I do not have children, and I never will, yet my property taxes still go toward paying for schools. I’m happy to have my taxes pay for roads, infastructure improvement, fire, police, and all the other municipal services that benefit me as a resident of the county.

The government needs to determine the cost of educating a child from kindergarten to high school, divide this by 18, and apply it as a yearly tax to parents. Children deserve an education, but children also put an additional strain on society. I should not be forced to pay for someone else’s decision to procreate.

  • SbisasCostlyTurnover
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    This isn’t just an unpopular opinion as much as it’s a deeply unpleasant one. We all pay taxes for things we likely don’t need, it’s called living in a society.

    Education kids is literally the most important thing we can do to maintain said society. Those ‘additional strains’ go on to become Doctors, Police Officers, Firefighters, Infrastructure engineers and (um) people that work in municipal services to help you, the tax payer. Strip away that education and wham! Guess who’s just signed up to losing access to all of those things in 30 years (and let me tell ya, in 30 years time… you’re gonna want that support Bob).

    • corroded@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not for a second arguing against public education, and I believe that schools should be properly funded.

      In most cases, having children is a choice (rape is abhorrent but I realize it does happen). There is birth control, sterilization surgery, various methods of contraception, and in states that aren’t republican shitholes, abortion.

      Yes, I’ll benefit from educated adults, but if someone decides to have a child, they should be responsible for raising them into adulthood. If I decide I want to buy a piece of land and turn it into a public area, plenty of people will benefit, but it’s still my land that I chose to buy, and all costs associated with it are my responsibility.

      • Bruno Finger@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You may also have perfect health not need public health service yet you pay for it.

        You may not have a car and not need access to public roads yet you pay for it.

      • SbisasCostlyTurnover
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you make it so that education is paid for by parents and parents alone you’re going to find there’s a lot less people willing to run the already incredibly difficult gauntlet of parenthood, not to mention you’ll end up in a place where only the wealthy can risk becoming parents, which is a nightmare in itself.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What about other people who don’t drive cars or will never use police or fire services? Their tax money is paying for things they won’t (but you will) use too. Driving a car is a choice.

        Furthermore, your 'developing land for public use" comment is off-base too considering your local government will likely build roads and other infrastructure to said property paid for with tax money. So once again, other people are paying for services that benefit you.

        Finally, if you’re unwilling to pay for education, does that mean you are willing to pay more for jails and prisons? That’s likely where a generation of kids who don’t receive an education will end up. Do you think your tax money is better invested there and do you think jails will produce more productive members of society than school would?

      • hiddengoat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact that you equate children with property shows precisely what kind of incel-tier shitbag you are.

        Be better.