.I’m not pretending. I agree with you. What I don’t understand is how that has any bearing on this argument. You seem to be arguing that its impossible to change the system. In education its entirely possible.

I know it can be a difficult having a few conversations at once, so I guess that what might have happened here.

The only point I am making is that this:

“Why should parents have to pay twice to send their children to school?”

is based on a misunderstanding of how the tax and public education systems actually work. Which makes it factually incorrect, but quite good, (though dishonest), rhetoric. If we are in agreement on that, then good.

I haven’t said anything about the status quo being perfect or impossible to change, so I’m a bit confused on that point. I think if you want to change it though, pretending that parents are ‘paying twice’ for their children’s education, makes it look like you need dishonest rhetoric to make the case.

I’m not pretending. I agree with you. What I don’t understand is how that has any bearing on this argument. You seem to be arguing that its impossible to change the system. In education its entirely possible.

Exbretheren,

Your argument seems to be along the same line as Pascal. The state education system is based upon the presumption that all children are the same, of course they are not, so it makes sense to have different schools for different kids. The current system does not allow for this (if you can’t afford private education).

NubbleTrubble

I’m not attacking the tax system. I’m attacking the way education is currently funded. A voucher system would be much more effective for reasons outlined above.

No it isn’t.

What’s ridiculous is pretending that there is an actual identifiable ‘segment of their taxes’ that is paying for ‘their children’s education’ when that is not how either general taxation, or the public education system that is funded out it, work.

The education system is based on free education being available for all. Fee paying schools are clearly not part of a universal free education system, this is why I believe they should fund themselves.

Whilst I don’t dispute that the BTDS & SWPK would have low rolls, this doesn’t alter that fact that I can’t see why they or any other opt out school should be funded. Edit: except in the case of a special needs school.

This is true but I don’t see the relevance. If your trying to suggest that I believe people who have no children should not pay for education – your wrong.

“Saying that people should have their choice of education paid for could lead to some pretty dodgy institutions being funded.”

People aren’t capable of making the ‘right’ decisions so let the government make them?

I would have thought a parent is much better equipped to make the ‘right’ decisions than the one size fits all government approach.

Yes some parents will make dodgy decisions – but this is much better than forcing children to go to one school, a school which may or may not fit their needs. I think you’d find that the ‘Brian Tamaki Destiny School’ or the ‘Socialist Worker Party kindergarten would have pretty low enrollment rates.

Do you believe that all children should be forced to go to their local school?

The school zoning rules clearly do not say that. What they say is that everyone from within a school’s zone must be accepted.

A lot of schools don’t have zones, so you’d be able to send your kids to any one of those schools. There is absolutely no way that anyone is forced to send their kids to a particular school.

as I said before not everyone has children but they still basically pay the same taxes, from which the education system is funded.

Saying that people should have their choice of education paid for could lead to some pretty dodgy institutions being funded. How about the Brian Tamaki Destiny School or the Socialist Worker Party Kindergarten?

Any school outside the state system should have to fund its own way fully. If they want the money then they can opt in.

“And pop goes your ‘paying twice’ argument.”

So people don’t pay twice for education because the segment of their taxes that goes to education is not itemized? That’s a bit ridiculous.

“If you choose not to use some of the things that being a citizen entitles you to, then that in no way ‘entitles’ you to a tax cut. That’s not how the system works, good job too, IMHO.”

No its not how the system works, but how is this a good thing? Its an inefficient system. There are many cases where this is unavoidable – but in education it has a simple fix. To defend the status quo simply on the basis that it is the status quo is silly.

“Correct, they aren’t.”

And pop goes your ‘paying twice’ argument.

It’s as silly as saying that the government spends ‘taxpayer’s money’. It’s a nice rhetorical trick, I’ll grant you, but the money ceases being ‘the taxpayer’s’ when it gets paid as a tax. You don’t get anything by virtue of being a ‘tax payer’. You get them by virtue of being a citizen. It’s a quite important point, historically speaking.

If you choose not to use some of the things that being a citizen entitles you to, then that in no way ‘entitles’ you to a tax cut. That’s not how the system works, good job too, IMHO.

If you choose to opt out of the state system you have to pay for your alternative.

Those are big claims. Please justify.

“Taxes aren’t itemized individual accounts for each citizen that determine what they are, and are not, entitled to. Nor are they itemized as to what they have paid for. That’s a nonsense, and you know it, but a useful enough one for rhetoric I suppose.”

Correct, they aren’t. I just extended the analogies that you bought in. But a bit of a red herring to be honest. Our taxes do go to education, now if I’m paying for education privately, why should I have to pay again through taxes?

Don’t really know. I do know that silly little questions based around fundamentally flawed ideas about taxes aren’t likely to be helpful in finding out though.

Taxes aren’t itemized individual accounts for each citizen that determine what they are, and are not, entitled to. Nor are they itemized as to what they have paid for. That’s a nonsense, and you know it, but a useful enough one for rhetoric I suppose.

Confusing the rhetorical construct with reality is less than honest IMHO.

I’m guessing multiple billions, why are you quibbling about $35 million over the same time period – instead of partisan hackery perhaps you’d like to consider the areas of increased and decreased funding in more depth ?

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/Budget/Budget2009/EducationSavings.aspx