Obama to pay for free pre-school by unfair taxation?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You know what really works, closing union-run public schools and putting kids in private schools where they come out of 12th grade actually knowing how to read.




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Actually this should be free, it should always be covered completely along with your medical, dental and good services, with essentials such as food, housing, energy, controlled and kept low.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Actually this should be free, it should always be covered completely along with your medical, dental and good services, with essentials such as food, housing, energy, controlled and kept low.


I will give you this Unity; you are consistent and stead-fast in your beliefs. That deserves respect even if I think you don't fully understand how all the above is possible without hosing someone; my guess the "rich". But a hat-tip nonetheless.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You know what really works, closing union-run public schools and putting kids in private schools where they come out of 12th grade actually knowing how to read.


Unions definetly need serious reform. Tenure needs to be nearly demolished. But unions also have utility in attracting the best and brightest to the teaching proffession, which is what we need to do.

As far as closing public schools and sending kids to private schools...aka vouchers. Here is how that works...

School X which is virtually free public education is closed and everyone is given a coupon (voucher) to put toward a Private school.

The coupon covers maybe 60% of the Private School's cost of tuition.

So the families with Money end up with a 60% break on private school tuition for thier kids.

And the families without money can't afford the remaining 40% of the expensive private school.

So it translates to a massive subsidy for the rich families to send thier kids to private schools while the poor kids...in the best case scenario...get shoved into am overcrowded, rundown, cheap crappy "privately run" school or worst case scenario, have no options at all.

Vouchers essentially boost opportunities for rich kids and gather/herd poor kids into the worst schools...cuz that voucher doesn't cover the full expense of good private schools...the poor families can't cover the remainder of the expense.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
This is getting really funny...

Anything that Obama proposes will be twisted into an "evil plot" even if it means...Preschool BAD...smoking..GOOD!


this has nothing to do with smoking being "good". i m sure most of us, including (perhaps even especially) those who are addicted to it would agree smoking is bad for you. whether it is good or not is not an issue here. the issue is the plan to "extra tax" something that is used by only SOME people, almost never used or purchased by others. to pay for something to be used by the masses. that is called unfair taxation to put the burden on only a few of the population to support everyone else. this is especially true when the product being taxed has nothing at all to do with what they plan to spend the money on.

preschool tho not totally bad is not anywhere good for children either. i wonder how many people who work at things like preschool or daycare actually have their kids enrolled in it except by the necessity because they work and have nowhere else to send their kids? as i have stated before i know and have known quite a few people who do work in them, and that most if not all of them love kids and want to help them succeed in life. one fact has not escaped me the only ones who have their kids involved are those that because they have to work need someone to "babysit" their kids (which is what daycare and preschool really are "industrialized babysitters"). those who have either a stay at home parent , or relative like a grandmother, or another family member, or even a good friend that stay at home have THEM babysit for them. one of my relatives even QUIT her job in these places when she had children so as not to subject her kids to it, deciding instead to be broke (no government assistance used), relying on one paycheck to live on. that right there says something, that the very people who work there do NOT AGREE that it is "good" for children.

the school systems are generally messed up to begin with, why would preschool be any different? on top of that unless class sizes are like 3 or 4 students per teacher, at preschool age the class sizes would be too big to actually achieve learning much of anything anyway. class sizes are probably the biggest problem in the education system in elementary and high school, too many kids that learn different ways and learn at different rates. the overcrowded classes mean a teacher can not have enough time to actually help the students to learn.

admittedly there are some people who really DO need free preschool/daycare, those are single parents who's spouse is either dead or not there without paying child support. other than that it is a choice for those who use it and as such should pay for what they use. i can see some subsidy paid for those who do have to have both parents working in order to survive, but not for those who don't need two incomes.

but however they do it, paying for everyone or for just those who really need it the point remains it should be paid for FAIRLY by ALL. not just a select few based on the fact that they are addicted to a legal drug. which has nothing to do either with children or education anyway.

this is NOT Obama bashing. no matter WHAT MORON came up with this idea, it would STILL be unfair taxation and JUST as BAD an idea. this is no "evil plot", it is just a case of trying to put extra FINANCIAL BURDEN on certain people only when there is no justifiable reason other than they are becoming social outcasts, and therefore many people don't care what happens to them. i bet there would be screaming and hollering if the "tax" was put onto say people of Hispanic, or African decent. but what is the difference? it is still unequal treatment based on a DIFFERENCE between one group and those now considered to be INFERIOR.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I personally do not see the fuss with it considering the weakness of US educational system.

Lots of parents do not have the skills to teach a young child.

I never went to pre-school, although here the kindergarten act similar. Letters, numbers, shapes, basic writing, reading and substraction are taught. I even took part in voluntary English classes in kindergarten (In parallel imagine a situation where kids could start learning Spanish already in kindergarten)

To be honest, it does not matter where exactly which money comes from. What matters is what is done with it. Next year, the cigarette taxes are simply put to the health budget and some of the health budget is written into pre-school. That simple it is.

I pay over 5 euros for every pack of cigarettes and out of every pack sold stores only earn 10-20 cents maybe if even that. Maximum prices are written on every pack and no shop is legally allowed to sell at higher price, even bars.Cheaper price often means negative balance, so shops can not profiteer much from cigarettes, The taxes are extremely high, about 80% of the price of every cigarette pack sold goes to the government. Every shop sells cigarettes at exactly the same price, I like it


It is common in different EU countries. Also alcohol tends to be highly taxed, especially in Nordic. For example, in Sweden supermarkets are not allowed to sell alcohol (except 3,5% and under). There are only handful of stores in Stockholm which are legally allowed to sell vodka and stronger alcohol and these are government-owned store. For example vodka costs around 30 dollars for 0,7 liter. Liter of any vodka is taxed at 31,52 dollars...
edit on 12-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by littled16

Free pre-school would be a blessing to my family. I stay home with my grandchild as my daughter can't afford daycare, and it has caused financial hardship for my husband and I- not to mention I am more than ready to get out of the house and go back to work. Something like this would help.


that is not "free", you WOULD be PAYING for it. as you say you are a smoker.


By the way, I, my hubby and both of my daughters as well as almost everyone else in my circle of friends and family are smokers. I think between the lot of us our tax money would more than cover the cost of free pre-school for my grandkid.


you are forgetting something, what you and your friends pay in extra tax would not just pay for YOUR granddaughter's preschool but for all your non smoking neighbor's kids/ grand-kids as well, letting THEM get a free ride off of you and your circle of friends.

lets put it this way. imagine you live in a small community of eleven families you and say Barney are the only smokers in the community. you have your granddaughter in preschool, Barney has no children. now each of other families have one child each in preschool except for Sara and Brenda who each have two children in preschool. now you and Barney receive preschool "bills" (because you smoke) for payment for SIX children EACH to pay. now do you feel that Barney and yourself should have to pay for SIX children's schooling each? when YOU only have ONE child that needs it, and poor Barney doesn't even have any kids who need it? is that fair to YOU or Barney? why should you TWO have to pay for the other NINE family's kids? THAT is EXACTLY what this "tobacco tax" is all about. it is about making SOME people PAY for EVERYONE ELSE. just because YOU SMOKE and they don't YOU get to foot the whole bill for them as well as yourself.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 
I absolutely do understand what you are saying, and it is absolutely not fair in any way, shape or form. Point is that they are going to keep jacking up taxes on tobacco products no matter WHAT they spend the money on. First they raised them to pay for so-called health problems created by smokers, then to pay for more of Obamacare, and now they are going to raise them again- only this time they are telling you what they actually want to pay for with the raise rather than handing you a fake "healthcare costs" excuse. They are going to raise them again and again until the nanny state forces you to quit smoking. Then they will start taxing everything else you do to make up for the short fall once nobody is paying tobacco taxes anymore. They want your money because they refuse to work withing a budget and they will keep finding more things to tax and make up excuses for why. They start with "sin" taxes because they can get the most public support for them. Once they run out of "sins" they will move on to bigger and better things to tax you to death for.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I've been a smoker for 20 years, tried to quit a few times here lately, unsuccessfully. I'm going to try again, and when I succeed this time I'm going to take the money I save (probably $150ish a month) and give it directly to organizations directly opposed to the Administrations policies. I'm thinking first and foremost to the pro-2nd amendment organizations and RandPac.
edit on 12-4-2013 by jefwane because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jefwane
I've been a smoker for 20 years, tried to quit a few times here lately, unsuccessfully. I'm going to try again, and when I succeed this time I'm going to take the money I save (probably $150ish a month) and give it directly to organizations directly opposed to the Administrations policies. I'm thinking first and foremost to the pro-2nd amendment organizations and RandPac.
edit on 12-4-2013 by jefwane because: (no reason given)


interestingly a some friends who managed to quit smoking for a few years, (a few of them after several years could not take the cravings anymore and started back smoking), have mentioned that they never saw a dime of that money they "saved" that they could see. it just went for things they did without or with less of when they smoked, as well as things like snacks to help ward off the cravings that never go away.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I'm a capitalist and do not believe in anything that remotely resembles socialism but research the preschool nurseries called creches in Paris.

A creche is preschool for kids with early stimulation and socialization with other kids. The minute I saw how great the "creche" was, I wished America had something similar to offer our young preschool children. The kids there even eat 4 course meals. All of this is to stimulate the economy. The French let you drop off your child starting at 9 months old to allow the mother to reintegrate herself into the workplace. Great for capitalism when educated moms don't have to stay home because they can't afford a babysitter.

If we are going to be taxed unfairly, at least the money is going to something good.

youtube.com...

edit on 4/13/2013 by curlygirl because: Fixed video link
edit on 4/13/2013 by curlygirl because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join