kvkkc1....
I'll just deal with two issues you raised.
Actually public schools aside from a few states
like Michigan are funded at the local level
by real estate taxes.
There are many good and some great public schools
in affluent regions that are on par with the
elite private schools.
Here are just a few names New Trier in Kenilworth, Il.
ETHS in Evanston, Il, and Bronx School of Science
in NYC.
There are many many more with good teachers
and students achieving.
One big difference betw. the good and bad schools
partly is due to the disparity paid per pupil
in rural & inner city schools (poor) and
more affluent suburban schools. (Also teacher salaries).
Engels in Michigan, I believe went to a different
means of funding schools.
Partly until there is equity in how schools
are funded, you'll have such disparities due to
the tax bases of certain areas. This in part can be
corrected by pooling taxes for the entire state
and then paying the same amount per pupil.
Regardless of what is done, there
has been a lot of lip service paid to
education by politicians at all levels
of government, but little actual
priorities have been placed on the real needs
of smaller class room sizes and more teachers
making higher salaries, especially in large
cities.
Yes, there are other reasons for poor public school
performance...one is bloated management
and teacher union restrictions...but this
is an in depth discusion that isn't
really resolved at the Federal level anyway
which I don't have time to discuss right now.
As for the total amount of taxes paid,
you also have to factor in the total amount of
deductions taken. I deduct everything and take full
advantage of being an S-Corp. My deductions
include state, city , local, and property taxes.
Since my primary property is a multiple unit
I even depreciate 84% of my residence (a deduction
of about $7,000 for the next 24 or so years).
I gross in six figures, but my "adjusted" income
is typically a lot lot less. I have distributions,
but there are so many ways to avoid paying taxes
that when all is said and done the taxes I pay
are less than 10% of my gross income.
Those who have the means, and accountants
usually pay the least in terms of percent
of gross income.
Now compare this to European nations many that
have value added taxes (federal sales taxes) ,
pay 3 to 5 bucks for a gallon of gasoline, in
addition to higher rates on income with fewer deductions.
Without doing an in depth analysis, I'd have to disagree
and think you're very wrong with your conclusions
as to who pays more collectively for taxes.
The comparison also has to include what is received
for taxes paid.
Better transit systems? Better health care?
$200 dollar screw drivers? Obsolete B-1 bombers?
Payng down the interest on accumulated deficits?
Then the discussion should proceed to what
is needed, and what level of service the
government should or shouldn't provide.
One can take an extreme argument
and say the government should
only provide for national defense
(which in effect becomes a jobs program
based on the seniority of Congressman
more so than based on need for systems).
Or one could also refer to Lincoln words
that "....the legitimate object of government
is to do for the people what needs to be done,
but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all,
or do well, by themselves."
This doesn't sound like Reagan's laissex-faire
approach to politics IMO under whose administration
government actually and ironically grew.
But then again, what does Lincoln or
even Colin Powell really have to do with
the Republican Party anyway?
z |
