Anonymous wrote:Dear NP again. Please stop misusing the NP.

You can only be a New Poster once.

After that, you really need to register a username if you want to be recognized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP again. Actually, I think you're confusing posters. I'm not the "original poster" -- I'm not the poster who seemed to be in favor tax breaks and credits. Then another PP (perhaps, you?) seemed to attack "original poster" for reasons I didn't agree with -- and in my post, I explained why I disagreed with those reasons (and there's nothing more to add). More importantly, my post also made clear that I didn't agree with what I perceived as the the "original poster"'s underlying view (and I specifically stated that I'm not in favor of tax breaks, credits, etc. but believe that all citizens are obligated to support public education). So maybe you -- rather than I -- should instead go back and read my posts (all of which begin with "NP here" or "NP again"). It seems to me that your continuing demands to "justify the position" would be better directed to the "original poster" but seeing how you've attacked and name-called someone who would actually be on your side of the discussion (but not for the reasons you offered in your initial attack), I can certainly understand why "original poster" won't engage with you either.

For the love of God. When you state a "position," you have to expect that others will expect you to defend it. That's the whole purpose of discussion boards: discussants: (a) state their positions and (b) explain their position. In real life, do you always go around telling people "you're wrong and PS you suck" without getting off your high horse to tell them why?

Please stop talking about "you" because you're talking to different posters who disagree with you. And you overuse semicolons, although not so much in this particular post. You do have me curious, however, as to how many times and ways you can explain why you *aren't* going to explain the benefits of tax cuts for private schools

I'm going to guess you're RM Mom. The sanctimony and labored writing style are just like hers. If you're not her, she should sue you for identity theft.

Anonymous wrote:NP again. BTW PP, I keep returning to this thread because I'm a troll and this is our playground. So if you want to have a serious or constructive discussion about the plight of public education, the pros and cons of giving tax credits to private school families, etc. -- why don't you start a thread to that effect instead of trying to have it here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP again. Actually, I think you're confusing posters. I'm not the "original poster" -- I'm not the poster who seemed to be in favor tax breaks and credits. Then another PP (perhaps, you?) seemed to attack "original poster" for reasons I didn't agree with -- and in my post, I explained why I disagreed with those reasons (and there's nothing more to add). More importantly, my post also made clear that I didn't agree with what I perceived as the the "original poster"'s underlying view (and I specifically stated that I'm not in favor of tax breaks, credits, etc. but believe that all citizens are obligated to support public education). So maybe you -- rather than I -- should instead go back and read my posts (all of which begin with "NP here" or "NP again"). It seems to me that your continuing demands to "justify the position" would be better directed to the "original poster" but seeing how you've attacked and name-called someone who would actually be on your side of the discussion (but not for the reasons you offered in your initial attack), I can certainly understand why "original poster" won't engage with you either.

For the love of God. When you state a "position," you have to expect that others will expect you to defend it. That's the whole purpose of discussion boards: discussants: (a) state their positions and (b) explain their position. In real life, do you always go around telling people "you're wrong and PS you suck" without getting off your high horse to tell them why?

Please stop talking about "you" because you're talking to different posters who disagree with you. And you overuse semicolons, although not so much in this particular post. You do have me curious, however, as to how many times and ways you can explain why you *aren't* going to explain the benefits of tax cuts for private schools

I'm going to guess you're RM Mom. The sanctimony and labored writing style are just like hers. If you're not her, she should sue you for identity theft.

Anonymous wrote:

NP again. Actually, I think you're confusing posters. I'm not the "original poster" -- I'm not the poster who seemed to be in favor tax breaks and credits. Then another PP (perhaps, you?) seemed to attack "original poster" for reasons I didn't agree with -- and in my post, I explained why I disagreed with those reasons (and there's nothing more to add). More importantly, my post also made clear that I didn't agree with what I perceived as the the "original poster"'s underlying view (and I specifically stated that I'm not in favor of tax breaks, credits, etc. but believe that all citizens are obligated to support public education). So maybe you -- rather than I -- should instead go back and read my posts (all of which begin with "NP here" or "NP again"). It seems to me that your continuing demands to "justify the position" would be better directed to the "original poster" but seeing how you've attacked and name-called someone who would actually be on your side of the discussion (but not for the reasons you offered in your initial attack), I can certainly understand why "original poster" won't engage with you either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP's post (which seem to be pro-tax break for private school families); I posted my disagreement with your post (e.g., I disagree that a tax credit for those not using public education is the same as giving a tax credit to the rich to buy luxury items). I'm not interested in now debating/defending my POV with you; sorry.

So you disagree, but you can't be bothered to tell us why? Then what exactly are you doing here, simply telling people to go screw, no explanations required? A@@hole.

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP, and I posted mine with yours. We're equally entitled to our own opinions and expressing them we see fit. But given your paragraphs-long attack on my post I suspected that you weren't the type of PP who could engage in a civil discussion about a controversial issue and I see that I was right (geez, you've already called me an asshole). But we are on the troll playground so I'm sure you'll be able to find someone else to engage you, I'm just not interested.

Telepathy fail -- you're confusing posters. Apparently, several of us disagree with you.

So let's get this straight: you refused to respond to a thoughtful, polite post because it was "paragraphs-long," too long to read, apparently. Poor you, having to read a constructive but long post! You weren't actually called names until your condescending refusal to justify your position. Go back and check.

It's totally awesome, though, that you keep returning here to defend ... your refusal to defend your original post!

Anonymous wrote:

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP, and I posted mine with yours. We're equally entitled to our own opinions and expressing them we see fit. But given your paragraphs-long attack on my post I suspected that you weren't the type of PP who could engage in a civil discussion about a controversial issue and I see that I was right (geez, you've already called me an asshole). But we are on the troll playground so I'm sure you'll be able to find someone else to engage you, I'm just not interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP's post (which seem to be pro-tax break for private school families); I posted my disagreement with your post (e.g., I disagree that a tax credit for those not using public education is the same as giving a tax credit to the rich to buy luxury items). I'm not interested in now debating/defending my POV with you; sorry.

So you disagree, but you can't be bothered to tell us why? Then what exactly are you doing here, simply telling people to go screw, no explanations required? A@@hole.

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP, and I posted mine with yours. We're equally entitled to our own opinions and expressing them we see fit. But given your paragraphs-long attack on my post I suspected that you weren't the type of PP who could engage in a civil discussion about a controversial issue and I see that I was right (geez, you've already called me an asshole). But we are on the troll playground so I'm sure you'll be able to find someone else to engage you, I'm just not interested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP's post (which seem to be pro-tax break for private school families); I posted my disagreement with your post (e.g., I disagree that a tax credit for those not using public education is the same as giving a tax credit to the rich to buy luxury items). I'm not interested in now debating/defending my POV with you; sorry.

So you disagree, but you can't be bothered to tell us why? Then what exactly are you doing here, simply telling people to go screw, no explanations required? A@@hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP's post (which seem to be pro-tax break for private school families); I posted my disagreement with your post (e.g., I disagree that a tax credit for those not using public education is the same as giving a tax credit to the rich to buy luxury items). I'm not interested in now debating/defending my POV with you; sorry.

So you disagree, but you can't be bothered to tell us why? Then what exactly are you doing here, simply telling people to go screw, no explanations required? A@@hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?

NP again. You posted your disagreement with a PP's post (which seem to be pro-tax break for private school families); I posted my disagreement with your post (e.g., I disagree that a tax credit for those not using public education is the same as giving a tax credit to the rich to buy luxury items). I'm not interested in now debating/defending my POV with you; sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hi #3. I wish they would give us private school people a tax break. I think if they did the public schools would have more incentive to get their act together.

There are so many things wrong with the idea of a tax break for sending your kids to private school, I don't know where to begin. Tax expenditures (which is the technical name for what you're talking about here, a tax deduction or credit) generally have some public policy purpose. Let's think about the "incentives" you'd actually create here:

1. You want to give a tax break to rich people for buying luxury goods like private schools? What's next, a tax break for buying a BMW or a sailboat?
2. The only "incentive" here is that you'd be giving the middle class an incentive to leave public schools.
3. Sucking the upper SES kids out of public schools is not going to help public schools "get their act (sic) together," that's just crazy talk.

NP here:
1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services.
2. I disagree because a tax break/credit could make a difference to a poor/working-/middle-class family in having the same opportunity as wealthier families of leaving a public education that they find dissatisfactory/pursuing an option that may better serve the educational needs of their children.
3. I disagree that a tax break/credit will suck upper SES/rich families from public education because if they are dissatisfied, they've already left or won't stay, and if they are satisfied, they're not going to abandon it just because of a tax break/credit. In other words, tax breaks/credit have little do with how the rich choose to educate their children -- instead, it may be of significance to others like those in #2 above.

BTW, I'm firmly ensconced in the 1% and believe that everyone should contribute to public education (via taxes) because, to me, education is a fundamental "public good" like libraries/parks, highways, fire/police, etc. -- something we all should pay for regardless of whether we "use" it.

Your argument basically amounts to, "We should subsidize people who don't want to leave bad Anacostia schools (see #2 below) with a tax break they can't use (see #1 below). It's just incidental that rich people like me, who can actually use the tax break (see #1 below), will also benefit. So let's give middle and upper class families a $10K or $35K tax break, which without a doubt would bust the federal budget (see #5 below) so that people can avoid moving to the BCC district."

1. Unless the tax break is huge ($35K), low-income families still won't be able to afford the good private schools anyway. A $10K tax break isn't going to help a low-income family find the other $25K they need for private school.

And for the tax break to be meaningful, the low-income family would need to have $35K in tax liabilities in every year to take the full deduction -- which just never happens. Most low-income families have no annual tax liability, in fact many of them are already getting not only a refund of their entire withholdings (which are less than $35K, guaranteed), but also the Earned Income Tax Credit to refund part of their Social Security taxes. Basically, a tax break for rich people is only going to help rich people who pay taxes.

The only way this sort of subsidy makes sense is if (a) it's a voucher and (b) it's only available to lower-income families. But I'm going to guess that's not what you want. Instead, you want a tax break that would help rich people at all income (AGI) levels.

And you realize that many new, bad private schools that are going to sprout up to take advantage of your tax credit or voucher subsidy. Why do you want to subsidize these? And I can't say, but I'm going to guess that schools will offer less FA if the poorer (really, middle class) families are getting a tax break. But that would lessen the burden on you to donate to your private school, so it's all good, right?

(Yes, there are some so-so private schools for less than $35K, but many of these are no better than a MoCo public in Silver Spring or Takoma. We tried private elementary school but found MoCo magnets are way, way better. And there are tons of great non-magnets in MoCo at all school levels - at the HS level there are Whitman, Wooton, Churchill, BCC and the rest, which have great reputations. )

2. Private school is a luxury. I don't think this is even up for debate. As long as families have the option of voting with their feet and moving from a lousy school to a good MoCo or VA public school, it's a luxury to say "Let's give a tax break to people just because they don't want to move out of Anacostia." Being low income means making tradeoffs in many areas, including buying a used Honda instead of a BMW and, what's germane to this discussion ... moving to an apartment in MoCo for the better schools. I'd agree with you if your point was that some families have no good school options, but that's just not the case as long as anyone can move to Silver Spring or Arlington. So you're basically saying: "So you don't want to bother moving to MoCo or Arlington? Here's a tax break for you."

3. You're right, the upper class families have already left for private schools, although not all of them (and as I say, this included us for a while). The change will be among the families who are on the fence, what's known to economists as "at the margin." These are the families of government workers who couldn't afford private school before but now, thanks to your large tax credit, they can. The $90K families still won't be able to afford private school, because $10K in tax credits isn't enough (especially when you have no tax liability). So the change from public to private will occur among the upper middle class.

And some new ones:

4. I don't get how you can say in the same post (a) "I believe everyone should contribute to public education via taxes" and (b) give me a tax break. What do you consider an "OK" share of the public school tax burden for private school families and childless families? $1K? Because I think you know that sucking money out of the public school system -- even if we can all point to inefficiencies in MoCo administration (this is like the old "let's reduce waste and fraud" argument in federal budgets, you'll just save a drop in the bucket) -- is going to be devastating.

5. Then there's the cost to the federal budget. Why would you give even a $10K tax break to millions of middle class, would bust the federal budget, so that people can avoid Whitman? How could we ever afford a $35K/year tax break every single school-age kid in the whole country, so they can choose private over public, and by "every single family" I mean even the 1% families like yours, because you say you want this tax break. Are you a fiscal conservative?

20:09 again:

1. No, that's not my argument;
2. You're also wrong that I "want this tax break" (in fact, I said just the opposite -- see boldface above); and
3. Being/not being a fiscal conservative is irrelevant.

1. So what is your argument?
2. Here's what you also said: "1. I disagree because giving a tax break/credit to those not using the public education (e.g., private school families, no children families/couples/adults, etc.) is not the same as giving a tax break to rich people to buy luxury goods/services." So maybe you don't want the tax break for yourself. But your whole post is an argument about why you think it's good policy.
3. Being a fiscal conservative is totally relevant. If you're proposing that the fed gov give tax breaks of $10-35K for every kid in this country, that's a butt-load of income tax revenue that will be lost to this program. Even if you restrict the tax breaks to families with, say, less than $200K in annual income, it's still a ton of money (because most families are not in the 1%). How can that be irrelevant?