What's needed then is a law exempting anyone who sends their kids to private schools to be exempt from any and all taxation in support of the public schools.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”

If you believe that it is the responsibility of the public to educate your children, and not all believe that, then the most logical answer is vouchers for all students, and school choice for all parents.

To compete, costs of all education facilities, public and private, would of necessity come down and quality and availability would go up.

If you're going to do that then you need an exemption for anybody who has NO kids so they don't have to pay into a system they're not using.



This is in the land of mixing church and state. And if you allow any individual to take the tax money and give it to a church (or church school), then you're still in the same territory.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Apple and oranges illustrates how primitive your understanding of the issue actually is, it is no wonder you fail to recognize your own hypocrisy.

In fact Obamacare subsidizes abortions directly using one of the Obama regime's favorite techniques, ignoring the rules against it.

GAO: Obamacare abortion rules widely ignored - Jennifer Haberkorn and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

And, the Federal government directly subsidizes Planned Parenthood abortion mills with over $400 million in tax dollars annually. Because school vouchers represent a net $0 expenditure change they are superior from a fiscal perspective to subsidized abortions. Yet mothers cannot be allowed to chose alternatives to public schools but mothers must be granted unchallenged choice of destroying their unborn child.

School vouchers allow the parent to choose which school will receive the taxpayer funds that would have been spent by default on public schools. Naturally the Left finds competition with the government abhorrent and so opposes allowing parents choice.

Really? Parent sending their children to private school in your scenario must still pay tribute to the public school system which heaven forbid has no competition in a typical Progressive one size fits all "solution" stacking the deck in favor of public schools by double charging parents to send their children to private schools is not an equal comparison.

More hypocrisy citing the "safety net" for the welfare state. You began by complaining about having to pay for schools when you have no children attending them but now put forth the incantation of "safety net" when the welfare state takes from A to give to B.

You offer the proposition of kids being educated by the system or paying for the system and a private school. Of course low income and middle class families have no choice but the hypocrisy of claiming to support them while depriving them of school choice never occurs to you.

School vouchers are for children's education, they are indifferent to it being provided by the public schools or private schools. It is the same product in either case.

Typical Foundit tantrum when the bankruptcy of your claims is exposed.

School vouchers are not "paying religion" they are paying for children's education. All religions that wish to do so can open qualified schools to compete for school voucher dollars. There is no favoritism of one religion over another. Of course you seek to pervert the first amendment into freedom from religion rather than what it actually says, freedom of religion.

Sigh, you are confusing "agnostic" favoring no religion over another with secular.

Secular defined as
There is no functional difference between secular and atheist as it pertains to the public school system. Public schools are devoted to things that have no religious or spiritual basis just as atheists teach.

By ruling of the Colorado court parents have a choice between atheist public schools and atheist private ones unless they can pay double. My what a "level" playing field.


You just defended the welfare state as the "safety net" now you claim you have no concern when it comes to parents being denied school choice because of finances.. It cannot be both ways.

Ah yes, another government solution paying people according to the partisan government definition of "fairness." At least you are consistent with your policy of the government dictating public schools as the only option. Can't let the great unwashed masses have a say in wages or schooling.


The religious schools compete with other religious and secular private schools as well as the public schools. In a voucher system parents can choose which school they want for their children. There is no "funneling" of public money to a religion.

They already have that choice. Are you telling me parents can't choose private schools unless they have a voucher?
School vouchers gives the parents tax-payer money. Tax-Payers have public schools that they pay into and make choices for.

If parents don't like that choice, they can use their own money to make another choice.


I pay taxes that go to public schools for kids I don't even have.
The taxes go to parks and roads that some people may not use. Doesn't mean that they don't still have to pay taxes for those parks and roads.

And it does NOT mean that they get to say "I don't use that road so you must pay for my private road."


Try to get something through your head.
My ACTUAL position is that I will pay taxes for schools, just like everybody else.

IF WE START MAKING NEW RULES that suddenly give tax money out for parents to make special choices, then I want a refund for my choice of not having kids.

THAT is the dividing line.
My position is no vouchers for anybody.

You have no concerns about denying them healthcare, so excuse me while I find your comment false.


If it were really "the same product" then why switch?



They are doing both.


This inept claim is demonstrated false by recognizing some religions wind up with more of the money than others.



Secular simply means an absence of religious presence.
That is not the same thing as taking a position on it.

By your logic, there are Christians who spend much of their day NOT INVOLVED in religious activity.
We could refer to THAT as "secular" and pretend they are "agnostic" or "atheist".

It's not the same thing.

Of course it can.
The public schools are available for people to use.
If they don't like it, pay for something else.

If somebody on welfare wants to use his money to go to strip clubs, you want to make him pay out of his own pocket, right?
Would you claim that is "denying choice"?
Of course not because there is no denied choice. He is simply denied the capability to use tax-payer money for whatever choice he wants.


Shut up. Just stop being stupid and shut up.
I AM NOT proposing a government solution to that.
I HAVE NEVER proposed a government solution to that.


And they can do so without vouchers.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

I like it.

But then, I'd exempt anyone paying to feed and clothe their own kids grom being taxed to feed and clothe other people's kids.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”