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".
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Leave it to a dem to want to tax families. Talk about a regressive tax.
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.
Has this guy lost his mind? Dependent tax exemptions are designed to help with
the costs of raising children.
You make rotten sausage, Sen Jones. Your combination of taxing and spending
changes stinks in my opinion. If you'd try a separate approach with your 2
ideas, your taxation idea would most certainly get voted down. If you'd
try to improve education funding other ways you could get a winner; such as
capping compensation to about 10-15% above the average teacher's
compensation - admin / supv work is not worth the extra money we've become
accustomed to paying; such as equalizing budgets / compensation across rich and
poor school districts - we need to give opportunity to all our children, not
just the children of the well off; such as cut spending for inter-school sports
- fans should pay for inter-school sports, not taxpayers.
Before childless couples, or small families, bemoan their social burdens, do
remember that those "herds" of children will be paying for government
subsidies of the elderly, in their time of need. To me, the
definition of civilization is how well children, and those in need, are cared
for and valued. America is well-invested in the pride cycle. We all know how
that ends. And, for the record, it always begins with the rich and powerful.
I have to admit things have changed over the years. Having a large family, even
in Utah, isn't seen quite the same way it was years ago when such people
were deemed to be role models. Still, I would be surprised how far a bill like
this got. It still will be seen as a "tax increase."
Senator Jones is on track.If large families provide workers to pay into
Social Security and Medicare, don't they also tax our natural resources?At a time when everyone wants gigantic McMansions, where do we put them
(and how to do provide resources) when families are growing exponentially faster
than our earth can support? If you have four kids, and they each have four
kids, and they each have four kids -- that 64 grandchildren to provide for.
THINK, people! One solution to Social Security and Medicare is to
raise the retirement age. When the systems were devised, people generally
lived five years longer. Now, they live 25 years. Another solution
is fair wages, so that people CAN support their own families. Where do you all
think the jobs are going to come from?
Thank you, Senator Jones, for continuing to fight for solutions to the larger
problems in Utah. Personally, I'm all for personal
responsibility and minimizing unduly burdensome social engineering wherever
possible. This is a step in the right direction - even better than the
previously proposed Jones-Mascaro bills from several years ago.
Be careful what you wish for.If I am the only one who has a vested
interest in educating my children, then I should be the only one who reaps the
benefit from creating the next generation of taxpayers. By your logic, the
social security payments, medicare benefits, city services, military budget, all
of those wonderful things my children will be paying for with their tax dollars,
should proportionately flow back to those of us who made all that possible by
raising an educated generation.Those of you that do not want to
contribute to that future, should have no claim on that future. When you retire,
your retirement should be funded by you, not my children. Your medicare benefit
should be paid for by you, not my children. Sadly, that is not going to be much
because the government long ago found they could buy your vote by paying out all
those funds immediately instead of saving it for you. The government lives hand
to mouth. Without my tax paying generation of children paying for your future,
your future looks pretty bleak.If fairness is the name of the game,
that's fair isn't it?
"Per child tax deductions are socialism and nothing more." This is an
odd statement (how about: "picking up the trash is socialism and nothing
more"), but I assume this respondent thinks "socialism" is a dirty
word. I obviously don't. From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs. Senator Jones' measure would make things tighter
for a lot of kids. I don't support her proposal. If she hopes to help her
own party, she's sadly mistaken.
So Republicans scream for a flatter tax system that eliminates give-aways to one
group at the expense of others...And the Dems offer you something that makes our
code flatter.... I can see your heads spinning from here.
Per child tax deductions are socialism and nothing more. They're
government sponsored social engineering that true conservatives despise. The
concept of personal responsibility should dictate that those who use services
should pay for those services.
The word tax "exemption" means that instead of families with children
paying their fair share of taxes that because in many cases they deliberately
chose to have a child, the current state policy is to "exempt" them.
However, because of the large families in Utah, the burden of paying for taxes
has shifted towards single people, smaller families having to subsidize other
families's children's education. While it can be argued that
everybody benefits from the public education of all children, unfortunately, the
direct benefits to large families is likely greater in the long run for the
larger family than for those without children or smaller families. For parents
who choose to have children, it is important that they accept the responsibility
that goes along with having children and that includes paying their fare share
for that child's education. Exemptions are unfair for the rest of us.
Ranking dead last in per-pupil spending--not a definitive measure of education
quality, but a very large factor--is certainly making some large companies think
twice about investing in Utah.And for families who essentially pay
no tax because of all these exemptions, this would figuratively and literally
make them "invested" in their children's education--maybe if this
was the case, parents would take their jobs as education facilitators more
seriously (getting their kids to complete homework, respect teachers, dress
appropriately, attend class, etc.).
What about the families who do NOT use the public schools. Does not seem fair
to say they should pay extra taxes too when they do not use the schools.
This is another crazy idea that fails to consider the second order
ramifications. If you raise the cost of raising a child, you will have fewer
children, and fewer future workers to support Medicaid and Medicare costs of the
older generations. Second, hitting families in the pocketbook when they are
most financially vulnerable will only increase the demand for subsidized school
lunches, Medicaid, food stamps, healthcare, etc., etc, as these families will no
longer be able to avoid basic necessities.Primary and secondary
education is a service with huge positive externalities for communities and the
state as a whole. Those who are single or empty nesters benefit hugely from the
investment in children by parents AND taxpayers. 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.
Reagan was right: Democrats never met a tax they didn't hike.
This tax increase should be a non-starter in Utah. We have a legislature that
consistently wastes too much public ed dollars that they would find ways to burn
an extra 400 million in no time at all.
Not a bad idea. User pay works for health care, right?
Thank you, State Senator Jones!I believe in "personal
responsibility" and that each family should support themselves without
subsidies.Let's carry it further and have only a "household
exemption". Signed: one-child parents who've been paying
for the herds around us, for years
Bad idea, the schools have enough money, they just need to stop using so much of
it on Admin levels. Get it to the teachers!
A reasonable idea to help better fund schools.