Florida's schools are supported by one of the nations largest state lotteries.

And tax money does not equal better schools. California is the highest taxed state in the nation check out the LA schools.

You're ignoring the point still. Why does (in your opinion) a government have the right to tax one person more then another? You can tell me all the good things tax money is supposed to do but that's meaningless, I'll just tell you that private citizens could do more with less then the government does as status quo.

It's not nearly that simple either.

Because it's the government's job to serve the people, and it is not serving the masses people if it lets richer people sit on it...

sounds like the same point again though...frankly I guess I never see richer people donating that much money to charity. I suppose I simply don't trust the upper class and I believe in the selfishness of human instinct. But if we do raise those taxes further the richer people that could donate but choose not to will still be putting more money in.

I know it's just quick googling, but the numbers shown here are astounding.

[Pophealth] richest 1% of Americans own almost 35% of all wealth, bottom half only 2.5%

I would say they are okay with losing another 25k if they have that much money.

Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man, has pledged $30.7bn of his $44bn fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The billionaire investor will donate the money in stages, he said, in the form of shares in his company Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

60 largest donations of 2007

Over 100 billion in donations plus Buffets 30 Billion nearly 2/3 his fortune. The people you want to take the money from, the 25K are donating in excess of 25 Billion.

And Warran Buffet also wants to for him, and those in at his income level, to pay higher taxes :D

NBC's Tom Brokaw Puts Spotlight on Warren Buffett's Call to "Tax the Rich!" - Warren Buffett Watch - CNBC.com

I don't think any body (government or otherwise) has any inherent "rights," but semantics aside, I think it's just common sense that high earners should be taxed more than low earners. 1% (or 2, or 5) might make the difference between paying the bills to someone making $15,000 a year; it's not quite that important to a person making $200,000 a year. A flat rate would work the same way.

And as far as the education question goes, I don't think the problem is simply due to a lack of funding (which is certainly a contributing factor), but down to the faulty methods used (i.e., rote memorization instead of creative thought, passing tests emphasized over de facto application of knowledge, etc). Whether a private system would solve these problems is open to debate, but I have very little faith in it. I would suspect that the sorry state of our schools would continue and possibly worsen.

In my opinion, giving businesses free reign is possibly the worst solution to our problems. Would you like to see 18+ hour workdays? Child labor? Unsanitary workplaces (and unsanitary foods)? Even aside from those extremes, monopolies would become even more of a problem and the interests of actual human beings (a factor that's frequently ignored in many economic discussions) would be outweighed by the allure of profit, even moreso than now. Putting the economy in the hands of the government might not be the perfect solution, but at least we have the power to throw our elected officials out of office if need be. (That raises the issue of our hopelessly misguided voting system, but let's not get into that).

Wow, no one is allowed to call me cynical anymore. Wasp you don't trust people at all?

First the money, 1% is the same to everyone. That's why you use a percentage based system. the more money you make typically the bigger your egg gets, on other words the more bills\expenses you have. So yeah a flat tax is most fair.

As far as child labor and 18 hour work days etc. The free market takes care of that. People have the right to stop working under those conditions or stop buying th product. Right now if there are any existing monopolies they are the probably the oil companies which are government subsidized. I'm not for complete free reign, but the less government intervention the better. I don't think people are nearly as inherently greedy as you presume. Besides that your logic is counterintuitive. Under the current system politicians make a very average salary, this leads them to make or support legislation based on bribes from lobbyists. If you take government regulation out of the picture people will make more money across the board and be less tempted to take bribes.

But mostly the question of education. Look at private schools\public schools and the graduation rates\success of students beyond. Private funding allows teachers\parents\administrators to put money towards what the school needs most instead of having to buy certain items to meet federal or state curriculum's. You're right to be critical of methods of teaching, a more hands on practical approach to the application of knowledge is a great way to improve retention and enthusiasm about learning but is stifled in the public schools because of standard testing which is the archaic measuring stick used by the government to hold public schools accountable. Undermining the individuality of students and ignoring the diversity inn relation to the varying backgrounds and aspirations of each student.

I tend to be very skeptical of people and think that, when raised in a country that emphasizes "winning" as a premier goal and uses one's bank account as a measure of success, people will ignore the suffering of others in favor of "winning."

Still, I don't know if there is an absolute "right" or "wrong" (and if there is, I don't think anyone really knows it. Ideas of "right" and "wrong" tend to fluctuate, like people's taste in music).

1% is not the same to everyone. Would you rather give up 1% of $1,000 (and keep the rest) or 5% of $100,000? Let's up the juice and make it 10%. Under a flat tax, a poor family that "makes" $1,000 will only keep $900. The family earning $100,000 will still have a comfortable $90,000, more than enough to pay its bills. If you're just barely scraping by on $90,000, then you really need to rethink your lifestyle. Of course, this isn't "proof" that a flat rate isn't "fair" and it's really a value judgment.

That's far too idealistic. It didn't happen before the trustbusters and unions came along near the turn of the century; take away their power and child labor et. al. will become the norm again. Yes, people have the right to stop working...but that's not really an option when one has a family to feed, there is no such thing as welfare, and every other company is offering the same conditions.

Well, in a few years that point will be moot anyway (there's not that much oil left, and besides, the price of getting it is far too high). I don't think people are necessarily inherently greedy, but when they are raised in a capitalist country that uses wealth as a yardstick for success (as in my first comment), I think that it certainly encourages greed, inherent or not.


True, but that's under a capitalist system. Decrease the value of money (and the advantage in having far more than someone else) and the problem is mostly solved. Besides that, you could introduce measures to discourage lobbying or raise politician's salaries. As it is, I think all of those problems are trumped by the corrupt political system we have; flawed elections, biased media, biased elections, etc.

Graduation rates are a pretty meaningless statistic; they can be fudged by the schools' standards for graduation and the pressure put on teachers to make sure a certain percentage of students graduate. Private funding would mean that some students get a far better education than others, on the strictly arbitrary factor of how wealthy their parents are. As it is, children in some areas receive a heavily funded education while others attend schools that are quite literally decaying right in front of them. You might say that I favor equal funding for all schools, yet advocate teaching methods that target students' individual needs. All schools should have decent computers, textbooks, etc. but the equipment should not be used uniformly.


Again, we agree on the problem, just not the solution. I don't think private enterprises would fix this problem; I think that the government should abolish its ridiculously arbitrary and meaningless "standardization" requirement. While we're at it, abolish grades. That will weed out all of the people who don't really care about getting an education (they can always return later when they find that they can't get a decent job).

perfect chance for me to prove i am not racist. yeah affirmative action!!!

I just bought a "Proud Americans Live Here" doormat for my apartment. If that counts for anything.