Maybe we’re thinking of the wrong kind of unigov?

The recent Kettering Health Network move in Greene County had me thinking of what impact a new health campus might have on Montgomery County. What happens when doctors, who work at Kettering- want to move to Beavercreek- so that they won’t have to pay income taxes? A giant sucking sound? Possibly.

One of the reasons we see both the Greene and the Mall at Fairfield Commons right on the edge of Montgomery County is because RTA doesn’t extend service to either. It’s a racist way of keeping “bus people” away from the malls. That also means RTA, which depends on sales tax revenue, misses out on all that retail sales tax.

Most of the talk of “Unigov” or “Regional Government” has been about merging cities within Montgomery County for efficiencies. However, communities like Oakwood and Kettering just don’t want to play along. We have all these different taxing districts, with so many different tax rates. We have over 20 police chiefs- the whole thing is what happens when evolution is left unchecked- freaks of government emerge.

Maybe we should be considering merging Montgomery and Greene County instead? Expand Five Rivers Metroparks across the two counties, one street maintenance organization, one sheriff, and, maybe even a prosecutor that believes in handing out justice (and no, Mat Heck, I’m sure not talking about you). We have one sales tax that covers RTA, the Arts, and Parks and Rec. We have one income tax über county wide- that is divvied up per capita, with a kicker to any community that buys more services from the county- ie: building inspection, code enforcement, street maintenance, “economic development,” police, fire. As time goes by, we have at least one strong regional leader to project a sense of direction. Plus, our MSA becomes significant.

I don’t think anyone is as connected to County government the way they are to Municipal government- and that could be our ace in the hole. Your thoughts?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

72 Responses

  1. Joe August 26, 2009 / 8:57 pm
    Robert – You’re views on teaching are all wrong. There is a massive oversupply of teachers in Ohio, and a lack of teaching jobs in the State. Ohio’s best export is well trained teacher, both men and women. Most of the folks I was in school with for education have left Ohio for jobs in the south and west. A few of us have eked it out in other industries or as subs.  These are all young, education, passionate workers who pay taxes. Exactly what we’re supposed to be attracting to Dayton & Ohio.
    And 3 months off is a myth. Teachers are contracted for 185 days of work a year, and are not paid for any more. Their salary is spread over the year so they can pay bills in the summer months. During this time you are taking classes to get re-certified. This is in addition to the work and your own money that goes into your class after school lets out everyday.
    51K for a starting wage?! Maybe in three or four select public districts in the state. Think around 30K. Paying teachers more sounds good, but we really need to hire more to reduce class sizes. Public and Charter schools teach to the OGT, since most of their funding from the State is tied to it’s results on the District Report Card. Charter school funding scuttles the public schools budget, and the public school is required to provide transport. If it’s a tax issue, we need to reform the unconstitutional system of property taxes that fund schools. I agree that the system needs reformed, but what you suggest is lunacy. I encourage you to do the several years of expensive and time consuming work for a teaching license, so you might have an ounce credence to speak on these matters.
  2. Gene August 26, 2009 / 8:57 pm
    Renters pay property tax. It is rolled into their rent.

    Reduce all government and consolidate where it makes sense and works would be great. Just don’t think UniGov with the ‘burbs or Greene Co. is ever going to happen. Dayton should consolidate with Riverside and Trotwood and Moraine and Huber and a few other dinky dogs out there and move forward.

    Centerville and Wash Twp should have merged. Kettering should build 3 to 5 – 12-20 story buildings on the Town and Country site and become a bigger, more business friendly city – if they had money. But they could become a bigger and more prosperous city if they wanted.

    A lot could merge here and there, but most don’t want to with Dayton. Like Oakwood.

  3. Gene August 26, 2009 / 9:16 pm
    185 paid days – compared to 50 weeks at 5 days a week….. 250 days for a everyday guy. My math says that there is a 65 day difference there – so just over 2 months. They work roughly 3/4 the days compared to the everyday guy. Your 30 is more like 40 then. Roberts 51 is more like 68 or 69.

    But they should be compared to other professionals, not the ave joe. Other professions may pay higher (lawyer, doctor) but a lot of engineers are on a lower scale. And the hours worked for these professions is always 40+, more like 50-60. That’s the way it goes.

    I think teachers should be paid more, but they waste so much money on other sh*t it is unreal. Take a look at the typical budget and you would puke. Oakwood has an old school and had old text books, old desks, etc…. and they were fine for years. Their formula: Parents make kids do their work, teachers assign work and teach, parents and teachers talk often (although I have heard they have had their run ins the last few years, but that is ok, it show the parents…… magic words here for Dayton Parents……. are you ready………. show the parents……. CARE.)

    My friend said a grand total of 3 parents show up for Parents night at one Dayton Public School (like 3ish years ago.) Well F*CK, they don’t care about their kids.

    Robert wanted to eliminate all the bs extra schooling. A lot of teacher are horrible, regardless how many classes they take. It really is the person, not the degree. Sure, we need teachers to be certified and qualified and intelligent. But the hoops they make you guys jump through is a joke.

  4. Joe August 26, 2009 / 11:23 pm
    “Their formula: Parents make kids do their work, teachers assign work and teach, parents and teachers talk often ” In complete agreement here. Parental support is crucial. For as many bad teachers, I think there are good ones out there no one hears about. And administration cost are high as well, though they serve an important role in the school. I think alot of people jump on the education issue negatively because it’s tied up in taxes and the perceived liberal bias of public education.

    County wide schools would be a big step towards unified gov.  The chances are slim unless we get some strong, charismatic, and pragmatic  leaders up to the plate. Urban and suburban.
    I have alot of respect for engineers and the other professions. I wish the job market of teachers was like engineering. Seems a little more stable, but I could be wrong about that. My certification is a bit narrow (art) but that was my choice, and so was studying fine arts & education. Educators need to be advocates of their own field. When I was teaching, I view my job as building problem solving skills and preparing the next generation of responsible citizens. If I only see a student 45 minutes a day, it can be tough but you gotta work with what you got. It is both challenging and fun. I hope to get back into it somehow since my current job is ending this month. Don’t want to leave Dayton, but I’ll go to where to jobs are. We’ll see what happens when my lease runs out.

  5. David Esrati August 26, 2009 / 11:35 pm

    @Joe- I’ve recommended that Sinclair Community College takes over Dayton Public Schools- and if it did well, maybe, we could start expanding the district to a single, unified district. If it really is the parents- it shouldn’t matter what school you go to, right?

  6. Joe August 27, 2009 / 2:35 am
    Interesting idea with Sinclair. That’d be a good way to get kids to think about college as a serious, affordable opportunity. I like it!
     
    Parental support can make or break a school year, graduation, etc…
  7. Robert Vigh August 27, 2009 / 9:12 am
    Joe,

    In a private system, charter schools would not recieve funding from the state. Each family would have to enroll and pay for their own child to attend school. Therefore, kids and families who have no value in school do not attend and other people do not have to pay for them. Those parents that put together the scratch to send their children, well they are invested, so you can imagine they would be lighting their kids up if they were wasting their money. In addition, by removing government, you no longer have to have a license. A license would be your own marketable attribute, or your personal resume and performance could be your marketable attribute to teach.

    If there is an oversupply of teachers in Ohio, then the offering of their wage should be declining as the industry is oversupplied in this region, and exporting oneself to another state is the way to go. (which, is where my friend went). And thank you Gene for running the math.

    Furthermore, a private school system could determine if it wanted to be part of the teachers union or not. It could choose to hire all non-union members which could force the union to reform, because lets face it, that beast is out of control in the way it protects bad teachers.

    On another point, why do you think I have to have a license to have credence? It would seem with liberals it is a common thing to think no one has credence except the government, as if an elected official has some kind of specialized training. By your credence logic, Joe, only doctors should look at the health bill. Only engineers on other bills, only lawyers on others. Only myself and other small business owners on tax bills etc. You can comment on art and teaching. You follow my logic. My point, I have more than enough experience to talk on the topic. If on a forum I did not feel my ideas could stand on their own, I would give you my resume.

    How does all this relate to Unigov you ask?! If schools were private and property was no longer taxed. Then Oakwood residents merging with Dayton residents would no longer feel that their higher property value and hence their higher taxes were being thrown into a pool and distributed amongst all the schools. Lowering the value of their school system. I think for reasons such as publicly funded schools you will find that a great many small governments do not want to merge, because it is not going to be a win win situation.

    Should you alleviate property taxes and public programs, then merging governments both only stand to gain, as economies of scale could kick in on courthouses and police (yes, 2 of the 3 things I think the government should fund) and public officials. Thus providing a win win for each participant. However, in the current condition of taxation, no wealthier community is going to want to merge with another. They already pay higher taxes on property and on income. Merging them so more of their tax dollars are shifted away, would be another form of tax.

  8. Joe August 27, 2009 / 10:49 am
    “Each family would have to enroll and pay for their own child to attend school. Therefore, kids and families who have no value in school do not attend and other people do not have to pay for them.”  The point of public education is to educate a workforce and build responsible citizens. If you think the problems in Dayton are bad, removing compulsory education would completely flatten us. A High School diploma is the crucial first step in responsible life. How will these poor families afford a quality education for their children when they make minimum wage? Their rents will not go down much, if at all. You’re saying to be successful in America you must come from a family with money and means, and if you’re poor then you might as well forget it. Where are your morals? Perhaps taxing businesses more for educating the workforce and removing the property taxes? Not sure if that would work. Puts less burden on the families, but more on job creation and health of the private sector. There are no easy answers when everyone is greedy and cannot see the larger picture.
     
    “If there is an oversupply of teachers in Ohio, then the offering of their wage should be declining as the industry is oversupplied in this region, and exporting oneself to another state is the way to go. (which, is where my friend went)” – This is silly. I believe that is what we call the race to the bottom.  Say there is an oversupply of machinists and auto workers in Dayton, do companies spread their work load among all of them? No, only a few are employed, the rest will move or find something else. The ones that do find the work are usually experienced and skilled (which in my analogy correlates with a licensed, skilled teacher). Lowering the wages won’t attract good teachers, only more and better paying jobs will. Studies have proven more teachers and reduced class sizes correlate to improved student scores.  Reform the tax structures that fund education and provide adequately for an essential community service. Hold me accountable? Fine. Pay for accountability and training, and hold parents to the same rigor.
     
    “….because lets face it, that beast is out of control in the way it protects bad teachers.” I don’t agree with this. Teachers Unions are not my favorite thing, but I believe they help provide for collective bargaining and other important provisions. Educators do enough work for free on behalf of the State and their school, they have every right to unionize.  Private schools who block unions  undermines the professionalism of education. (Is blocking a union technically illegal? Not sure. I’ll have to ask my sister, she has training/education in this)
     
    “By your credence logic, Joe, only doctors should look at the health bill. Only engineers on other bills, only lawyers on others. Only myself and other small business owners on tax bills etc.” Anyone can look at the bill, but my teaching license doesn’t give me the ability or knowledge to perfrom surgery, or design a bridge, or file a legal brief. I’d be lost, and way out of my league. A teaching license says I have the best interests of my students in mind, I’m well education in my field and practice, and act as a ground level social worker to preserve the health of theses children in bad situations.  These thing require training and experience, and the license is there for a reason. Maybe you missed my point. For all the people who get steamed up about education, there are few who know the amount of dedication it requires. If you wonder why so many teachers leave after the first few years, take a look at the real work load during a school year. Very intense. 7am-4pm with a 20 minute lunch and no chance to use a restroom until students leave at the end of the day, while working in decrepit, underfunded facilities. Plus the amount of work you take home. Every teacher knows this going into it, and it sticks in my craw when it’s looked at like working at a summer camp.
     
    I’ll agree with your basic premise that we need reform in education. Parental involvement is something I think we can agree on.
    Good discussion on the Esrati comments board lately.
  9. David Lauri August 27, 2009 / 11:42 am
    I can see Robert’s campaign slogan now:
     
    The United States–now not just the only “developed” nation without health care for all its citizens but also the only one without free public education!  Vote for Robert Vigh to make it happen!
  10. Bruce Kettelle August 27, 2009 / 12:40 pm
    Mr. Vigh, Can you give us an example of where this type of education funding is working? I’m afraid that your idea of reprivatizing education would lead to gunfights on the streets since all these uneducated kids would still have the right to a ccw permit.
  11. Robert Vigh August 27, 2009 / 12:56 pm
    Joe,

    Good retort and I have some things to ponder, Ill match the order of your paragraphs above so I do not have paste the quote:

    Paragraph #1: Removing teaching licenses would increase supply of teachers to the market. Poor neighborhoods could attract much less educated teachers at a lower pay. This has an opportunity to create jobs, a sense of community and enforces parental responsibility. I honestly think that poor neighborhoods could benefit from getting rid of compulsory education to the age of 16. As far as a highschool diploma being a crucial first step that is an illusion. Being educated is the first step and an accredited paper from the government means very little in the long run. How one chooses to educate, should be their families own decision and financial responsibility. In general, I have a huge problem with property tax. As noted earlier the taxes to my property are subject to everyone who wants to vote on it and not just property owners. Do I really even have property rights if I have to pay continuous never ending taxes on a property? Regarding morals, we both have morals, I am not going to question yours, but I am logically going to define mine. Morality is defined by our hearts, while your good intentions are apparent, mine exist, but require explanation. First, as stated I think poorer people would have an opportunity to receive more services with this plan. Secondly, I think it is immoral to take by force from one group to give to another. Which, in terms of money, assets and resources, taking from productive people (via taxes) has some major significant impacts. The responsible see the cost of child bearing and have fewer children. The poor do not recognize cost and their populace can increase. Taking and giving encourage poor behavior and punishes good behavior. The misallocation of assets as a whole reduces wealth to the society as a whole and whilst proven America is a very charitable populace, reducing its wealth as a whole will also reduce its charities as a whole.

    That was longer than I thought, morality could take all day. Next paragraph in next post.

  12. Robert Vigh August 27, 2009 / 1:18 pm
    #2: It is a race to the bottom. If the supply of teachers is so large, lowering the wage signals to the populace that more teachers are not needed. If the wages drop, it is easier to provide services to poor communities. Hence, removing the licensing would increase teacher supply, lower the wage and community values via market forces would emerge. It would also allow the poor community to pay less for services while the wealthier communities would pay more, because they would not be pleased unless their teachers were accredited, licensed and tattoed. Hence increasing costs to the wealthy and reducing costs to the poor, and maintaining a stable level for middle class.

    #3 Currently in the state of new york they spend 20 million a year employing teachers that sit in empty rooms, because they should be fired, but it is easier to pay their salary and get them away from students than to fire them. The Union is a beast. Private schools do not undermine the profession in any way shape or form. A private school goes into a poor neighborhood and determines it needs teachers to work at 18k a year (185 days), to be profitable in this neighborhood. This salary results in a price the families can pay and the school can profit. But, the union steps in and says you cant hire anyone less than 25K. The school never bothers to open, because it can never make a profit at that wage. Everyone has the right to unionize and every private company should have the right to fire anyone that unionizes. If ALL the labor unionizes then the company will not have a choice. However if there is labor willing to work outside of the union and its demands, then the union is simply being a bully.

    #4 A teaching license says no such thing. A teaching license says you have completed X # of courses in this field and you get a government stamp saying so. It is a resume builder and is an accreditation to you. It is a marketable attribute of your education and should not be compulsory for me to hire you as a teacher. I fully know and understand the dedication that is required, besides my Mother and uncle who are teachers, my best friend + 6 more good friends. Again, the ideas speak for themselves, but you seem intent that I dont understand what is required and I assure you that I do. Nor do I believe the work to be like summer camp, ……..except for when it is summer and i think about quitting my job to become a teacher cause 50-60hour weeks day in and day out can get exhausting while I watch those jerkoff teacher friends of mine go boating. . . . lol.

  13. Robert Vigh August 27, 2009 / 1:35 pm
    Bruce,

    Not sure my idea is in full swing anywhere. I am not sure how we make the jump to gun fighting, but you are correct that I cannot give you an example. Again, my educational diatribe was a core reason as to why local governments are not going to want to merge. Which among you has kids in school? Which among those are willing to state that you would like to take resources away from your kids and give them to other kids whom you have no control over? Volunteers?

    David Lauri,

    I think I would have to twist my campaign slogan into something that would draw attention to individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. Maybe something like, “free to kill yourself if you pay for the bullet” would work.

  14. Joe August 27, 2009 / 4:38 pm
    Robert- Good counter. This kind of discourse is healthy, get’s my brain firing on all cylinders.
    “Removing teaching licenses would increase supply of teachers to the market. Poor neighborhoods could attract much less educated teachers at a lower pay. This has an opportunity to create jobs, a sense of community and enforces parental responsibility. I honestly think that poor neighborhoods could benefit from getting rid of compulsory education to the age of 16.” We’re talking about the quality of education here. It is much harder to teach effectively in a poor district (i.e. urban, dayton) than a suburban district. I do not think adding “much less educated teachers at a lower pay” will be effective at all. How would that enforce parental responsibility more than what we have now? Because the teachers are as poor as the parents? What kind of education would a student get up to age 16? We have to prepare young people for a technical, globally competitive market. I had an interesting class in college about education and society. After WWII, schools (and many other facets of society) became an assembly line/ factory operation. We are still stuck in this mindset and require reform. I do not think slashing the amount of education the Gov. provides at age 16 will help produce competitive workers. That reinforces class separations, stereotypes, and cuts the bootstraps we’re all suppose to be pulling ourselves up with. I like David’s Sinclair idea. Access to great technical training as well as access to traditional education. Make an Associates Degree compulsory, but not entirely funded by the State by sharing the cost after age 18? But would there be jobs after graduation.
     
    A private school goes into a poor neighborhood and determines it needs teachers to work at 18k a year (185 days), to be profitable in this neighborhood. This salary results in a price the families can pay and the school can profit. But, the union steps in and says you cant hire anyone less than 25K.” Making 18K a year to teach in some of the toughest schools would not attract quality educators. City of Dayton is one of the best paying district in Mont. County because they have trouble attracting teachers. And many teachers leave to a cushy subuerban job that might pay less because it’s simply an easier job. Why put up with the headache when the compensation is similar for a much easier classroom.
     
    “A teaching license says you have completed X # of courses in this field and you get a government stamp saying so. It is a resume builder and is an accreditation to you. It is a marketable attribute of your education and should not be compulsory for me to hire you as a teacher.” X- number of course from an accredited University (Ohio U. in my case). To gain this accreditation as a College of Education that can grant a degree in Education, these X-number of courses much include certain topics include: Educational Ethics, Identifying Disabilities and Special Needs, Identifying Abuse and Neglect, Legal Issues in Education (there are many of these), Child Psychology, Teaching Methods, and then my Content classes. I could go back and be well on my way to a Psychology degree if I wanted to. I also was required to, at my expense, to student teach for 1 quarter. I decided to live at home an commute to Greenville instead of pay rent in Athens. I paid for one quarter of tuition (~$4,000) plus commute (45 minutes each way @ $3-$4 a gallon). Student teachering was great, real world experience where I could apply theories and start to see what works and what doesn’t for my teaching style.  Then, I had to take my Praxis II exam in art content and in classroom methods. That was $250-$300. And then the $200 license fee to the State of Ohio. You must pass the Praxis for license, and you must student teach to graduate. These expenses add up, and I’ll have to pay another $200 soon to renew my 2-year license. This is a big reason why I think teachers salarys are adequate. Hire more and let us get to work!
    In terms of Educators vs Private Professionals (Doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc…) We do not get paid a bonus either. I know many people in these professions, especially engineers/scientists at WPAFB and other places who are regularly paid bonuses of several thousand dollars every year. This is added perk for being in these professions, and makes up for the “summers off” myth. Not all of the get bonuses, but I know many that do where I work now at WPAFB. I am still a State of Ohio employee though, and do not get a bonus, just getting RIFed next week.
    You do understand the plight of the teacher. I recognize that and appriciate it. I wish I could go boating this summer, sounds fun! Spending a day just fishing would be fine by me…
  15. Bruce Kettelle August 27, 2009 / 5:27 pm
    I related it to gunslinging which died out (pun intended) about the time public schools came into being in the west.
  16. Gene August 27, 2009 / 5:37 pm
    “Perhaps taxing businesses more for educating the workforce and removing the property taxes? Not sure if that would work. Puts less burden on the families, but more on job creation and health of the private sector. There are no easy answers when everyone is greedy and cannot see the larger picture.”

    From Joe above.

    Taxing businesses more, locally, will drive them elsewhere. Very bad idea. Also, taxing businesses just means we the people pay more for products and services. A business may be taxed, but it is passed on to the consumer.

    Your “puts less burden on the family” – well, the only people who should have kids are the people who can afford them. Our government pays poor people to have kids. They end up having a lot of kids. You notice a typical rich family with one or two or three kids, while poor families it is often 3 or 4 or 6 or more…… If we can change the thought process as well as eliminate government handouts to have kids then we could have better schools, poor families would have less burdens, and our society as a whole would not have losers having more kids than the productive people. We wonder why it get worse…… top 10 percent have one kids, bottom 10 percent have 4 kids……… 4 losers kids to 1, that is why it gets worse. Poor people should not have kids or only have one. Kind of mean, but it would solve a lot of problems.

    David Lauri joking “without free public education! ” to Robert was just a joke, but brings up the thought process that public education is free. It is not free. Nothing is free. We pay taxes for that sh*t. And the results are insulting.

    Robert, you are a bit out there, but I like your enthusiasm. We will never get rid of public education, nor should we. We need to have parents be better parents, we need poor people to have less kids, we need poor people to pay taxes for schools just like the rest of us, we need better teachers, we need to get rid of the old guard, we need to turn the board of education over to competent people, we need to stop throwing money at problems, again, we need parent to be better parents, we need to discipline kids in a 1950’s way, we need to have smaller class rooms, we need to stop with the “lowest common denominator” mentality. It is school, it is supposed to be somewhat tough. Not a cake walk.

    David very best Idea is to turn it over to Sinclair. I would pay MORE taxes for that. I would hand out flyers and talk to neighbors and go to meeting if we could vote on this…… best idea you have ever had (yes, you have brought it up before.)

    DPS school board is a joke. We all know it. The solutions are easy, but the liberals want to cater to the LCD and loser parents. Ticket/fine people for being poor parents – nothing else has worked.

  17. David Esrati August 28, 2009 / 6:32 am

    @Robert- we pay property taxes because we don’t live on an island by ourselves. Taxes fund infrastructure- that supports our homes. Building roads, sewers, water distribution systems, police, fire- it’s all pretty basic. Sorry you don’t understand that.

    As to not licensing teachers- why not stop licensing Realtors too- or better yet- Doctors. Licensing standards are there for a reason. Or do you want me operating on you one day- ’cause I watched ER for 17 years and now think I’m a doctor too?

    On the unions, private schools- etc. Sure, unions hurt themselves by protecting bad teachers, but, they also protect themselves from working for $18K a year. Charter schools haven’t proven themselves to be better by not having unions or licensed teachers. Our education system needs help- but not your kind.

    @Gene- I actually agree with you about limits on having children. The system doesn’t work when it pays for every new mouth for the poor. However, we’re also afraid of distributing family planning, paying for abortions or sterilizations- can’t have it both ways. Once on welfare- birth control should be mandatory.  Sounds draconian, but, if I don’t have money- I don’t go buy a color tv- and kids cost more than $100K lifetime expense.

    Thank you all for the level of discourse. Although, @robert v your ultra libertarian views don’t mesh with reality. Sorry.

  18. David Lauri August 28, 2009 / 11:40 am
    Hmm, from David E’s last comment, looks like my “Why don’t we license kids too?” comment on the dog/cat licensing post was rather apropos.
  19. Robert Vigh August 28, 2009 / 1:12 pm
    David Esrati,

    About 54% of my property tax goes to schools. Another 27 to the county and the balance to parks, libraries, fire etc. So my point is very valid in arguing public funded schools are propped greatly on property taxes and will be a huge hurdle to get unigov. I understand David, just from a different perspective. David and a few others really need to stop with the dismissive comments, I understand trust me.

    Glad you brought up licenses for Doctors and realtors, cause getting rid of them is a great idea. It sounds scary at first, but if you need heart surgery, you would go to an accredited and licensed doctor. Thus make it a marketable atrribute as opposed to compulsory. If you needed a bandaid, you could go anywhere. Dropping licenses in the medical field would increase supply and drop prices and more services would be available to the poor.

    Charter schools still receive state funds and are competing with government subsidized systems, so they are not a full on accurate comparison to private schools….. So if someone wants to work for 18K, they should not be allowed too? Unions serve a purpose, but you have to see when they are bullies and when they are proponents of a profession.

    The licensing of kids you talk about: These “libertarian” ideas basically make that happen without draconian laws forcing abortions or birth control. It is a different approach based on the societal financial reward mechanisms to encourage behavior.

    Regarding my Ultra libertarian views: It would be a huge shock to the system to just all of a sudden go there. Like, democratic/socialist today………bam Libertarian tomorrow!!! lol. That I agree with. But the entire purpose of arguing the extreme case is to lay a platform to show a society based in that format would function and would function well. If that is discussed and shown, then people would realize that making general moves in that direction are acceptable. I guess this would have been a good paragraph to introduce myself with, but it is certainly a viable solution.

    Gene,
    The nature of our system enhances the opportunities for corruption and incompetence. Privatizing things has a tendency to root that out. So, yes I am enthusiastic and I am in agreement with most of your posts. But, I am looking for most of the same objectives, just from starting from………..well ….out there I guess. Regarding that you would pay more taxes for Sinclair, what if you paid less taxes and donate more?

    Joe,
    Ill get you later, requires some word formulation and time, but work calls.

  20. Gene August 28, 2009 / 1:40 pm
    I always believe in less taxes. We have so much waste that if we eliminate most of the government garbage programs my taxes would be lower and I would allow my current taxes plus a buck to have Sinclair take over the absolutely pathetic and incompetent DPSs. Eliminating public education will never happen, so I don’t bother to comment. Making them better can happen. I actually agree in getting rid of public schools, but the fact remains that will never happen. So with that I am trying to work within the system. We need public schools to be much much better. And having discussions regarding the elimination is like talking about David Esrati being President of the United States or the Bengals winning the Super Bowl – these things will never ever happen, so why bother talking about them, unless you are swilling at the bar having fun with the whole thing.

    Taxes are a joke, and what they are used for is even a bigger joke, and the people who decide all of it are the biggest jokes of all.

    If taxes were better used and who decides that were better/smarter/ more fair people then taxes may not be such a joke. Kinda simple.

    Maybe everyone should pay a flat tax for schools (say $200/year) and the balance of the remaining taxes needed can be charged to the parents of the kids attending those worthless schools. People would have less kids if they had to pay for their schooling, or they might take it a little more serious.

    Cut welfare checks by 75% – heck, most just buy booze and smokes with the cash we give them. Ohh no, here it comes, the “your mean, your racist” comments. Just mean, bc what we are doing now is a complete and total failure. You want real change, do that and you will see real/fair change.

  21. David Lauri August 28, 2009 / 10:52 pm
    People would have less kids if they had to pay for their schooling, or they might take it a little more serious.
     
    Just like people had fewer kids before there were public schools?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *