Reply With QuoteWhy ????????Originally Posted by C.Puffs
Not the same thing at all.By your logic, you shouldn't pay for fire service or the police.. if you don't need them
Why ????????
Why? Lots of people go to private schools.
????
One doesn't need a car to use the roads. Unless one is hiking cross-country they're going to be using the roads to get around, be it public transportation, bikes, what have you.
Pretty sure there isn't anybody who doesn't use utilities.And guess what happens if you don't pay for them BTW? They shut them off.
Because they're there to improve the quality of the community at large. If I live there then I should pay a tax to support them. I don't pay a tax to support the PD in Dallas Texas, for instance, because I don't live there. Now if cops were meant to be personal body guards THEN it'd be the same as the school/kids comparison.
-Sure many people go to Private schools, but nowhere near the majority.
-North American Countries are already not having enough children to sustain their population.
-Cars where just 1 of many examples. I get the feeling you are arguing just for the sake of aguing.
-Exactly, and if you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail.
Jet skis and schools are a million miles apart, it's a downright stupid analogy. An educated population is of benefit to everybody, being able to ride a jet ski doesn't benefit anyone. All those people without kids back when you were in school funded part of your education but you've eaten your fill so it's all good right?
Which doesn't change the fact that education can work without the collective.
Irrelevant. We're talking about personal choices and the expenses they impose.
No, I'm just pointing out that there ARE things that everybody uses and there are some things that not everybody does. Roads are the former, schools are the latter.
That goes without saying. Not even sure why you mentioned it as it doesn't really prove anything.
Where did I say that? That's right, I didn't, you're simply putting words in my mouth. I didn't even imply it.
There are countries out there that have this system. (In third world) You know how good does it work out for them.
I wasn't quoting you.
The education you received was, without a shadow of a doubt, funded in part by people without kids. You have reaped the benefits of that education yet you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for somebody elses kid to go to school when xyz years ago somebody was paying for you to go to school even though they didn't have kids?
Yeah, you guys are probably right on the education. In the long run it's probably cheaper to educate them and make them taxpayers than to leave them to their own devices.
What I was implying is that it should have never been that way to start with.I wasn't quoting you.
The education you received was, without a shadow of a doubt, funded in part by people without kids. You have reaped the benefits of that education yet you feel that you shouldn't have to pay for somebody elses kid to go to school when xyz years ago somebody was paying for you to go to school even though they didn't have kids?
Free education is the symbol of a modern culture. Anything above that is the individuals choice.
Incentives to have children is important in western society. Or else it will cease to be a western society in everything except its geography.
You remind me of the rural Afghans, who only care about their compound, and not what happens down the road.
You were implying that USA should have been an agricultural country?
Finally, some sense!
Posting Permissions
