Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <994@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 11:42:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.994
Posted: Tue Sep 17 11:42:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 05:19:40 EDT
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <673@utastro.UUCP> <5878@cbscc.UUCP> <10395@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 97

(net.religion deleted from newsgroup list)

> In article <5878@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
> >In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

> >>I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't
> >>they get tax breaks?

> >This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand since public schools
> >don't pay taxes either.  Private schools have to charge tuition.
> >Parents paying this tuition must also pay taxes to support the public
> >schools.  (This is the argument for tuition tax credits.)

> And I suppose we should give rebates to people who don't have children
> at all, since they are taxed for a service they don't receive?  If not,
> why not?

Sounds good to me.

> Of course, I have a reason myself why I think why not.  I think that
> society at large gets real, substantial benefits from a generally
> educated citizenry.  Public school taxes make this benefit possible,
> and thus are payed for the same reason you pay other taxes -- because
> society at large, and thus you, (allegedly) benefit from the service...

On this reasoning, everyone should be forced to support the private
schools as well (see below).

> ...and it could not be efficiently or properly provided any other way.

Whether the public schools are efficient or provided proper education
is a matter of much debate.  In some people's opinion, they are the
best way to educate the citizenry; but other people think otherwise.
Their opinion should be considered as well.  I don't have any figures
handy, but I think I remember reading that the per-pupil cost for
private schools was lower than for public schools.  Anybody have
solid information on this?

> The fact that someone might have children they choose to educate some
> other way is just as irrelevant to this as someone who has no
> children.

below:
Why?  Society at large benefits from the education of these
other children also; so, by your reasoning, society at large
should help pay for their education also.

I propose the following: Assuming that society at large does benefit
from a generally educated citizenry (which I'm not really questioning),
let each individual decide what he or she thinks is the most effective
way of accomplishing that goal, and support that method.  This can be
accomplished by allowing dollar for dollar tax credits, as opposed to
the deduction from income allowed now, for educational expenses, including
contributions to educational institutions, up to the amount of tax
which currently goes to support the public school.  That way, you can
support the public schools if you think that is the best way to educate
the citizenry, and I can support something else if I think otherwise.
As it is, I have to support what you think is best *and* what I think
is best, but you don't have to support what *I* think is best.

Suppose that this program caused the public school system to go bankrupt
(which is possible, but I consider it unlikely).  That would indicate
that most of the people who were paying for it didn't think it was
accomplishing the goal of educating the citizenry, and wanted to
support an alternative instead.  More likely, the public school system
would become more responsive to the public, whom they are ostensibly
serving.

On the other hand, if the public school system was not hurt by this
program, that would indicate that most people did think that it was
accomplishing the goal, and wanted to keep supporting it.  I have
no problem with this; as I said, each should be able to support the
educational system or methods he or she finds most effective.

Why not eliminate the tax altogether?  Well, perhaps that action
would eventually take place, if it became clear that the public
schools were not what the public wanted.  But, at least for me,
there are two reasons why this would not be a good idea at this
time.  First is a matter of practicality; usually it is better if
change occurs gradually.  (In fact, it might be a good idea to
phase the tax credits in; for example, 25% credit the first year,
50% the second, 75% the third, and 100% from then on.)  The second
reason not to eliminate the tax altogether at this time is to
determine what it is the people really want.  If everybody uses
the tax credit to avoid supporting the public schools, then the
tax and the public schools should be eliminated.  Let me repeat
myself, to avoid misunderstanding: if it turns out that people
really *don't want* the public school system, but are supporting
alternative educational systems, then the public school system
should go away.  On the other hand, if relatively few people
use the credits, but most keep supporting the public schools,
then that's OK, too; everyone has what he or she wanted.

> 		Ken Arnold

Gary Samuelson
ittatc!bunker!garys