Quantcast

Comments about ‘Public may vote on eliminating tax exemption to fund schools’

Return to article »

Bill would give $400M to schools but at expense of big families

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 16 2013 3:08 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
dansimp
Layton, UT

Increasing the funding for schools is a laudable goal. And, there is nothing inherently wrong in this tax. I personally believe almost every tax is morally neutral, just based on opinion about what will and won't be better for funding, economic growth, etc.. That having been said, this tax seems like it would do nothing but take money right out of the economy. Young families with several school age children whose taxes go up by 1000$ or more, would just spend 1000$ less at the store, buying that new item, going out to that restaurant, planning that new vacation down to Zion, buying that cookie dough for the school fundraiser. This money will fund the schools, but it will come at the expense of the community they live in. I think as long as people think that through, feel free to vote what you think is best. The problem is there will be a segment of society, that without thinking or caring about the consequences, will say "Yes, finally make those people pay for their own kids."

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

So the democrat would like to take money away from those who have children. To redistribute their money back to them in a "more fair" and "equitable" way.

Which means the democrats will shuffle money to illegals and any other person willing to vote for them and continue the "steal from the rich to feed the poor" mentality, when the money is just stolen from middle class and low income families to make democrats and republicans richer.

How about we try reducing the number of people on welfare and create jobs that pay better, so people will pay more in taxes and be able to take care of themselves? That's a double whammy right there. You lessen the welfare load and increase the tax base.

Of course any silly democrat couldn't think that way. Instead they push for higher taxes, borrow more, spend more with the thought that debt is wealth....that's progressive thought for you. Which is not progressive at all and is closer to digressive more than anything.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@Liberal Ted

"How about we try reducing the number of people on welfare and create jobs that pay better, so people will pay more in taxes and be able to take care of themselves? That's a double whammy right there. You lessen the welfare load and increase the tax base."

But Utah being a right-to-work state and anti-minimum wage, how do you propose to do that? Sounds like good rhetoric, but if a Legislator proposed raising the minimum wage so we could get more folks off welfare, they'd be laughed off Capitol Hill.

So what is your proposal to create jobs that pay better? All the good-paying jobs were shipped offshore to countries where the "job creators" could pay lower wages and less regulation.

So what is your side's proposal to create the great jobs?

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

But Ted, if we just raise the debt limit...? ;)

OHBU
Columbus, OH

"Which means the democrats will shuffle money to illegals and any other person willing to vote for them and continue the "steal from the rich to feed the poor" mentality"

I'm sorry, how is making people who put the most burden on the education system pay more into that system a steal from the rich, give to the poor mentality? You have to go on some circuitous route through illegal immigration to get somewhere near there. The truth is, in Utah people have an exorbitant amount of children, demand they get relieved from their tax duty for doing so, complain that the schools aren't doing enough, then get on their soapbox and preach about personal responsibility. I am fine with exemptions for children, but it should not be limitless. Instead of an either/or thing, how about we cap the exemption at the first three kids. If you want to have more, feel free, but take financial responsibility for them, and only have them if you can support them.

Orem Parent
Orem, UT

There are plenty of ways we could fund education, this being one of them. We could also stop funneling so much money into legislative pet projects. Stop dumping so much into UTA which few people take except for trax. I did notice the legislators are sitting in nice new comfy offices while my child sits in a classroom that would probably fall down in even the slightest earthquake. How about impact fees when a new house is built so the new residents have to fund the building of the schools for their kids instead of putting that burden on all of us? Oh yeah the realtors control the legislature in Utah. Sorry I forgot that.

I don't think this proposal is bad and would vote for it if I had the chance. I'm just saying there are plenty of ways to boost education funding if that is our goal.

HBZion
Salt Lake City, UT

People who wish to financially punish those with more children forget that these children will be the individuals that will pay taxes to fund social security and other programs. Europe and Japan would love to have our higher birth rate to fund their social programs.

Also, this is a politically naïve stand and hurts the democrats. Jones may be good with surveys, but apparently not much else.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

HBZion,

This is not punishing anyone, this is about responsibility. Those who have children in the system should pay the most for their education, not the least.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

So, essentially, a per capita tax.

Ben H
Clearfield, UT

I appreciate the efforts to fund schools, but I grew up in a large family. Here is what most people don't understand.

-We had to drive a bigger and more expensive vehicle. We paid more taxes every year when the car registration came due. The car did not get good mileage, we paid more gas taxes.
-Our grocery bills were larger. We paid more sales taxes on our food.
-We purchased more clothing and other stuff. We paid more sales taxes on that other stuff.
-Our house was bigger. We paid more property taxes than others.

I look at the per-child deduction as sort of leveling the higher tax bill that large families otherwise pay. However, I know of no firm data on this and think the issue is worth studying further.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

@ CHS 85 Sandy, UT
"Sounds like good rhetoric, but if a Legislator proposed raising the minimum wage so we could get more folks off welfare, they'd be laughed off Capitol Hill.

So what is your proposal to create jobs that pay better? All the good-paying jobs were shipped offshore to countries where the "job creators" could pay lower wages and less regulation.

So what is your side's proposal to create the great jobs?"

Why do you feel that forcing companies to pay more for labor would decrease unemployment and create better jobs?

It's very very simple economics. Something the democrats claim to have the only authority on it. Jobs are going overseas because of our labor costs. Not because of ATM machines that barack claims. Wages will not increase until unemployment goes down. Give the companies a reason to invest and stay here. Lower taxes, get rid of the tax advantages we give to foreign countries that steal our business. Give those incentives back to employers here. I would also propose low interest loans to anyone with a proven business model and will start their business here.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

The trouble is the Federal government that has been hijacked by the left wing. They feel that until everyone in this country is impoverished and equal with a third world country, that no one here deserves anything they have worked for.

So the hijacked government continues to borrow over $1 Trillion each year to pay for programs we can't afford, to make promises for votes that can't be sustained, to give contracts to companies that support them, and funnel our money out of this country.

Don't you see anything wrong when 50-60% of this country is using some form of welfare?

Don't you think the families with kids are the poor people in this country? They are the working poor. Do you think taking away their tax break to raise children, something this country needs, is the right path?

I would rather keep the $3000 in property taxes that I'm paying into the school system this year and save that money for my children and have a choice as to where to send my child.

How many times have we increased money into the school system only to still have the same problem? Money is not the answer.

Wildfan
Ogden, UT

One problem in Utah are people with large numbers of children in public schools who don't file tax returns. Maybe in order to enroll in schools parents should have to show proof that they filed taxes, regardless if they paid Utah taxes based on income/exemptions. Not to deny anyone but to ensure everyone is following the same rules.

It's naive to think that families with children are the only ones who benefit from their education. Everyone benefits from an educated population, elderly, childless couples, single people, large and small families, everyone. That is why education isn't a user fee but broadly funded.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

I would propose that we use the public lands that were guaranteed when we became a state and use those resources to fund the education system. I propose that we recruit and maintain quality teachers. I propose that students who are disruptive and unproductive and disturb the education of others, they and their parents can carry the burden of the cost of their education. I propose bringing in volunteer experts from all fields to hold lecture series.

Could you imagine if you allowed banks the ability to come into a school and educate the kids on how credit cards, checking accounts, savings, investments, loans etc work? Could you imagine if all of our kids could make more informed decisions about their finances?

I would also cut subsidizing uta with our tax dollars to make the fares cheaper for the handful of people that use it. Let them pay their fair share. Use that money towards the schools.

I would begin to change the focus in High School, in how to be a fantastic and employable employee with real job skills. I would give them the skills to start a business or use their talents to make money.

RSLfanalways
West Valley, UT

One easy way to raise money for schools is by having a STATE LOTTERY. It is a tax on people who like to gamble and they love it. Follow what Wyoming is doing regarding the lottery to help pay for schools. But it probably wont happen.

Fred33
KAYSVILLE, UT

You know what's interesting about this legislation is that the lawmakers are not considering all the effects. In my children's elementary the families are asked to make several classroom donations throughout the year for supplies. These donations are voluntary, and I would imagine if a large family's taxes were raised by the amount alluded to in the article, that family might not choose to make those donations. I think that the overall money coming into the schools might stay about the same because the pot of money for the large families is not getting any bigger.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

Did anybody else notice that they are going to create yet another layer of administators so oversee how the money is spent.

According to the KSL article "Budget breakdown: How education money is spent in Utah schools" 87% of the money that goes for education is spent on "salaries and benefits for teachers, reading aides, P.E. specialists, principals, district administrators and custodians. " How many more teachers could be supported if that list was just teachers, principals, and custodians? Yes a few district administrators may be needed, but not at the level that we currently have. How about we cut the number of different jobs at a school down to 4. Teacher, Administrator (Principal and secretary), Custodian, and Cook.

If we had more teachers, would reading aids really be needed? Are teachers so uncreative that they can't figure out some games to play during PE? Why do we have all of the wasted positions?

Jefferson, Thomas
Bluffdale, UT

Please would the liberal Pat and Dan Jones leave for retirement right away before they do any more damage to our State. There is NO proof that Utah schools would improve performance by adding more money. We already out perform several states that spend more than we do so what exactly are they trying to do except tax and spend more. Our taxes per capita are already high enough and taxing more those who can least afford it is not going to help those families or their children. What about all those large families that aren't sending a single one of their kids to 'the schools' yet their taxes are just as high and will go higher if the two Jones' has their lifelong wish.

Sasha Pachev
Provo, UT

We have 8 children ages 14 years through 9 months. We home school all of them and always have - we did our very best to make sure the government spent $0 on us. We are getting good results - our oldest scored 33 on the ACT, scores B and higher on 4 STEM AP tests, and has applied to BYU. We have lived off just my income which throughout the years has been high enough to be taxed heavily. So you can imagine how I feel about this proposal.

If somebody wants to tax me more for the sake of educating the children, why don't you give me a tax break and I will show you how I got my 14 year old to perform in the 99% percentile at essentially $0 cost except my time?

Kirk R Graves
West Jordan, UT

I have 5 kids. 4 of them are homeschooled, so I don't really benefit much from the public school system.

For all that, I would strongly support this move. I think it would be great to bring in more money for our Utah schools. Utah does an amazing job with what little we spend, can you imagine what we could do with a little more!

to comment

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