Republican Primary

[ProVobis]

Catholic schools should manage to run without taxing because they charge a hefty tuition.

They may be subsidized by the parish and even the diocese. Sometimes you can see the breakdown in the parish bulletin.

 

[Rence]

Great point. Except that (at least out here) Catholic schools cost less than public schools (per student).

And, it still doesn’t answer why I should have to pay for a service that I’m not using.
Heck, I would be happy if they just cut my extortion…err…taxes for public schools in half.

It’s your choice not to use the service; and voluntarily sending your kids to a school for which you have to pay tuition is also your choice. You should pay for the service, even though you choose not to use it, because you are required to do so as part of the community. If you are able to get a voucher then apply for it. For those places that don’t offer vouchers, the parents have a choice: use the public school system or pay extra by paying tuition in addition to paying your required taxes. The choice is theirs.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It’s your choice not to use the service; and voluntarily sending your kids to a school for which you have to pay tuition is also your choice. You should pay for the service, even though you choose not to use it, because you are required to do so as part of the community. If you are able to get a voucher then apply for it. For those places that don’t offer vouchers, the parents have a choice: use the public school system or pay extra by paying tuition in addition to paying your required taxes. The choice is theirs.

What if I choose not to have kids at all? What if my kids all died at birth? What if I am a chaste homosexual trying to live in compliance with the Church? I still have to pay for children who I will never have?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

It’s your choice not to use the service; and voluntarily sending your kids to a school for which you have to pay tuition is also your choice. You should pay for the service, even though you choose not to use it, because you are required to do so as part of the community. If you are able to get a voucher then apply for it. For those places that don’t offer vouchers, the parents have a choice: use the public school system or pay extra by paying tuition in addition to paying your required taxes. The choice is theirs.

It is my choice. But I am costing the schools zero by making that choice, and shouldn’t have to pay them for that (non)service.

 

[Rence]

It is my choice. But I am costing the schools zero by making that choice, and shouldn’t have to pay them for that (non)service.

Then if your community has vouchers available, apply for one. If they don’t, ask for one.

I realize you don’t feel like you havee to pay them for a service that you voluntarily don’t use, and think your money for that service shouldn’t be collected because you don’t use that service. But from their perspective, the funds collected from the community as a whole supports the school, which is offered to all taxpayers. Allowing you not pay your part takes away from the school’s funds, so you are costing the school by trying to get out of paying your part. Just because you don’t send your child to that school doesn’t mean you’re not costing them because here you are resenting to have to pay your part. So it does cost them. So from their perspective, it doesn’t matter to them whether you want to use the service or not. So I can understand both sides. If it bothers you that much, again, ask for a voucher. If you get a voucher, great. If you don’t, you still have to pay. That’s part of the package of living in a community with taxes that pay for various community services. The public school system is an asset to the whole community and is funded by the taxes collected from that community. We can excuse garbage pickup and nit pick item by item, but the principle is the same regardless of the cost. To you the cost is too much and I empathize. But then again, you don’t mind spending the extra cash to send your child to a private school, while denying the public school it’s funds. And unless you have a voucher, you’re doing just fine paying both. Yes, it’s your choice, but then again, you won’t always have access to a voucher and will end up paying twice, and that’s the way it is until your community offers vouchers. So keep lobbying for them.

 

[mlund]

What if I choose not to have kids at all? What if my kids all died at birth? What if I am a chaste homosexual trying to live in compliance with the Church? I still have to pay for children who I will never have?

Of course! Liberals can’t keep their corrupt fiefdoms running without other people’s money and other people’s children. I mean, if they couldn’t take your money and use it to undermine parents relationships to their children there just wouldn’t be any “Progress” for the Progressives. The children (that they didn’t manage to murder through abortion) are our future, after all.

• Marty Lund

 

[Rence]

What if I choose not to have kids at all? What if my kids all died at birth? What if I am a chaste homosexual trying to live in compliance with the Church? I still have to pay for children who I will never have?

Then you might want to consider moving to a city that doesn’t have a public school to fund because being a part of a community (just like paying premiums on health insurance at work) means contributing to that community as dictated by mandates and laws. There will be services you will use and services you will never use. There will be services you’d rather not have, and services you will appreciate. It’s always going to be like that. Allowing people to pick and choose what tax-funded services they will pay for will just lead to a fragmented system.

 

[LisaA]

It is my choice. But I am costing the schools zero by making that choice, and shouldn’t have to pay them for that (non)service.

Except, presumably YOU went to school that was funded by people other than your parents. I feel that much as I hate the high property taxes, I did get a public education funded by the previous generation. I’m just paying it forward.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

The public school system is an asset to the whole community and is funded by the taxes collected from that community.

Are you calling our low world rankings in math, science, and reading scores an asset?

 

[Gift_from_God]

We have a very progressive tax structure. The top 25% of earners pay 84% of all federal income taxes. 43% pay none at all-in fact the Govt spends 100 billion a year paying refunds to people who owe no Federal income tax

That’s not progressive taxation. A progressive tax system is based on increased percentage of taxation based on income. The United States has no such system. What you are referring to is the amount of money accumulated as a whole. A person with more money than poor people obviously pays more in terms of the amount of money, especially in a country with unemployment, retired people, and people with wages to low to collect income tax, but this is not based on percentage. A person who makes a million dollars and pays 15% pays $150,000 but a person who makes $50,000 dollars who pays 25% pays $12,500. That is not progressive taxation. Warren Buffet pays what is to us a lot of money in taxes, but it’s pocket change for him compared to the rest of the money he makes because of the low percentage ha pays. When a person of the poor or middle class pays a higher percentage, that affect them more

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That’s not progressive taxation. A progressive tax system is based on increased percentage of taxation based on income. The United States has no such system. What you are referring to is the amount of money accumulated as a whole.

While the distinction you make is legitimate, it is not correct that the US tax system is progressive. It is very much so, in the case of income tax which the figures he cites indirectly support.

The lowest income brackets pay no income tax. Higher brackets pay more. This is complicated by various other taxes, of course, including distinctions between earned and unearned, cap gains, etc.

There is also the very common confusion between taxing income and wealth. Many wealth people have little or no income, especially “old money” liberals who earned their wealth by birth or marriage.

 

[LisaA]

That’s not progressive taxation. A progressive tax system is based on increased percentage of taxation based on income. The United States has no such system. What you are referring to is the amount of money accumulated as a whole. A person with more money than poor people obviously pays more in terms of the amount of money, especially in a country with unemployment, retired people, and people with wages to low to collect income tax, but this is not based on percentage. A person who makes a million dollars and pays 15% pays $150,000 but a person who makes $50,000 dollars who pays 25% pays $12,500. That is not progressive taxation. Warren Buffet pays what is to us a lot of money in taxes, but it’s pocket change for him compared to the rest of the money he makes because of the low percentage ha pays. When a person of the poor or middle class pays a higher percentage, that affect them more

You are referring to specific taxes on specific streams of income. There has been a long tradition of differentiating tax rates depending on the source of the income. A lower rate on capital gains and dividends reflects the double taxation inherent in those income streams. If a corporation sends a dividend, it has paid taxes on that money already. Then the recipient is supposed to pay another 25 or 30%? Most economists think that having capital gain and dividend rates the same as ordinary income to be depressing to the economy, to discourage savings and investment.

The POOR do not pay taxes. Many of them get CREDITS refunded on their zero taxes. It’s called the Earned income credit. Frankly I imagine a lot of the middle class don’t pay taxes either. 47% of Americans do not pay INCOME taxes.Since 47% of Americans are not poor I have to conclude that the zero tax set includes middle class Americans as well.

And before someone pulls out the “payroll taxes” they pay, that is for social security and medicare! This is something that presumably the person will receive when he/she retires. In fact most people take far more out of the system than they ever put in. It is meant to be forced prepayment for retirement and medical expenses although certainly it hasn’t worked as hoped. But that “the poor” pay these taxes is quite fair given they generally take much more out of the system than they ever put into it.

Lisa

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is my choice. But I am costing the schools zero by making that choice, and shouldn’t have to pay them for that (non)service.

The simplest and best solution is privatization.

Keep in mind that Catholic schools are funded by:

1. Tuition,
2. Donations, and
3. Reduced salaries (e.g. by nuns and monks).

Vouchers are one alternative to public schools that falls short of privatization. You would at least be able to use them for private education but there would still be people supporting education through taxes who have no children in school.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

While the distinction you make is legitimate, it is not correct that the US tax system is progressive. It is very much so, in the case of income tax which the figures he cites indirectly support.

The lowest income brackets pay no income tax. Higher brackets pay more. This is complicated by various other taxes, of course, including distinctions between earned and unearned, cap gains, etc.

There is also the very common confusion between taxing income and wealth. Many wealth people have little or no income, especially “old money” liberals who earned their wealth by birth or marriage.

Right, think the Kennedy family. The progressive income tax was put in place to discourage “new money” wealth creation. “Old money” progressives were protected by the tax code. The system taxes income, not wealth.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You are referring to specific taxes on specific streams of income. There has been a long tradition of differentiating tax rates depending on the source of the income. A lower rate on capital gains and dividends reflects the double taxation inherent in those income streams. If a corporation sends a dividend, it has paid taxes on that money already. Then the recipient is supposed to pay another 25 or 30%? Most economists think that having capital gain and dividend rates the same as ordinary income to be depressing to the economy, to discourage savings and investment.

The POOR do not pay taxes. Many of them get CREDITS refunded on their zero taxes. It’s called the Earned income credit. Frankly I imagine a lot of the middle class don’t pay taxes either. 47% of Americans do not pay INCOME taxes.Since 47% of Americans are not poor I have to conclude that the zero tax set includes middle class Americans as well.

And before someone pulls out the “payroll taxes” they pay, that is for social security and medicare! This is something that presumably the person will receive when he/she retires. In fact most people take far more out of the system than they ever put in. It is meant to be forced prepayment for retirement and medical expenses although certainly it hasn’t worked as hoped. But that “the poor” pay these taxes is quite fair given they generally take much more out of the system than they ever put into it.

Lisa

Earned Income Credit is nothing more than income redistribution, pure and simple.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

we don’t have to listen to anything the USCCB says even though we should take it into consideration. Personally I don’t think the church should EVER give specifics when it comes to politics. outline the important stuff protect life help the poor and so on and so forth but specifics of how to do it is up to the people in government.

But here is my views on the progressive tax. I HATE IT, plane and simple.

here is the tax structure for this country
0-8700 10%
8700-35350 15%
35350-85650 20%
85650-178650 25%
178650-338350 30%
338350 and above 35%

sometimes when you jump to a new bracket you actually make less even with a raise

I thought they still did it but they use to make you pay 10% of the lowest then your tax rate

now its just what ever your tax rate is

so its not as bad as it use to be but I still think the current tax structure isn’t as good I rather see a flat tax or a consumption only tax.

That’s why I said you don’t have to agree.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

We have a very progressive tax structure. The top 25% of earners pay 84% of all federal income taxes. 43% pay none at all-in fact the Govt spends 100 billion a year paying refunds to people who owe no Federal income tax

I was just providing a source that calls for a progressive tax structure.

 

[catholictiger]

That’s why I said you don’t have to agree.

if the vatican said the same thing even if it wasn’t ex cathedra I would believe it but the fact that it comes from the USCCB makes it to where I don’t always believe it. I find they aren’t as far right as I on political issues. The USCCB would be ok with obama care with just no abortion funding, I strongly disagreed

 

[ProVobis]

…-in fact the Govt spends 100 billion a year paying refunds to people who owe no Federal income tax

Good individual tax planning would have prevented the Govt from getting most of the money in the first place. This is not government spending unless you’re forcing IRS to work overtime to send back that money.

 

[ProVobis]

Keep in mind that Catholic schools are funded by:

1. Tuition,
2. Donations, and
3. Reduced salaries (e.g. by nuns and monks).

Also by fund-raisers such as selling Christmas cards, wrappings, donuts, etc. Even some public schools fund their extra-curricular programs with admission fees to football games, plays, etc.