Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah senator wants money for schools — by eliminating family child tax exemption’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 23 2013 6:26 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Strider303
Salt Lake City, UT

Hey if we really want to be "fair", and keep in mind that "fair" is in the eye of the beholder, and ignoring that life really isn't "fair", why not give all parents a voucher for their children's education based upon the WPU and let them be totally responsible for their child's education. That way you can delete the tax supported overhead of administration and let private accreditation bodies grade schools for parents to judge where to enroll the child.

Athletics and extra curricular activities would be via clubs and volunteer groups and sponsors .

If colleges want to assure their applicants are qualified they can set their own standards via test, interview or what ever standard they choose to set.

Expand Vo-Ed for those who do not want to go to college. Encourage apprenticeship programs in the trades to permit entry at 16 years of age.

The savings by dropping the administrative overhead would be significant, and if a school did not want to participate in any or all federal program, they would be private and not have to do so.

Will some students fail? Yes, but some fail in the present system.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Leave it to a dem to want to tax families. Talk about a regressive tax.

Steve Cottrell
Centerville, UT

Dear trekker:

1. The percentage of school funding going toward administrative salaries is lower in Utah than in any other state.
2. There are those who keep talking about running education more like a business. Show me a business where one supervisor has responsibility for 50 employees and 500 children. These numbers are real. In a high school with 2500 students, like those along the Wasatch Front, there are a principal, and two or three assistants. So with four administrators, each has about 50 employees (on average), counting custodians, teachers, cafeteria staff, counselors, and secretarial staff, in addition to 500 to 700 students for whom they are responsible. No business asks so much.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Fine. Let the bill pass, but let the parents use "their share" of that money at the school of their choice. Why continue to support failing schools at the public's expense? If a school is "good enough" to receive public money, let that school compete in the free market for funding. Let the parents decide who is qualified to teach their children.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

If anything, it is the singles and childless married couples who should have their taxes raised since they have taken advantage of a system that requires not only present, but future workers to support. Of course, it doesn't surprise me that the state senator, a Democrat, doesn't understand the value of life and the asset that comes with any child, including a lifetime contributing member of the tax base. Those who don't understand the value of life at birth, would not understand the value of a life carried forward 78 years. Typically, politicians are only interested in meddling with other citizen's rights and money, rather than giving the irresponsible and thriftless another avenue to be so. Reject this idea.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

For those who want to take "your share of the money in the way of a voucher" I am totally in favor of that concept as long as you will agree that I should get "my share of the money I pay for education to use as I choose". I have no kids in the system, so that would mean I get all my state tax money back.

I have a better idea. How about we do away with state income tax, and you spend your money as you choose for your childs education? That would be fair and create the ultimate example of school choice.

For the rest of you that think having big families means that you are paying my bills in the future you are pretty funny. That has been a theory in Utah for many years now. If it really worked we would be the wealthiest state in the country by now. The problem however is your kids then do as you do and have large families pay minimal taxes and let someone else pay for their kids and this continues generation after generation, and the pressure on the education and other systems continue to increase.

David
Centerville, UT

I agree that schools need more money. Last year I went to back to school night. My daughter's class had 35 students in it. Parents were asked to sit in their child's desk. The desks were so close together that it was difficult to squeeze into it (maybe I'm just overweight, but 35 kids in a class is a lot too).

I agree with other posts that too much money is being spent on administration positions. At times the best teachers become administrators because of the increased pay. We need those great teachers in the classroom. They should be paid better.

I am concerned with the dollars being diverted to transportation. These dollars were originally earmarked for schools, but in the 90's changes to the UT constitution allowed for diversion to transportation. I feel school dollars should remain with schools. Let UTA and transportation find their own sources of money.

For those who believe Utah doesn't have an education funding problem (they usually say schools get enough money, and that money won't improve education) I disagree. I've seen 35 desks in a classroom. I know that teacher-to-student ratios make a difference.

AZ Cougar
Gilbert, AZ

While I agree with the concept of a flat tax, or a consumption tax, I do not think such a change should include a $400 million giveaway to the teacher's unions.

Implement a flat tax that is revenue neutral and outlaw public sector unions all together. Public unions and politicians feed off each other (with our money) until you end up with bankrupt municipalities and states.

As for those complaining about paying for families with lots of kids, go watch the documentary "Demographic Winter" on BYUTV and see what happens when society stops having enough children to replace the existing population. The USA is already hovering around 2.0 children per couple. It's not pretty when the number goes below 2.0 and nobody is left to pay for all your medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, food stamps, public employee pensions, etc.

open minded
Lehi, UT

This is NOT a tax increase- it is a step to end Socialism in Utah. We subsidize large families in Utah all the time. If you choose to have lots of kids you should pay for them- Free Market!
I love how conservatives will suddenly pull out data to say money alone in schools doesn't fix schools. Yet when conservatives are confronted with Global Warming data they claim science and data is fake- picking and choosing when to use facts in life cracks me up.

bill in af
American Fork, UT

Senator Jones makes sense. It is too bad that the Republican leadership will probably try to kill the bill because it is being proposed by a Democrat. I've been a life long Republican who has constantly seen common sense bills for education eliminate by our state legislature. Citizens need to stand up and tell their representatives in Utah to start representing their needs and not the Eagle Forum and other far right philosophies.

New to Utah
PAYSON, UT

Terrible idea whose time has not come. Why on earth would we tax people for having children? We are growing at an enemic rate, We need educated workers to pay off the $17 trillion our politicians especially Democrats have run up. It is clearly cutting off the nose to spite the face.We are bankrupting the nation quick enough with Obama's policies why handicap those willing to have children? Utah's teachers are actually doing a good job with much less money than DC or California schools who have three or four times the money.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

This is not a proposed tax increase! It's an elimination of a deduction that shouldn't be there. It makes no sense to give those that are overloading the system tax deductions to overload the system even further. It's funny to listen to republicans complain about redistribution of wealth yet they are perfectly fine with having me with no children in the system pay several thousand dollars a year for education but my neighbor down the road has five kids in the system and pays nothing in state income taxes. Isn't that redistributing my wealth to my neighbor?

jotab
Salt Lake City, UT

Dear AZ Cougar,
How is this a "giveaway" to the teacher union? Her plan is to send the money directly to the schools for the local community councils to decide how to use the money. Are local neighbor hood groups fronts for unions? Take your union hate somewhere else.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

"If more money is needed for education, it is better to spread the costs evenly, than to hit families with children when they can least afford it"

That is precisely the point, the costs ARE NOT being spread evenly. Single people and couples without children are paying FAR more for education that the couples with children in the system.

Yes, everyone benefits from an educated populace and everyone should contribute, but to complain that families with children are being unfairly picked on is laughable.

Instereo
Eureka, UT

400 Million is a lot of money and having families with children pay for it makes sense on the level of people paying for services used. But, the issue is much more complicated then that.

All people benefit from public education. Having an educated workforce benefits employers. Education has been shown to lower crime. Education makes commerce easier, so on and so on.

When Utah spends the least amount per student of any state in the country, it seems obvious we need to invest more in public education and I applaud Senator Jones for thinking of ways to make our schools better. We all need to figure out a way to fund our schools adequately for all of our state's children and do it in a way that shares the burden since we all benefit either directly or indirectly from their education.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

Ah the compassionate senator!! She wants to help the children by impoverishing their struggling parents.

Made me think of Proverbs 12:10 about "the tender mercies of the wicked".

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments