> Brunnen-G mentioned school vouchers in a recent post, and for the benefit of people who don't know what that is:
> School vouchers were thought up by politicians who thought they might garner a few votes. The way they work is, the goverenment gives a poor family a voucher for x number of dollars so they can send their kids to private school with the rich kids. Where does the money come from? From public school funding, I suppose. This tears down the public schools by reducing available funds. What does it do for the private school? It increases their enrollment and provides money to widen the gap between public and private schools. If the process continues, there might someday be no public schools and all of the private schools would have the very same problems that have reduced the effectiveness of public schools. It seems like an expensive way to circle around back to where we are now. However it does sound good, and the politicians who promise it might get a few votes from parents of public school students. The truth is, nothing gets votes quicker than the promise of another check in the mail.
> I don't know for sure, but I hope this is a problem limited only to the good old US of A. We seem to have more than our share of shifty-eyed politicians.
> Wow! I really got on my soap box that time, didn't I!
> Howard

Howard, don't forget, ALL students get a voucher, to "spend" anywhere they'd like, private school or public. With the voucher system, they would divide the budget by the number of students in the district, whether they already go to public school OR private school, and give the money to the public OR private school of their choice. In my area, it's $4000 per student. People already paying for private school would get a $4000 break -- assuming the private school doesn't up tuition by $4000. That's another place the votes come in: parents of private school students vote to give themselves a possible $4000 tuition reduction.

Either way, I'm tired of voting on this issue. It keeps getting voted down, and it keeps appearing on the ballot next time for us to vote it down again.

But this all brings me to my newest peeve: Why is the tax bracket higher for an unmarried person with no children who doesn't even use the public school system? Married people get a tax break just for being married. If they have children, they get another deduction for each child -- the more children they have, the more tax deductions they get -- but the more children they have, the more they use the public school system! This is so backwards to me, that I wonder why no one's ever just thrown a hissy fit about it before now. I pay higher taxes just because I'm not married and have no children, yet I get none of the public education benefits whatsoever. HUH? And don't start with the whole, parents of private school children don't use the system, either... number one, that's their choice. Number two, they STILL pay less in taxes than I do. Can anyone explain this to me in a way that makes it sound any less ridiculous?

Mou"see, you went and got me started"sie