Quote:
Originally Posted by daThomas
So the gated community's taxes should be spent exclusively on their school and the impoverished neighborhood has to educate their children with their limited tax base. That way the wealthy can keep them uneducated, thus poor, thus they can't compete with gated community's college entry and so on.
Try comparing North Carolina's public schools to South Carolina's.
|
That's not what I suggested at all. I might have omitted this, but Education in my view CAN be a State issue (and it is). I believe I mentioned State's involvement as well as local didn't I? I said that the Federal Government has no place. Perhaps you missed this distinction in what I said.
So, no, you are incorrect, that would not be the case. Even if it were on a local level that wouldn't be the case. Where I live most of these taxes are on a County basis, and a county is likely to have a diverse community with varying scales of wealth.
On the other hand, one can perhaps look at education quality in Cities (many controlled by democrats for decades) and many with very high per student dollars spent, and find very poor results, so your entire premise is flawed. Quality of education is not simply linked to dollars spent, and in fact, we are burning dollars for poor education in many places, and efforts of parents to remove their children from those failures are blocked by liberals regularly. In fact, I seem to recall that President Obama supported some effort to end programs in Washington DC that enabled poor children to attend better schools. Interesting isn't it?
There is something else. Even though the Federal Government uses money, it still doesn't compare to what the localities pay, so while the money that the Federal Government dangles isn't easily ignored it doesn't make up the bulk of the money needed to fund a school, so your example is incorrect on another level as well--as compared to reality in today's education system.
KAM