranglehold of teachers unions.

Our government should never be involved in promoting or helping one race over another. Any action they take should be to the benefit of all equally. To Give anything extra to anyone based on race is racist. Surprised so many people can't see that.

Spending more than any other country is what we do. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, and most of those are our allies. We are 38th in education spending based upon percent of GDP. Perhaps when we look for cuts, we shouldn't be so focused on our education system. I would rather spend twice as much with questions about efficiency and dominate the world in education. Until the students are getting accommodations comparable the average tech company employee, I'm going to to say we're still not spending too much. The economy we're training them for is much more competitive than the one that exists today. Globalization recently doubled or tripled the workforce, and those up and coming countries are investing in education at rates that should worry anyone that claims to care about the our ability to compete in the global economy.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

As I said, I'm not aware that redistribution between counties is a big problem. What if property taxes (at least the part that fund schools) were levied by the state then redistributed "equally" (quotes bc there would be a lot of debate over this...per capita? that would discriminate against rural schools...etc) would be OK by your standards?

Edit: I guess my problem is that municipal $$ are NOT redistributed, creating the inequity?

So should all wealth be redistributed for "equality" around the world? Why is one political border significant to you but not another? In the "human equation" aren't all borders just something made up by men?

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

So should all wealth be redistributed for "equality" around the world? Why is one political border significant to you but not another? In the "human equation" aren't all borders just something made up by men?

I believe he's implying that it is not a big problem because it is not a common occurrence. I think most people agree distribution of tax revenue should typically be back to those that are subject to the tax laws. That being said, the federal government distributes a Fortune overseas 'for the general welfare of the United States'.

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

Government has a right to lay and collect taxes. Having the right to take something makes it not theft. If I take some macaroni off one of my kids plates, and put it on another, it's not theft.

Government gets all of its power from the people, right? Then how did it get the power to steal which the people don't have? Making something "legal" does not change its moral nature.

 

Originally Posted by pistol45

Taking something they have the right to means it isn't stealing.

Government has no rights, only powers that we ceded to them. If we didn't have the power in the first place then neither do they.

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Government has no rights, only powers that we ceded to them. If we didn't have the power in the first place then neither do they.

We cede the powers by voluntarily remaining citizens of the country. I believe you can renounce your citizenship and go somewhere else, but the country was taken by force and the government has been forcefully imposed since its inception. The fact that it is a democracy means the majority of the electorate get some say in how it operates, but if you don't like the way things work, read up on the Indians, Southern Confederates, Cascadians, Northwest Front, etc. Federal government doesn't take to kindly to secession. Whether they are justified or not, doesn't matter. The US federal government bases the rules on the constitution and all the citizens are subject to those laws.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

I'm not sure if you're actually advocating these fines, I hope not, but I don't think this a an effective or wise strategy to break the cycle of what you are talking about, parenting. In fact, I don't even think they'll pay the fines or they'll end up poorer with even more problems getting the kid fed and clothed and school supplies, etc.

not a problem.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2011...-too-poor-fish

Willie is the truth!

Teacher unions (as well as uaw, afsme, teamsters, etc) have claimed much worse than that. I can't imagine why the unions would be against better education for our kids. You will Hear much worse claims of scandal as they fight for their political lives in detroit

 

Originally Posted by niptuck

Willie is the truth!

Niptuck hates the cheeldrins but loves spiders!!! whodathunkit

 

Originally Posted by Magnet Steve

I don't know if that's true. Don't most drug dealers make a shit living, and only the very top actually have a lot of money? My guess is, as long as the top top top make serious bank, that dream will always convince some. Ending the drug war would be one way to reduce how lucrative the trade is, and therefore make it less alluring.

you are correct

this was broken down by freakonomics in the chapter: Why do drug dealers live at home with their mothers?

yeah pretty much

i saw someone posted a link to the actual article

im way behind itt and didnt realize I was so many pages behind

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

Well this thread went pretty much as expected.

It did now.