Published: Tuesday, Feb. 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Yes, parents need to step up and pay for their kids.
The question is not "does Utah really want this virtual, creeping head
tax?" The real question is "does Utah really want a quality education
system, and if so, how will it be funded?" Briscoe's proposal is a
rational, appropriate way to start to shift some, but certainly not all, of the
cost to the cost-causers. There is no free lunch.
We want education, but we don't want to get taxed to pay for it! Another
example of the conservative entitlement mentality that is infecting our nation.
A person's true character seems to exhibit itself when money is at stake.
You would think that every liberal in Utah would be outraged if the Legislature
capped government "tax benefits" to anyone, especially those with large
families. The liberals demand that "government" pay any and
all costs for healthcare, for out-of-wedlock housing and meals, yet some liberal
posters are outraged when THEY might have to pay a few more dollars every year
because people with large families might get the same break - per child - that
the liberals get.What hypocrisy! If you believe that some "rich
guy" should pay for health and welfare, why are you baulking when YOU are
the "rich guy"?
Interesting is all for getting the government off our backs and lowering or
eliminating taxes, until the subject turns to something they favor. They are
largely "exempt" from paying liquor taxes because they don't use
the product. By the same token childless persons and parents who limit their
families to two children shouldn't be forced to pay for services they
don't use. Who is the real hypocrite here?
What is the "true value" of a bottle of liquor? What is the "true
value" of a child?Maybe it's time that some people put
things into perspective and put their time, their effort and their money into
things with true value.
"in order to raise money for our schools.....it hits families raising
children with proportionately higher taxes than the rest of us."And that is unfair because? "What hypocrisy! "Yes Mr Richards. As someone who screams daily about people's need to pay
their own way, you sure change your tune when school funding is involved. Look,
I agree that we should all help out with school. I just dont understand that
those who use the system the most, pay the least.What I get is a
deserved break. What others get is an entitlement that makes them takers.Pot, meet kettle.
So which is it -- You had the kids, you pay for them or educate them
yourselves,orIt takes a village (yes, a form of Socialism)?The double-standard, hypocritical Conservatives need to answer this one for
themselves.The rest of us are comfortable ponying up for the benefit
When it comes to taxation, how does "true value" enter the equation?
I don't understand your comment, Mike. It looks to me as if all the
"liberals" posting here are in full support of this.
"Who will help me plant my wheat in my garden?" asked the Little Red
Hen. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said
the dog. "Not I," said the cat. - Skip to the end
of the story. - "Who would like soldiers, police, doctors, and
leaders?" asked the little red hen."Who wants a share of my
children's Social Security Taxes?" asked the little red hen."Who would like their lawn cut?" asked the little red hen.. . .
ad infinitum.That's OK, all of you don't want to share in
the heavy lifting. We share. We are parents. We have never been able to repay
our parents, and we don't expect our children to repay us. We are content
to see them grow up as givers. You are welcome to join us and help
'pay it forward' on behalf of a better future world.
No one is advocating that we should not all pitch in for education.But the letter was written in protest of legislation essentially making those
with children to pay a small amount more towards the education of those
children.Keep in mind that today, it cost about $8000 per school
year per kid. And Mr Clark is worried that he might have to pony up
a few dollars more?That takes some brass.
Mike Richards,So all the big government liberals ought to be applauding
the child tax break because it is providing more government benefits to people?
That's a bit snarky, and meant to point out the irony of liberals
supporting health care coverage, food stamps, etc. It might even be clever,
except for 2 important points:1. You have admitted that you support
and gladly accepted the per child tax subsidization of your family.2. You
frequently & adamantly criticize government benefits for others even though
you took this subsidization for yourself.So you support government
help that you want but oppose that which you don't. And then you strongly
criticize others for the same contradiction. Really, sometimes it is best to
keep quiet rather expose our own hypocrisy by criticizing others for that which
we are guilty of.
So all the liberals posting here support the idea that those with more kids
should be required to pay more.OK, I'll believe you are sincere
when you start demanding the earned income credit also be reduced or eliminated,
because people with more kids get a higher earned income credit.They
should also DEMAND the child tax credit be revoked, especially since those evil
high-income people do not qualify for it.The focus of the whole
argument is in the incorrect place. It should not be on income taxes, but
property taxes. With our "flat tax", the state's income tax
structure is less progressive (those who can afford to pay more should pay more
and those who cannot, should not). A higher percentage of property taxes go to
schools than do income taxes, so increased school funding should be through
property taxes, since they are more likely to be means based. A person who can
afford a more expensive house generally can afford to pay more taxes.
Wow! Look at these comments! King Noah had nothing on today's posters. He
told his people, "every man for himself". He told them to leave their
wives and their children behind and save themselves. It doesn't look to me
like anything has changed. I cannot believe the comments on liquor
and children. Those posts tell me everything that I need to know about the
posters. All of the posts from people who want the women and
children to fend for themselves tell me that all their talk about helping each
other is just a lot of hot air. What they're really saying is that if they
have to open their wallets, they're against it. If it is a program that
fills their wallets then they are for it.Never before has a subject
shown so clearly people as they really are.I believe in being taxed
to help all kids get an education. To me, that is what families in a society
do.Thank you Deserst News for posting that letter and for allowing
people to show their true feelings.
This certainly is an interesting issue. I agree something must be done about
education funding. The Utah State Constitution guarantees every
child the right to a free public education.But we all know that
nothing is free. As a parent of 3 I have absolutely no qualms about paying my
share for their education. Like all parents, I want the best education possible
for my kids. If the Legislature can guarantee that every dollar beyond the
proposed cap would go toward education, I would have no problem whatsoever with
this.Education should be looked at as an investment rather than a
"cost". Either way we will pay the price. We can pay it now and reap
the benefits later, or cut corners and pay for it when we are no longer
competetive, productive members of society.
Hypocrisy is one of the characteristics of every tax system.
"all their talk about helping each other is just a lot of hot air"Sorry L White, but most of the hot air is coming from you.You write "I believe in being taxed to help all kids get an
education."Can you show me any posts that does not feel the same
way?The issue with many posters is that the letter writer is
concerned that he may have to pay a bit more to educate his children. We should all pitch in to help with education. I have yet to see a poster who
felt differently. But, it seems fairly unreasonable to me that those with kids
in public school pay the least for that privilege.Is that concept
really that difficult for some to grasp?Lower taxes and get the
cotton picken gubment out of our lives. Except when the do stuff I like.
Open Minded MormonEverett, 00So which is it -- You had
the kids, you pay for them or educate them yourselves,orIt takes a
village (yes, a form of Socialism)?The double-standard, hypocritical
Conservatives need to answer this one for themselves.The rest of us
are comfortable ponying up for the benefit of Society.11:33 a.m.
Feb. 26, 2013===========L WhiteSpringville, UTI believe in being taxed to help all kids get an education. To me, that
is what families in a society do.1:07 p.m. Feb. 26, 2013=========To L White -- I would just like to say Thank You
for showing us clearly that you are indeed a closeted "Socialist".Thank you Deserst News for posting that letter and for allowing people
to show their true feelings.
By insisting that parents pay more for their own children's education, many
conservatives actually reveal that they feel entitled to the work of others and
that they are anti-family. Parents already bear the brunt of all the expenses,
career sacrifices, and inconveniences of raising children while those who refuse
to raise children are the free-loaders. Children are an investment for the
future of all of us, not a luxury to be consumed by the parents. The per-child
exemption is a small thank you, and I appreciate it. Remember also
that this veiled head-tax bill also penalizes disproportionately those who care
for the handicapped and the disabled elderly. Would you rather have them become
wards of the state or to believe Korihor's philosophy ("every man
prospered according to his genius")?It's not socialism to
care for others voluntarily. We don't have to leave it up to private
charity. There's nothing wrong with people voluntarily banding together to
serve their common interests. For us it happened in 1776 and has been
responding to the voluntary wishes of its citizens ever since.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments