I do not have children, and I never will, yet my property taxes still go toward paying for schools. I’m happy to have my taxes pay for roads, infastructure improvement, fire, police, and all the other municipal services that benefit me as a resident of the county.
The government needs to determine the cost of educating a child from kindergarten to high school, divide this by 18, and apply it as a yearly tax to parents. Children deserve an education, but children also put an additional strain on society. I should not be forced to pay for someone else’s decision to procreate.
deleted by creator
My uncle just moved to Florida and found out that cashiers there have zero concept of exact change. If they don’t have a display telling them what to count out, they can’t do it in their heads.
Was a bit of a culture shock for him.
Upvoted for an unpopular opinion but I disagree with everything you say and you sound like an entitled child yourself
Unpopular take.
The government exists to serve its citizens.
You may not specifically benefit from some programs at this very moment - shall we dismantle them?
Unemployment. Medicare. Libraries. Social security. Road / infrastructure. Low-income food/housing/assistance. Foreign aid. Fire / EMS. Diplomatic services. Police.
At any given time, most people don’t personally benefit from all of these things, but they likely use them at various points in their lives.
You went to school, didn’t you? You already got yours.
All those services exist to benefit the public, and while I don’t directly benefit from some of them, I’m happy to pay for them as a member of society. Everybody needs to pitch in for society to function.
Having children is different. I’m sure every parent has their own reasons for procreation, but it’s their choice to bring a child into the world because they want to. It’s their responsibility to raise the child to adulthood.
Once the child is a functioning member of society and is paying taxes like the rest of us, they have every right to enjoy the same public services that I do. Until then, let the parents pay for their own decisions.
Society as a whole does not agree with this viewpoint. Let’s drive this home.
Take the US: families with children under a certain income (let’s say $75k, I don’t feel like looking up the specifics) effectively pay no federal taxes. All of their tens of thousands of dollars that would go towards the programs discussed all around this thread instead goes back to them.
Seems unfair right? Instead of parents paying their fair share and shouldering the cost of developing little people, they pay nothing!
Turns out that for government to function for the next year, it needs to plan out its budget. That’s somewhat easy.
How about government functioning in 10 years? Requires some more foresight and projection, but can probably be done with reasonable assumptions.
How about government functioning in 50 years? If we do not build in a layer of population growth, then the numbers get ugly real fast. People retire. People die. People unexpectedly die before it’s their time. With no children born to replace people, society crumbles within a generation or two at most. I think every reasonable person would see these projections and agree that if no new people join society, it ceases to exist. Even for the most selfish people, they will have no support at old age.
You may see supporting the costs of educating children as an unfair burden on everybody else. I don’t agree with that idea, but it’s your right to feel that way. Instead, I ask that you open your mind to expanding the bounds on the concept of educating kids to raising a new generation. Kids cost a shit ton more than just school. They also use medical services. They need to eat. They use public transportation. They consume free media. They do many of the things you do, but you are uncomfortable sponsoring them as we do you.
If nothing else, try to see children as the next generation of humanity. We can always make things more difficult on parents, but we as a species will suffer, and in your very lifetime.
In all seriousness… you’re just a fucking idiot. Shut up.
Children deserve an education, but children also put an additional strain on society. I should not be forced to pay for someone else’s decision to procreate.
If you think education children place a burden on society, just wait until you see the burden of uneducated children on the society you live in. What you “save” personally in education expenses of other people’s children you’ll pay much MUCH more in costs with a declining economy and a rise in crime.
I’m not a parent either, and never will be, but I’m happy to pay to educate the future leaders of our world. Remember, they’re going to be in charge when we’re too old to take care of ourselves.
I thought politicians will be in charge when they’re too old to take care of themselves.
“I went to school paid for by property taxes, but I don’t think anybody else should because I obviously learned nothing about civics and society when I went to my property tax-funded school.”
I’m not sure if it’s possible to come across as more entitled, insular and anti-social than your hot take but I’m sure you’ll give it the old college tries in responses here.
I did go go taxpayer-funded schools. They should have been funded by taxpayers who chose to create the children in those schools, like my parents.
How is arguing that people should pay their share entitled? There are a lot of services that everybody needs. Fire, police, roads, health care. We should all share the cost, because at some point, everyone needs those services, even if not right now.
Having children is a want, not a need. Children deserve an education, but the that should be a burden that the parents take on when they make the decision to have a child.
You went to a taxpayer-funded school. You live in a society built from the benefits of having a largely educated populace. And now you want to stop funding those benefits for the next generation.
That is practically the definition of entitled twit.
If you want to stop funding schools, fine. Stop using anything made by anybody educated in the past five generations, say. No roads, for example. Civil engineers were taxpayer-funded through their initial education after all. No medicine. Doctors and nurses again were funded by taxpayers in their initial educations. No housing. No water. No electricity. No telephony. AND FOR GOD’S SAKE GET OFF THAT COMPUTER!
You’re a very, very, very limited thinker. I’d say at the very least the taxes paid for your education should be refunded since it apparently didn’t take.
Having a fucking car is a WANT, not a NEED and yet you’re over here masturbating the concrete snake. Take a fucking bus, you freeloading prick.
In most of the US, that simply isn’t true. Without a car, you can’t maintain a job. It is a need.
I don’t have a car. I maintain a job. I live in Texas.
Buy a fucking bicycle and stop being a fat fuck. I’m sick of paying for your commie-ass roads, commie.
Also I think you may have missed the point.
Educated children are how you get your road workers, doctors, firefighters and librarians, services you are happy paying.
Yes, you should be forced to pay for education because it is the foundation of every facet of your civilization.
This isn’t just an unpopular opinion as much as it’s a deeply unpleasant one. We all pay taxes for things we likely don’t need, it’s called living in a society.
Education kids is literally the most important thing we can do to maintain said society. Those ‘additional strains’ go on to become Doctors, Police Officers, Firefighters, Infrastructure engineers and (um) people that work in municipal services to help you, the tax payer. Strip away that education and wham! Guess who’s just signed up to losing access to all of those things in 30 years (and let me tell ya, in 30 years time… you’re gonna want that support Bob).
I’m not for a second arguing against public education, and I believe that schools should be properly funded.
In most cases, having children is a choice (rape is abhorrent but I realize it does happen). There is birth control, sterilization surgery, various methods of contraception, and in states that aren’t republican shitholes, abortion.
Yes, I’ll benefit from educated adults, but if someone decides to have a child, they should be responsible for raising them into adulthood. If I decide I want to buy a piece of land and turn it into a public area, plenty of people will benefit, but it’s still my land that I chose to buy, and all costs associated with it are my responsibility.
You may also have perfect health not need public health service yet you pay for it.
You may not have a car and not need access to public roads yet you pay for it.
What about other people who don’t drive cars or will never use police or fire services? Their tax money is paying for things they won’t (but you will) use too. Driving a car is a choice.
Furthermore, your 'developing land for public use" comment is off-base too considering your local government will likely build roads and other infrastructure to said property paid for with tax money. So once again, other people are paying for services that benefit you.
Finally, if you’re unwilling to pay for education, does that mean you are willing to pay more for jails and prisons? That’s likely where a generation of kids who don’t receive an education will end up. Do you think your tax money is better invested there and do you think jails will produce more productive members of society than school would?
If you make it so that education is paid for by parents and parents alone you’re going to find there’s a lot less people willing to run the already incredibly difficult gauntlet of parenthood, not to mention you’ll end up in a place where only the wealthy can risk becoming parents, which is a nightmare in itself.
The fact that you equate children with property shows precisely what kind of incel-tier shitbag you are.
Be better.
Ah the usual, everything the gov does that I can see a direct benefit for is good and right to spend taxes on.
Everything else is not something I should pay for.
Of all the things your tax money is spent on you decided schools were the problem?
What about people that don’t drive? My house has never caught fire why do I have to pay for the fire department?
What an incredibly selfish fucking take
I think you shouldn’t benefit from anything that’s paid for by taxes.
Yes. The OP specifically should not be permitted to benefit from anything that’s paid for by taxes. Fire service? My house isn’t burning. Deal with your own problems using your own money!
OP needs to drive somewhere? They have to build the road!
Aww, isn’t that cute? Babby’s first encounter with Atlas Shrugged, I take it?
I have never read it, and I have no desire to so so.
So you recently watched the movie instead?
So who paid for your schooling?
I will never have children. But I want children to be properly educated so when I am eleventy-million years old and in a nursing home, some one educated can care for me.
Otherwise, we all end up in chaos living with idiots.The government needs to determine the cost of educating a child from kindergarten to high school, divide this by 18, and apply it as a yearly tax to parents. Children deserve an education, but children also put an additional strain on society. I should not be forced to pay for someone else’s decision to procreate.
Private expenditures generally create a burden on society. But look at it from the perspective of pensions vs 401ks. The 401k is where you use your money to invest in your retirement, and you’re responsible for managing it so that you have enough. If you don’t, it’s your fault.
A pension is fundamentally different as it effectively spreads the burden of retirement across the entire organization, present and future. Employees are responsible for working for 20-30 years (which isn’t no different from a 401k) but the payout is significantly better for most that aren’t financial managers.
So the argument against pensions was that businesses shouldn’t have to manage the retirement of their employees because it was an extra burden on the business. It reduced innovation, was extremely costly, and otherwise hampered would could be a thriving business. Enter the 401k, the organization will match a percentage, but otherwise, the employee is on their own.
Now young people are like, “How come we don’t have jobs like our grandfathers where we could barely graduate college, work a company for our entire life, raise a family of 10 on a single income, then retire comfortably? What happened?!”
What happened was the proliferation of the idea that we’re not responsible for each other, or rather, that there are other responsibilities more important than caring, like making a higher return for shareholders.
That’s all to say, I disagree (so I upvoted). Parents shouldn’t only be responsible for their kids education, and kids shouldn’t be responsible for paying for their own education as well. If anything should be subsidized, it’s education.
