Jump to content
2026 Head Coach Opening/Hirings ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,971 of $4,000 target

Recommended Posts

Posted

Public schools are required to serve every student, follow public transparency laws, and answer directly to taxpayers. Schools accepting vouchers? Not always.

If public money is funding education, shouldn’t the same standards apply to everyone? 📚

IMG_7078.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted

Shouldn't taxpayers have the right to choose the type of education they feel is best for their children, then have those taxpayer dollar directly fund it?

 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Shouldn't taxpayers have the right to choose the type of education they feel is best for their children, then have those taxpayer dollar directly fund it?

 

If a school is not affiliated with the state, government shouldn’t be involved with it at all. If you want to fund the non-public schools then taxation isn’t the appropriate term because it implies the government is the middleman in the transfer of that money. Therefore, funding of the non-public schools should come from something other than taxes. In a perfect world, each taxpayer would have the ability to designate whether they want to accept paying taxes to fund governmental schools, or whether they would rather decline that but pay a monetary amount of equal or greater value toward the school of their choice.

Edited by Frozen Tundra
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Titan32 said:

Public schools are required to serve every student, follow public transparency laws, and answer directly to taxpayers. Schools accepting vouchers? Not always.

If public money is funding education, shouldn’t the same standards apply to everyone? 📚

IMG_7078.jpeg

As a public educator who chose to send his child to a Christian elementary and middle school, the answer is yes.  

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Shouldn't taxpayers have the right to choose the type of education they feel is best for their children, then have those taxpayer dollar directly fund it?

 

Yes, absolutely.  As long as all schools accepting public tax dollars play by the same rules.  

  • Like 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

If a school is not affiliated with the state, government shouldn’t be involved with it at all. If you want to fund the non-public schools then taxation isn’t the appropriate term because it implies the government is the middleman in the transfer of that money. Therefore, funding of the non-public schools should come from something other than taxes. In a perfect world, each taxpayer would have the ability to designate whether they want to accept paying taxes to fund governmental schools, or whether they would rather decline that but pay a monetary amount of equal or greater value toward the school of their choice.

Or we just abolish the mostly failing government school model and make parents 100% responsible for providing for the education of their children, be that homeschooling, private, or parochial.  

 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

 In a perfect world, each taxpayer would have the ability to designate whether they want to accept paying taxes to fund governmental schools, or whether they would rather decline that but pay a monetary amount of equal or greater value toward the school of their choice.

Except that the taxes we all pay fund all kinds of services - schools, fire/police protection, roads, etc. I don't see any way of carving out the education dollars. 

Like many, I made the decision to send my kids to Catholic schools (approx. 48 combined years) and never received any "vouchers". My choice. My only issue with vouchers is that the GOP has expanded it so much that families with very good incomes can qualify. I think it should be limited to people who truly need the help. A family of 4 making $150,000 can sure as h3!! afford to pay full tuition IMO. 

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Or we just abolish the mostly failing government school model and make parents 100% responsible for providing for the education of their children, be that homeschooling, private, or parochial.  

 

Who funds the education for poor kids and how would you go about it?

 

11 minutes ago, tango said:

Except that the taxes we all pay fund all kinds of services - schools, fire/police protection, roads, etc. I don't see any way of carving out the education dollars. 

 

That’s why I said “in a perfect world”. Everything is so freaking convoluted that I wouldn’t even know how you go about carving out the education dollars for taxpayers who don’t want to fund public education.

  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Frozen Tundra said:

Who funds the education for poor kids and how would you go about it?

Primarily private charity.  But if individual community legislative bodies decided to create and fund a government school for those under the poverty line, then that would be up to them.  Frankly we need a society that believes government should be the last choice for parents when it comes to educating their children, not the default.

 

  • Like 1
Posted

A private school is a business that offers an exclusive educational experience. It's similar to the difference between free golf lessons at a public course and lessons from the golf pro at a private country club. They are not the same, and the latter should not be funded with taxpayer dollars.

Private schools provide a specialized environment for families who value that experience and are willing to pay for it. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, many private schools have successfully operated this way for hundreds of years by competing in the marketplace and delivering a product that families choose to purchase.

If a private school provides a quality experience, its success and survival should depend on the families who voluntarily choose it—not on taxpayers. No taxpayer should be required to subsidize another family's exclusive educational choice.

  • Like 2
Posted
42 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

No taxpayer should be required to subsidize another family's exclusive educational choice.

Really?  So I, a taxpayer residing in Frankfort Indiana, is not required to subsidize a family, also living in Frankfort, whose exclusive educational choice is to send their children to the Clinton Prairie School Corporation instead of the Community Schools of Frankfort.   Then why hasn't the portion of my taxes related to government education gone down?

 

Posted
On 5/28/2026 at 2:44 PM, Frozen Tundra said:

If a school is not affiliated with the state, government shouldn’t be involved with it at all. If you want to fund the non-public schools then taxation isn’t the appropriate term because it implies the government is the middleman in the transfer of that money. Therefore, funding of the non-public schools should come from something other than taxes. In a perfect world, each taxpayer would have the ability to designate whether they want to accept paying taxes to fund governmental schools, or whether they would rather decline that but pay a monetary amount of equal or greater value toward the school of their choice.

So the folks who send their kids to private school don’t pay property taxes? State taxes?

Posted
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

So the folks who send their kids to private school don’t pay property taxes? State taxes?

They wouldn’t pay the full amount. Whatever portion goes to public education would be carved out and they would have the ability to pay that amount to the non-public school(s) of their choice.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

They wouldn’t pay the full amount. Whatever portion goes to public education would be carved out and they would have the ability to pay that amount to the non-public school(s) of their choice.

Just what we need more complicated taxes. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Just what we need more complicated taxes. 

Oh I know. That’s why I said “in a perfect world.” Everything is so convoluted.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

I thought this was a high school football page? Who do you think will make it to LOS in 2026?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 5/28/2026 at 3:33 PM, tango said:

Except that the taxes we all pay fund all kinds of services - schools, fire/police protection, roads, etc. I don't see any way of carving out the education dollars. 

Like many, I made the decision to send my kids to Catholic schools (approx. 48 combined years) and never received any "vouchers". My choice. My only issue with vouchers is that the GOP has expanded it so much that families with very good incomes can qualify. I think it should be limited to people who truly need the help. A family of 4 making $150,000 can sure as h3!! afford to pay full tuition IMO. 

Presuming you're retired and your home is paid for. Sending two kids to private schools on $150,000 a year would be an absolute grind. I don't believe that a poor family should have better access to private schools than a middle income family does. Under the old system, private schools were reserved for the rich and the poor, leaving the middle class behind. Currently, a hard working father and mother can offer their children the same opportunity that an unemployed father and mother can. I think it's great. 

 

40 minutes ago, Mebuck said:

I thought this was a high school football page? Who do you think will make it to LOS in 2026?

It's a high school football forum, but in all fairness, this "page" was never about football from the beginning. Your question might be a good topic to start a new thread though. 

Posted
18 hours ago, Frozen Tundra said:

They wouldn’t pay the full amount. Whatever portion goes to public education would be carved out and they would have the ability to pay that amount to the non-public school(s) of their choice.

Sound pretty much like the voucher system.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Bobref said:

Sound pretty much like the voucher system.

Except it wouldn’t be funded by the government. That’s the difference.

Posted
On 5/28/2026 at 3:33 PM, tango said:

Except that the taxes we all pay fund all kinds of services - schools, fire/police protection, roads, etc. I don't see any way of carving out the education dollars. 

Like many, I made the decision to send my kids to Catholic schools (approx. 48 combined years) and never received any "vouchers". My choice. My only issue with vouchers is that the GOP has expanded it so much that families with very good incomes can qualify. I think it should be limited to people who truly need the help. A family of 4 making $150,000 can sure as h3!! afford to pay full tuition IMO. 

It's been capped at $260,000 for a couple of years now. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Frozen Tundra said:

Except it wouldn’t be funded by the government. That’s the difference.

In effect it would be, if the mechanism is to give property tax relief. Whether the government collects less from you, or collects the full amount but gives some back in the form of vouchers, you arrive at the same place: you have more and the government has less.

Posted
10 hours ago, Bobref said:

In effect it would be, if the mechanism is to give property tax relief. Whether the government collects less from you, or collects the full amount but gives some back in the form of vouchers, you arrive at the same place: you have more and the government has less.

But that is not where the money for vouchers comes from. 

Posted
11 hours ago, Bobref said:

In effect it would be, if the mechanism is to give property tax relief. Whether the government collects less from you, or collects the full amount but gives some back in the form of vouchers, you arrive at the same place: you have more and the government has less.

School vouchers are funded through the General Education Fund, which is funded via state level taxes, I.e. income tax, sales tax, etc.

Property taxes fund the Operations budgets of the local school, unless a referendum has been passed.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...