School taxes don’t always benefit those taxed
To the Editor:
Aubie Knight appears to be using a dictionary from an alternate universe when he describes the proposal to eliminate some school taxes on seniors as “unfair and illogical.” If I understand him correctly, it is both fair and logical to take money forcibly from citizens with no children in the school system and give it to citizens with children in the school system.
Our Bismarckian public school system is a socialist enterprise, a fact recognized by scholars on the left and the right. It is the most popular socialist program in the United States, followed closely by Social Security and public transportation projects. And why shouldn’t it be popular? It guarantees nice salaries for educators and administrators, shifts costs from the parents to the community at large, and helps to maintain property values.
But socialism is inherently unfair, shifting costs to those who do not benefit from the spending. And socialism inevitably results in mediocrity.
There is a rule of thumb, the 3-3-3 rule, useful in determining how long a human can survive without various necessities. It posits that in inclement weather a human can survive three hours without shelter, three days without water, and three weeks without food. But we are not asked to subsidize the housing, the water supply, or the food supply of our fellow citizens. Why should anyone, senior citizens especially, be asked to subsidize the education of the children of others?
Here is my rule of thumb: if you can’t afford children, don’t have them.
Printed in the July 19, 2012