Are we talking Federal, State, Local?
Military, Roads, basic Infrastructure.
Certainly not to pay able-bodied people to sit on their ass.
All of it. I'm off the grid now and only doing transactions in chickens and home made dream catchers.
Chickens? Really? You interested in trading for a pair of flip flops I make out of old Amazon boxes or dress shirts from old tarps and duct tape?
Chickens? Really? You interested in trading for a pair of flip flops I make out of old Amazon boxes or dress shirts from old tarps and duct tape?
You are asking the wrong question.
Why do you automatically assume government is the answer?
Example: It has been a while, but last I looked the average cost to educate a kid via the government was around 10k per year... At the same time, I was paying 6k a year for excellent private Christian school.
What if you are Jewish? Then you are screwed.
Nah. Jews have private schools too.
You're only screwed if your mom is an ex-hippie bunny-hugger who insists on home-school. Then it's tofu and rice cakes 24/7...
Yeah. I do way better with the dream catchers than the chickens and that shit is prime dream catcher material.
It has to be some, right? All that concrete for our bridges and highways is pretty expensive, and then you've got the military. Public education? In your opinion what's an acceptable amount? Which programs are you okay with contributing to?
God only asks for 10%. Seems like the government's cut should be even less.
It's ridiculous how many obscenely wealthy corporations and people get away with paying way less taxes than they're meant to in my opinion. If there was a flat tax that was actually enforced on the rich and the businesses they down, no bullshit, I think there would be plenty of money.
People pay taxes.
"rich people" already do pay most of the taxes.
"Corporations are people."
A lot of rich people avoid a lot of the taxes they're supposed to pay. Remember the Panama Papers? When these people don't give what they're supposed to who do you think covers the bill? I don't know about you, but I'm not rich enough to have some fancy tax genius save me from the government.
All of it. I'm off the grid now and only doing transactions in chickens and home made dream catchers.
Rich people pay lots and lots of taxes.
The Panama Papers? You mean a leak of financial data for some global/international companies? How do you fit that into this discussion?
Boeing reported an $82 million tax refund last year, but made $5.9 billion in U.S. pre-tax profits during the same period
You are asking the wrong question.@roamer_1
Why do you automatically assume government is the answer?
Example: It has been a while, but last I looked the average cost to educate a kid via the government was around 10k per year... At the same time, I was paying 6k a year for excellent private Christian school.
Is this reasonable?Exactly how do you define reasonable? Do taxes exist for legitimate purposes, or are they there, like Obama stated, for "fairness" i.e. punish the rich for making a lot of money?
No public education would lead to high rates of illiteracy in the states. Not everybody can afford to pay for a private school. You think crime is bad now? Just wait until people have even less access to education.
Do taxes exist for legitimate purposes
Education should come from State and Local Taxes, Feds need to stay out of it.
It's ridiculous how many obscenely wealthy corporations and people get away with paying way less taxes than they're meant to in my opinion. If there was a flat tax that was actually enforced on the rich, no bullshit, I think there would be plenty of money.
@Dexter
Here is your one and only Econ 101 lesson from me. Short and sweet.
Corporations DO NOT pay taxes! Never have and never will. ALL of those taxes and ALL of their attendant compliance costs accrue to one, or any possible combination of, three possible places:
1. Consumers of the product(s) or service(s) produced as a component of the sales price of those things
2. Employees of the corporation in the form of reduced pay and benefits
3. Stake holders in the corporation in the form of reduced ROI
In all cases ALL of the taxes and their attendant costs of compliance accrue to individual taxpayers and NOT the corporation itself!
Corporations DO NOT pay taxes! |
If that can be done without crippling public education I am fine with it. I care about the results. I want people in the United States to be the most educated in the world.
Thanks for that Bigun. I guess I'm confused though...
if
Corporations DO NOT pay taxes!
then why did Boeing get an 82 million dollar tax refund? I'm not trying to be obtuse; I don't understand.
It's ridiculous how many obscenely wealthy corporations and people get away with paying way less taxes than they're meant to in my opinion. If there was a flat tax that was actually enforced on the rich, no bullshit, I think there would be plenty of money.
Thanks for that Bigun. I guess I'm confused though...
if
Corporations DO NOT pay taxes!
then why did Boeing get an 82 million dollar tax refund? I'm not trying to be obtuse; I don't understand.
@Dexter
Corporations DO NOT pay taxes! Never have and never will.
Corporations merely "collect" the tax.
When you buy any goods or services, the taxes they have to pay are built into the price you pay.
A flat tax or national sales (VAT tax) could work fine.
It would keep the Congress from writing into law tax breaks for their donors.
Taxes on articles of consumption only!
My wife and I own 3 companies (corporations) Trust me we pay taxes at the end of the corporate year.
@Bigun
888high58888 But forget about anything based on INCOME such as a flat rate INCOME tax. That taxes the exact wrong end of the spectrum and necessarily retains the IRS! The funders had it figured out and we should return to what they universally advised. Taxes on articles of consumption only!
How much of what the government currently pays for would we have to cut back on if we did that? Could we even pay for our military as is?
My wife and I own 3 companies (corporations) Trust me we pay taxes at the end of the corporate year.
@Bigun
Corporations merely "collect" the tax.
When you buy any goods or services, the taxes they have to pay are built into the price you pay.
A flat tax or national sales (VAT tax) could work fine.
It would keep the Congress from writing into law tax breaks for their donors.
My wife and I have both sole proprietorships and a corporation. When paying taxes I sure can't discern the difference.
@mirraflake
No you don't! You merely collect them, along with ALL of your compliance costs, to one of the three places I detailed in my post to Dexter above. If you don't you will soon be an ex business owner.
My wife and I own 3 companies (corporations) Trust me we pay taxes at the end of the corporate year.
@Bigun
1. Consumers of the product(s) or service(s) produced as a component of the sales price of those things
In todays highly competitive marketplace, online competition etc if you add on to the consumer price people will stop buying from you. Many times corporations have to eat the increased cost. If it was so easy to just increase prices lol
2. Employees of the corporation in the form of reduced pay and benefits
If we did that to our employees today, their butts would be out the door after their their two week notice. We have had to increase pay and benefits to keep employees.
3. Stake holders in the corporation in the form of reduced ROI
Yep we have taken a pay cut. Guess what? we still pay taxes on profits at the end of the year.
I'm going to tell my wife tonight we don't pay any corporates taxes. She need a laugh.
I work with hundreds of corporations and trust me 1. they just don't increase the price of their product or service, nearly all my business groups are increasing pay and benefits and yes most have less in their own paycheck
@Bigun
As a corp./ company your taxes are part of a business expense. You "never" passed that cost down to your customers/consumers?
1. Consumers of the product(s) or service(s) produced as a component of the sales price of those things
In todays highly competitive marketplace, online competition etc if you add on to the consumer price people will stop buying from you. Many times corporations have to eat the increased cost. If it was so easy to just increase prices lol
2. Employees of the corporation in the form of reduced pay and benefits
If we did that to our employees today, their butts would be out the door after their their two week notice. We have had to increase pay and benefits to keep employees.
3. Stake holders in the corporation in the form of reduced ROI
Yep we have taken a pay cut. Guess what? we still pay taxes on profits at the end of the year.
I'm going to tell my wife tonight we don't pay any corporates taxes. She need a laugh.
I work with hundreds of corporations and trust me 1. they just don't increase the price of their product or service, nearly all my business groups are increasing pay and benefits and yes most have less in their own paycheck
@Bigun
@mirraflake
Thanks for confirming what I said! Only individuals pay taxes! Have a great day!
You are playing word games.
@Bigun
You summed up well a lot of what I was thinking. I also see what Bigun is saying. I think reality ends up muddying up these waters and makes it all a lot more complicated than just "Corporations don't pay taxes."
@Dexter
No! It really isn't! Only individuals pay taxes.
So, I just purchased a new copy machine for my business that was me paying for it and not the corporation?
You really have a weird way of looking at things.. And yes corporations pay taxes. They only pay no taxes if the gov't does not tax corporations.
I'm trying to figure out your weird fixation argument that only individuals pay taxes. My question is why and who cares?
@Bigun
You really have a weird way of looking at things.. And yes corporations pay taxes. They only pay no taxes if the gov't does not tax corporations.
I'm trying to figure out your weird fixation argument that only individuals pay taxes. My question is why and who cares?
@Bigun
The copy machine goes on the debit side of your ledger just like the light bill, gas bill, and your taxes and compliance costs!
Wait I though you said only individuals paid corporate tax? So now it's going onto the debit side of my ledger with all my other cost?
@Bigun
What it was constitutionally authorized to fund.@DB
Which is a tiny fraction of what it is doing these days.
Wait I though you said only individuals paid corporate tax? So now it's going onto the debit side of my ledger with all my other cost?
@Bigun
Long story short. We are getting royally screwed by public education in Texas and I would be very surprised to find it any different elsewhere.
No public education would lead to high rates of illiteracy in the states. Not everybody can afford to pay for a private school. You think crime is bad now? Just wait until people have even less access to education.
If that can be done without crippling public education I am fine with it. I care about the results. I want people in the United States to be the most educated in the world.
My wife and I own 3 companies (corporations) Trust me we pay taxes at the end of the corporate year.
@Bigun
@mirraflake
If you are making profit, then the costs of those taxes are obviously transmitted to your clients.
In some industries, usually ones in the business of selling commodities, it is not possible to raise prices concomitant with corporate or any other tax increases.
True, but Roamer's point still stands - if you have enough $ left over to take profits, then someone is paying all of those costs including the taxes. That would be the customers.
In some industries, usually ones in the business of selling commodities, it is not possible to raise prices concomitant with corporate or any other tax increases.
I'm involved in a business that can only charge a certain amount or I'll lose my customers. True, for the time being I'm able to pay my taxes and make some profit.
But with each increase in taxes, rent, etc I take home a little less. So its hard for me to accept his/her point, philosophically anyway.
I'm involved in a business that can only charge a certain amount or I'll lose my customers. True, for the time being I'm able to pay my taxes and make some profit.
But with each increase in taxes, rent, etc I take home a little less. So its hard for me to accept his/her point, philosophically anyway.
I'm involved in a business that can only charge a certain amount or I'll lose my customers. True, for the time being I'm able to pay my taxes and make some profit.
But with each increase in taxes, rent, etc I take home a little less. So its hard for me to accept his/her point, philosophically anyway.
I understand that, but at the point you can't pass the costs on to your customers, what happens?
We walk out on our lease.
Because you can't pass the costs on to your customers.
Unfortunately some have found a way around that hard rule of economics via government subsidies. The corn ethanol industry being a prime example.
Correct.
I've lost track of the reason for this line of discussion so I went back and looked at Bigun's original point. Its true, corporations typically don't pay taxes, they pass along those costs.
The distinction is lost on an individual who happens to have set up their small business a 'corporation' in order to limit personal liability. To them (me) there is very little difference between tax on them as an individual and tax on them as a 'corporation'.
Outside of the head-fake of personal income tax, and outside of the previously demonstrated insidious and exponential taxation and regulation of business mechanisms, I will add another aspect:
Every authority granted to government is authority taken away from the people.
Liberty IS responsibility.
When you are no longer responsible for the care of your elders, you have lost liberty.
When you are no longer responsible for the education of your children, you have lost liberty.
When you are no longer responsible for your own defense, you have lost liberty.
Law is by and large, written for the lawless. Taxation is the price of that law.
With that in mind, 'How much of your money should the government take? ' is answered with another question: How much liberty are you willing to give up?
@roamer_1
An EXCELLENY post to which I will add only one thing at this time. When you take a government subsidy it comes with many strings attached all of which infringe on your liberty
I can't say it any better than it was said by an old white man who left this world a LONG time ago now.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster
Farm subsidies to farmers keep food prices stable and realtively cheap.
If the price of corn per bushel dropped really low and there was silos full of it selling less than what is cost to plant and harvest , no farmers would plant it the following year and then there would be a shortage the following year(s) and the price would skyrocket.
You would have huge price swings in food and also worse yet, food shortages. One year a can of corn would be 25 cents , the next $8.00
Farmers also know by the price being stable they can purchase that new piece of equipment knowing the following years they have a market to sell their crops or at least enough profit to pay for the equipment. Farmers have enough to worry about, the weather, than worrying if the crop in their silos would sell
Our economy could not survive with food shortages or huge price swings. Talk about a hot mess, Third World style
@Bigun
No... In fact, home-schooled kids invariably get better grades than public school kids do.
And even though @Dexter is just trying to kick a hornets nest
he's tryin' to trap y'all.
Home schooling well requires one parent to not work usually, and they also need to be good at actually educating; not everybody can do that. A lot of households have two working parents and a lot of parents are not qualified to teach. If you got rid of public education illiteracy rates in this country would skyrocket.
Or some that are good at teaching could take in a few neighbor kids for home schooling for a small fee. Imagine how much more we could do for our kids if we didn't have to send all those tax dollars to DC to be redistributed, but instead used our education money directly on our childrens' education. If you got rid of public education literacy rates in this country would skyrocket.
I'm not exactly one to troll, as you may have noticed. I like good conversations on touchy subjects. These things need to be talked about.@Dexter
No matter how you slice it removing free access to education would increase rates of illiteracy, especially because they'd have no way to make education mandatory for children at that point. To me this seems incredibly obvious. In no universe would the removal of public education increase literacy rates.
@Dexter
I’ll agree with that when I take note of you conceding a point that you hadn’t previously.
Please note, that was not an attack, you may have already done so. And I will also give you credit for engaging in actual conversation. I’m just saying that I’ve yet to meet an intellectually honest lib, so my spidey sense is on high alert.
There are plenty of "solutions" (to non-existent problems) if you just can't stand allowing parents to raise their children without proper national government oversight. Expensive, inefficient, and often incompetent public schools aren't exactly producing a literacy rate to be proud of, or kids that even want to be literate.
Our public education isn't great, but I don't think scrapping it is the solution.Nope...just gotta scrap it at the federal level. Like everything else, let there’s be 50 little petri dishes to see what works and what doesn’t AND that also gives people the option of voting with their feet if they don’t like the education their kids are receiving.
Nope...just gotta scrap it at the federal level. Like everything else, let there’s be 50 little peteindishes to see what works and what doesn’t AND that also gives people the option of voting with their feet if they don’t like the education their kids are receiving isn’t up to par.
I am all about giving power to the states. I just want to make sure all the little ones can get an education; it's important.
Our public education isn't great, but I don't think scrapping it is the solution.
I can't say it any better than it was said by an old white man who left this world a LONG time ago now.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Daniel Webster
Our public education isn't great, but I don't think scrapping it is the solution.
Scrapping it?
No.
As with most things in life, introduce some competition and the quality will improve.
Allow students in low performing schools to take that same amount of government dollars spent and apply those into a private school, and see what happens.
Home schooling well requires one parent to not work usually, and they also need to be good at actually educating; not everybody can do that. A lot of households have two working parents and a lot of parents are not qualified to teach. If you got rid of public education illiteracy rates in this country would skyrocket.
Expensive, inefficient, and often incompetent public schools aren't exactly producing a literacy rate to be proud of, or kids that even want to be literate.
Our public education isn't great, but I don't think scrapping it is the solution.
What they get in Public schools these day is NOT an education! It's an indoctrination!
Home schooling well requires one parent to not work usually, and they also need to be good at actually educating; not everybody can do that. A lot of households have two working parents and a lot of parents are not qualified to teach. If you got rid of public education illiteracy rates in this country would skyrocket.
Not so, @Dexter, the literacy rate in the 13 Colonies was close to 100%.
The world is a lot different now. You can't realistically make that comparison.
Is there nobody else in this thread that at least agrees that literacy rates in this country would go down if we removed public education? You wouldn't be able to mandate that children are educated without a public option. A lot of crappy parents would not take an interest in the education of their children. Children should not be punished for that and have their entire lives ruined by the fact that they missed vital opportunities.
So you are good with coercion and indoctrination. Got it.
Not me.
What specifically do you think teachers are doing to indoctrinate children? They learn a lot. Our education system may not be the best in the world but people are definitely learning.
Do you think it just a coincidence that teachers are overwhelmingly liberal? Why do you think that is?
You think 12 year olds are being taught liberal politics?
You think 12 year olds are being taught liberal politics?
My ten year old is. Has been for years by a random assortment of teachers here and there in the school and I live in a highly Conservative area. Luckily I have her being intellectual on these matters and not taking them as truth. Other kids probably don't have parents who are on top of this stuff though.
What is your ten year old being taught?
Distribution of wealth. Anti gun policies. Anti Trump memes. Free health care memes.
You think 12 year olds are being taught liberal politics?
Did your kids get force fed this book in kindergarten....
(https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/GUEST_0752b80f-1da9-4b2e-ae35-4492d889508b?wid=488&hei=488&fmt=pjpeg)
Never saw such an obvious attempt to indoctrinate kids with Communism.
So basically you're all in agreement that to fix public education we need to relinquish power to the states? I would agree to that completely as long as the states agreed to a mandate from the Federal government that explicitly states that all children that are citizens of this country must get a k-12 education. If a state fails to provide what is agreed upon the Fed would step in to ensure that no small children are being deprived of an education. Would you all agree to that if it went to congress?
There is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to mandate a damn thing to the states wrt education.
Why are you so afraid to let folks live their lives the way they are supposed to without the intervention of a nanny state?
So basically you're all in agreement that to fix public education we need to relinquish power to the states? I would agree to that completely as long as the states agreed to a mandate from the Federal government that explicitly states that all children that are citizens of this country must get a k-12 education. If a state fails to provide what is agreed upon the Fed would step in to ensure that no small children are being deprived of an education. Would you all agree to that if it went to congress?@Dexter
@Dexter
As a step in the right direction, I would agree to that IF the fedgov ALSO has NO say in defining that K-12 education. They cannot have any means to squash homeschooling or be able to subvert what State A or State B is teaching.
If the mandate is unacceptable then me and a majority of the country will never budge on this, EVER.
Children shouldn't miss vital opportunity because of crappy parenting. Without a mandate and a public option a lot of bad parents would ruin the lives of their children. I simply will never get behind that.
Would you agree that there should at least be certain comprehension standards? Like a 12 year old should understand how to read decently and do some math.
You have no business here (MT). Leave me and mine alone. WE know best the way we should go. Not you, and certainly not the feds.
Don't you think that a free and sovereign state is capable of making that standard?
You cannot function well in the 21st century without at least a basic education. Some parents would seriously screw up the life potential of their children.
Not any more than they do now. We have fallen from the top of the education heap to what now, 28th?
How is a sovereign state going to enforce that standard without a public option for children?
Every single country ahead of us on that list has a public option for children. A lot of them have a public option for young adults too.
However the hell it wants to (that is what 'sovereign' means).
So what?
You're being illogical. It is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce that standard without a public option.
So maybe that should say something about the importance of the role of public education.
How do you know?
Would you agree that there should at least be certain comprehension standards? Like a 12 year old should understand how to read decently and do some math.
What are you going to do when people fail to meet the standard? Take the kids away? When you take the kids away where will they get the education they need? Without a public option the state can't educate them either. There is absolutely no way to guarantee an education to children.
@Dexter
Here’s how you do that and keep the fedgov out: Each state decides and defines how THEY measure a successful education and then provides statistical evidence that they have met that goal.
AND @roamer_1 concerns can be addressed thus: those who wish to use homeschooling or ANY OTHER alternative means of educating their kids are free to do so with zero state intervention provided the children pass the same benchmark testing that the rest of the state kids pass.
All of that is none of your business. Worry about your own state and stop coercing me and mine into a failing system.
No deal, sorry. You have no solution because there isn't one.
There are many, many solutions.
Let me know when you think of even one.
I can think of thirty - That is not the point. The point is that what happens here is none of your business.
For the sake of discussion you won't tell me even one of your solutions?
For the sake of discussion you won't tell me even one of your solutions?
NO!
I don't think you actually have a solution despite what you claim.
Quit trying to shift the goalposts. What I think doesn't matter anyway. That is for the Montana Governor and the Montana legislature to decide.
What is on point is that it should have naught to do with you, and even less to do with the federal government.
The world is a lot different now. You can't realistically make that comparison.
Is there nobody else in this thread that at least agrees that literacy rates in this country would go down if we removed public education? You wouldn't be able to mandate that children are educated without a public option. A lot of crappy parents would not take an interest in the education of their children. Children should not be punished for that and have their entire lives ruined by the fact that they missed vital opportunities.
Here’s how you do that and keep the fedgov out: Each state decides and defines how THEY measure a successful education
and then provides statistical evidence that they have met that goal.
AND @roamer_1 concerns can be addressed thus: those who wish to use homeschooling or ANY OTHER alternative means of educating their kids are free to do so with zero state intervention provided the children pass the same benchmark testing that the rest of the state kids pass.
If the mandate is unacceptable then me and a majority of the country will never budge on this, EVER.
Children shouldn't miss vital opportunity because of crappy parenting. Without a mandate and a public option a lot of bad parents would ruin the lives of their children. I simply will never get behind that.
Public education isn't going anywhere, and states will never be given the autonomy you want as long as you and those that think like you are unwilling to budge on this. You're wasting your thought.
What specifically do you think teachers are doing to indoctrinate children? They learn a lot. Our education system may not be the best in the world but people are definitely learning.
I thought you were the one who thinks that people are basically good? If so, wouldn't one of the most basic drives in life, that to procreate and protect the product of procreation, be in force here? Seems like by that measure, almost every parent in the world would do their best to make sure Junior can become successful in this world.
Public education isn't going anywhere, and states will never be given the autonomy you want as long as you and those that think like you are unwilling to budge on this. You're wasting your thought.
And btw, the states are not 'given' autonomy. It is theirs by right.
I think humanity is good, but some individuals are certainly not. I want to protect the children of those people. I personally won't budge on this issue.
And btw, the states are not 'given' autonomy. It is theirs by right.
He reveals his indoctrination more in every single post.
Isn't humanity made of people?
I simply live in the real world. The federal government controls education and they will never let go as long as you won't budge on this. You don't have practical solutions in my opinion. What you want is not going to happen.
And ONLY the mighty federal government can properly ordain... *SMH*
It is the federal standard that leaves us with a 20% illiteracy rate, and a self-absorbed, poorly educated snowflake generation.
@roamer_1
Yep and all according to plan. They don't WANT educated citizens they want preprogramed lemmings!
The practical solution is to take the failing education system and give it to the states. It is not the federal government's business, and never has been. The more things privatize and get closer to the people, the better they will work.
As I said your vaunted education system is failing badly, and leaving more than 20% of children behind. High school kids graduating as functional illiterates, for Pete's sake. Open your eyes to what you are defending.
And btw, the states are not 'given' autonomy. It is theirs by right.
It's simply reality that that right is not theirs right now, legally or not. You're not going to seize it back. You have to come to terms with the federal government.
Naw. This idiocy will stop. And we'll survive it. Because we still have enough self reliance out here to make it happen.
Our government imposes its will with force and if needed, violence. I'm not saying it's right, but it is what it is.
The last place they will ever take is these blue Rockies. Come give it a whirl. We're ready.
The last place they will ever take is these blue Rockies. Come give it a whirl. We're ready.
You won't get enough people to follow you. Most people don't want to die.
No... In fact, home-schooled kids invariably get better grades than public school kids do.
Yes, but home school kids tend to be cherry picked from ideal parents.
I'm all for homeschooling but all the homeschooling parents I know have college degrees and have higher IQ's. Home school parents (notice I said parents) tend to be very ambitious and have strict academic and career goals for their kids. My niece is going to homeschool. She has advanced degrees and her hubby, equally intelligent, pulled in a very nice 3 figure income so she can quit her job.
Have you seen what the average family and kid what America is breeding today? Fat, dumb, drugged out and lazy. I doubt 90% could homeschool.
The public schools have to take the low IQ kids from low IQ univolved parents and try to do something with them.
@roamer_1
The public schools have to take the low IQ kids
Yes, but home school kids tend to be cherry picked from ideal parents.
I'm all for homeschooling but all the homeschooling parents I know have college degrees and have higher IQ's. Home school parents (notice I said parents) tend to be very ambitious and have strict academic and career goals for their kids. My niece is going to homeschool. She has advanced degrees and her hubby, equally intelligent, pulled in a very nice 3 figure income so she can quit her job.
Have you seen what the average family and kid what America is breeding today? Fat, dumb, drugged out and lazy. I doubt 90% could homeschool.
The public schools have to take the low IQ kids from low IQ univolved parents and try to do something with them.
@roamer_1
It's all tied to the Government's War on the Nuclear Family.
@Axeslinger@roamer_1
That's not. Providing statistics to the federal government explicitly leaves the feds in charge.
The quality of the student can be readily assessed by the collegiate system and in the general success of the population at large. The state is certainly free to survey and complete its own internal statistics.
@roamer_1
I agree with you, my submittal was in the spirit of @Dexter question of trying to find middle ground to return education to the states. My proposal would move the needle a helluva lot closer to the federalism side of the equation, allowing fedgov input ONLY when a state demonstrably fails to live up to their OWN self mandated standards.
Also your notion of college system assessment inherently accepts the potential for an entire generation within that state to be under educated. I think there do need to be statewide benchmarks along the way...again all mandated within the STATES educational system