[SpardaSon21]

American public schools frequently under-perform compared to private schools, and have higher per-student costs to boot.  Please don't tell me they need more money when in my state public schooling is guaranteed by the state constitution 40% of all general fund revenue.

[Scotty]

American public schools frequently under-perform compared to private schools, and have higher per-student costs to boot.  Please don't tell me they need more money when in my state public schooling is guaranteed by the state constitution 40% of all general fund revenue.

Re-read the first sentence of your post, then come up with an answer to iamzack's (largely correct) postulation that better teachers go to better schools.

[Topgun]

Better teachers go to better schools, and better students go to better schools too. The failing of the US public school system is not due to one problem. Its not just that they don't have money, its not just that schools don't have enough accountability, its a variety of factors.

[StarSlayer]

Because if it's not forced, people like you with this "I've got mine so you can go **** yourself" mindset will refuse to pay into the system. If paying for the education of your country's youth is so abhorrent to you, why don't you just consider it paying the state back for your own education. Isn't it nice to live in a country where you are guaranteed an education even if you can't pay for it upfront?

how many people would actually go through the trouble? how many people would not just say '**** it... whatever' and pay whatever they were told to pay? I don't think most people would be willing to go without the public services, and it would have the nice effect of reminding people of what they were paying for.

With the exception of living out in the sticks by yourself I'm not quite sure how you expect to exist in civilization without public services.  Sure you can do without utilities and live like a medieval person, but the police can't just ignore crime that occurs on your plot of land, the fire dept can't ignore it if your property turns into a damn blaze since it'll likely spread off your property.  Plus how the hell are you going to travel if you can't use public roads?

[Bobboau]

so your answer to my question would be: not enough to matter.

[StarSlayer]

so your answer to my question would be: not enough to matter.

More that if you live in any sort of community I don't think its possible to cut yourself off from public services.  If you live in a town or city you can't just say "screw taxes I call this lot of land Petoria!"  Police and Fire just can't ignore what happens on your land and unless you decide to subsistence farm on your land and never leave home your going to need to use public roads.  Hell even then I don't even think you can subsistence farm without consulting what ever permits and zoning laws your community enforces.  Unless you are going to live outside society I don't think its possible to cut off services paid for by property taxes because someone wants to be a selfish twit. 

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Ever heard of the Amish?  No taxes whatsoever.  Yet there were a group of them working 2 house up today. 

I think we should all get to add paying taxes as being against our religion......

[Bobboau]

I don't think religion should have anything to do with it.

[Nuclear1]

The Amish don't pay into Social Security or receive worker's compensation.  They pay all other taxes though.

http://www.holycrosslivonia.org/amish/amishfaq.htm#tax

Self-employed Amish do not pay Social Security tax. Those employed by non- Amish employers do pay Social Security tax. The Amish do pay real estate, state and federal income taxes, county taxes, sales tax, etc.

The Amish do not collect Social Security benefits, nor would they collect unemployment or welfare funds. Self sufficiency is the Amish community's answer to government aid programs. Section 310 of the Medicare section of the Social Security act has a sub-section that permits individuals to apply for exemption from the self-employment tax if he is a member of a religious body that is conscientiously opposed to Social Security benefits but that makes reasonable provision of taking care of their own elderly or dependent members. The Amish have a long history of taking care of their own members. They do not have retirement communities or nursing homes; in most cases, each family takes care of their own, and the Amish community gives assistance as needed.

[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, I was going to say. If the Amish don't pay taxes, it's because they're not generating enough income to be taxable, not because they have some kind of exemption.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

They don't pay income tax or property tax either at least not in Ohio.  Religious exemption.  

[NGTM-1R]

They don't pay income tax or property tax either at least not in Ohio.  Religious exemption.  

I don't believe that's possible. Organizations receive exemption. Individuals do not.

[Nuclear1]

Yeah I'm still pretty sure they have to pay property tax.  The only exemptions they get are the ones other religious organizations get, in addition to their Social Security and worker's compensation.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

There are also exemptions for any group established in the 50's or before.  Apparently they do have to (or are supposed to) pay property taxes on business property.  They are also supposed to pay income tax if they work away from the community but there is no way they actually do. 

[Kosh]

Ever heard of the Amish?  No taxes whatsoever.  Yet there were a group of them working 2 house up today. 

I think we should all get to add paying taxes as being against our religion......

The Amish also don't use any kind of modern technology either........

[S-99]

Dude, paying taxes on something doesn't mean you forfeit your right to own it.

I never said that, and i'm also not trying to imply that.

If you miss a tax payment for a while and you get kicked off of your property, then you certainly did forfeit your right to own it because the local government came in and possessed it. Again, my question is about who really owns the land if people can come in and kick you off of it?

This isn't about paying taxes equals forfeiting ownership. It's about if land taxes had to be paid in the first place did you ever own it?

It's not communism, it's being part of a community.  Or has selfishness really gone THAT far?

I guess it doesn't occur to you that the word communism is obviously based off of the word community. And my whole rant isn't about selfishness.

So how do you suggest the states pay for the various services? People who live in a certain area generally send their kids to that area's school, use the police/fire departments when needed, etc, etc. So really, if people in those areas are going to use services, which aren't free, why shouldn't they pay for it?

I'm not in here for talking about taxes. I did not display being totally retarded concerning what taxes are used for either. All i did was not talk about what the taxes get used for. I'm after something more juicy.

The reason communist countries dont have property taxes is because the state OWNS the land.

I don't see much difference here except over here being offered the illusion of ownership. With either one, the state can still come in and kick you out. Just that in communism, state ownership is explicit.

I'm asking who really owns the land if taxes must be paid for it?
You probably also wont answer it.

[Kosh]

I'm asking who really owns the land if taxes must be paid for it?
You probably also wont answer it.

That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.

[BloodEagle]

That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.

To be fair, you're comparing apples to oranges there.  It barely applies to his argument.  And the power company isn't going to seize your computer, if you stop paying your electric bill.

[Flaser]

so your answer to my question would be: not enough to matter.

OK here's the answer: unless you can do without medicine, electricity, petrol, food grown by someone else, you'll need modern society. For all those amenities and "basics" a huge number of people are needed.

...so when you pay for education and welfare of other people you're also paying for your very own upkeep.

Read this from Charles Stross: Insufficient Data.

Around 1900, it took the effort of about 20-30% of a nation's work-force to provide food for everybody; and another 30-50% working in factories to produce clothing, machinery, and processed materials like bricks and billets of pig iron. Today, we only need 0.5-1% of the work force to feed everyone, and another 1-4% working in industry to produce the basics — but the microspecialities have exploded, to the extent that a lot of our needs seem to require a trans-national economy to provide. There are only two vendors of wide-body airliners on any scale today, Boeing and Airbus, and both of them are effectively multinational consortia (more than half the components of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner are produced overseas, and shipped to Seattle for final assembly). There seems to only be room for one vendor of super-Jumbo airliners — if Boeing and Airbus tried to exploit that niche simultaneously, they'd both starve — so they appear to be avoiding conflict in that (and some other) area(s). And so on.

So. I ask: how many people does it take, as a minimum, to maintain our current level of technological civilization?

[Bobboau]

That's like saying your computer doesn't belong to you because you need to pay for the electricity service to run it.

yeah, cause last time I didn't pay my electricity bill they came and confiscated my electronics.