<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>I think parents should take on a higher cost of their children's education. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There was a time when everyone had lots of children, so it made sense that every gave so much to education. But now not everyone has so many children, or any children at all. The cost of education is huge, especially with parents demanding everything little service for their children from pampers to college degree. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think parents in the top 25% income bracket should have to pay 100% of the costs of their children. I think parents in the middle 50% bracket should have to pay 50% of the cost on the first two children they have. The bottom 25% should have to pay 25% of cost of their first two children. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This would make parents responsible in both the academic wellbeing of their children, but also share in the costs of how the government spends its limited resources. They want a new program, they want a new bus, they want a gym? OK, but match the taxpayer in their commitment to your child's education. If no ones is on the line for the cost of a school bus or new jungle gym bars, the costs go from a $70,000 for a good used soild bus, to one that $185,000 brand new with every single feature to take kids just two miles a day. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I also think the funding should be collected and spent on a statewide basis, not on a county by county basis which has huge disparities in income and quality of life standards, as well as the number of children. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Donovan</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <BR><BR>--- On <B>Fri, 3/20/09, Kenneth Marcy <I><kmmos1@verizon.net></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1@verizon.net><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] school funding<BR>To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 3:38 PM<BR><BR><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>On Friday 20 March 2009 14:06:38 JLBrown wrote:<BR>> On a different note: do folks think it is time to re-visit how we fund our<BR>> public schools? Below is Marty Trillhaase's column from a couple of days<BR>> ago.<BR><BR>Yes. Better economic activities make local goods available in exchange for <BR>non-local dollars brought to a locality. Rescinding tax-favored property <BR>status for out-of-state owners would bring dollars into the state to lessen <BR>the amount of internal funds necessary.<BR><BR>Encourage those college-educated taxpayers with student loans outstanding to <BR>stay in Idaho to work by granting an Idaho income tax deduction for some <BR>percentage of the interest paid on student loan repayment during the tax <BR>year. I have not done calculations to determine the overall net revenue <BR>effect, but I suspect that such a benefit would encourage enough students to <BR>stay in Idaho who would
otherwise move elsewhere that the net Idaho revenue <BR>would be positive.<BR><BR>Another problem related to Idaho school funding is that some towns, often <BR>smaller ones, have populations whose ages skew toward older, fixed-income <BR>adults. Such folks may feel less inclined to support local schools than <BR>younger residents with school-aged children, with the result that local <BR>maintenance and operations levies are more difficult to pass. A possible way <BR>to offset this problem would be to create a senior resident education <BR>equalization that would adjust the state-to-local transfers to school <BR>districts so as to offset inter-district funding differences based on higher <BR>percentage older local populations.<BR><BR>More generally, we should recognize that those who earn higher business <BR>incomes are benefiting from the availability of better-educated Idahoans, and <BR>those higher business incomes should be asked to contribute to the
continuing <BR>supply of better educated Idahoans. Economic progress is better facilitated <BR>with progressive tax structures and rates. Regressively foisting the larger <BR>portion of education funding onto the backs of less prosperous Idahoans is <BR>not only less equitable, it is economically inefficient in supplying the <BR>workers businesses need and the jobs families want to provide for themselves.<BR><BR><BR>Ken<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR> <A href="http://www.fsr.net/" target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A> <BR> mailto:<A href="http://us.mc381.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>