The teachers I've known all earn their pay. Many, many extra hours while school is in session, and every one of them I've known has spent a lot of time working over their summer "break." I generally average 40-45 hours a week, year round, and I do not doubt that most (good) teachers work more hours per year than I do.
unintended consequences of school bond vote
- Thread starter pb
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
^agreed. Teachers are an easy target in place of the failed policies, parenting and teaching of a vast majority of baby boomers. Like locusts, they came, ravaged, made a mess, but now dont want to be responsible.
Then you get a fairly uneducated, clueless next generation, whose prospects have been sold to China by their parents, and yet who have to foot the bill.
But they were taught to throw money at the problem and blame someone else. So the teachers get the blame, the spending spree perpetuates at the top levels, and has to go to feeding the boomers' pensions, which they then try to degrade by the currently producing population...
And so it goes on and on.
Then you get a fairly uneducated, clueless next generation, whose prospects have been sold to China by their parents, and yet who have to foot the bill.
But they were taught to throw money at the problem and blame someone else. So the teachers get the blame, the spending spree perpetuates at the top levels, and has to go to feeding the boomers' pensions, which they then try to degrade by the currently producing population...
And so it goes on and on.
People that can force money out of your wallet have little incentive to use it efficiently.
People that get something for free have little incentive to wonder how efficiently that something is run.
Parents have no say in what goes on in their kids school, much less a say in which school they can actually go to. This does not engender a sense of involvement but rather apathy.
Until parents have a real choice in their kid's education, and the providers of that education have real consequences associated with the product they are providing, education quality will continue to lag with prices ever on the increase.
People that get something for free have little incentive to wonder how efficiently that something is run.
Parents have no say in what goes on in their kids school, much less a say in which school they can actually go to. This does not engender a sense of involvement but rather apathy.
Until parents have a real choice in their kid's education, and the providers of that education have real consequences associated with the product they are providing, education quality will continue to lag with prices ever on the increase.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
People that can force money out of your wallet have little incentive to use it efficiently.
People that get something for free have little incentive to wonder how efficiently that something is run.
Parents have no say in what goes on in their kids school, much less a say in which school they can actually go to. This does not engender a sense of involvement but rather apathy.
Until parents have a real choice in their kid's education, and the providers of that education have real consequences associated with the product they are providing, education quality will continue to lag with prices ever on the increase.
Precisely.
Taxpayers pay through the nose for increasingly dismal results. I don't see teachers quitting in droves because the work is so tough.
I will say this for them - they can act as downright dirty and thuggish as any other union group. Not that that is anything to be proud of.
People that can force money out of your wallet have little incentive to use it efficiently.
People that get something for free have little incentive to wonder how efficiently that something is run.
Parents have no say in what goes on in their kids school, much less a say in which school they can actually go to. This does not engender a sense of involvement but rather apathy.
Until parents have a real choice in their kid's education, and the providers of that education have real consequences associated with the product they are providing, education quality will continue to lag with prices ever on the increase.
Precisely.
Taxpayers pay through the nose for increasingly dismal results. I don't see teachers quitting in droves because the work is so tough.
I will say this for them - they can act as downright dirty and thuggish as any other union group. Not that that is anything to be proud of.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Parents have no say in what goes on in their kids school, much less a say in which school they can actually go to. This does not engender a sense of involvement but rather apathy.
Hogwash. That is purely POOR, POOR parenting, and nothing else. If the supposed "no say" on what goes on is the case, the parents that are good ones should be more interested in being involved. Anyone who becomes apathetic is merely an idiot and breeding more idiots, which are the true problem in the society.
Plus, while some things may be "engineered learning", the reality is that the basics that are truly important: reading, comprehension, math and most sciences are what they are. Calculus and algebra and chemistry do not change because you disagree with someone on the school board or whomever is in whatever other office.
There surely are bad eggs in any bunch, and there are some policies that may not be the optimal in long-term stability. Of course much of that is also based in jealousy because some benefits that others were raped of in the interest of profits to the money handlers have been retained longer in education and other public service. But that too is changing all around whether you care to see it or not.
There is no free for all. In the 5 Nov election, many local questions related to school funding and expenditures were voted down, even in the richest districts.
Parents have no say in what goes on in their kids school, much less a say in which school they can actually go to. This does not engender a sense of involvement but rather apathy.
Hogwash. That is purely POOR, POOR parenting, and nothing else. If the supposed "no say" on what goes on is the case, the parents that are good ones should be more interested in being involved. Anyone who becomes apathetic is merely an idiot and breeding more idiots, which are the true problem in the society.
Plus, while some things may be "engineered learning", the reality is that the basics that are truly important: reading, comprehension, math and most sciences are what they are. Calculus and algebra and chemistry do not change because you disagree with someone on the school board or whomever is in whatever other office.
There surely are bad eggs in any bunch, and there are some policies that may not be the optimal in long-term stability. Of course much of that is also based in jealousy because some benefits that others were raped of in the interest of profits to the money handlers have been retained longer in education and other public service. But that too is changing all around whether you care to see it or not.
There is no free for all. In the 5 Nov election, many local questions related to school funding and expenditures were voted down, even in the richest districts.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Hogwash. That is purely POOR, POOR parenting, and nothing else. If the supposed "no say" on what goes on is the case, the parents that are good ones should be more interested in being involved. Anyone who becomes apathetic is merely an idiot and breeding more idiots, which are the true problem in the society.
If the child is forced to go to a poor school, then what exactly is a parent supposed to do? People get put in jail because they sign up their kids in the "unapproved" school in the hopes that their kids might get a better education.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-mom-jailed-sending-kids-school-district/story?id=12763654
Quote:
Plus, while some things may be "engineered learning", the reality is that the basics that are truly important: reading, comprehension, math and most sciences are what they are. Calculus and algebra and chemistry do not change because you disagree with someone on the school board or whomever is in whatever other office.
Are you saying that there is a universal agreement as to what and how things should be taught? I would highly disagree.
The best people to determine what a child's needs are, are the parents. The people on the education board and the people that fund them cannot know what each individual child needs, and what the families' values are. They don't even know they exist.
If parents can't remove a child from a situation they believe to be poor, there really isn't an reason to put a lot of effort into paying attention to the school and it simply becomes a free daycare service.
Plus, the very real ousting of famous teacher Jaime Escalante as well as the director of the DC school district, Rhee, by the unions, indicates that improving the education of students isn't the primary focus of public schools.
Hogwash. That is purely POOR, POOR parenting, and nothing else. If the supposed "no say" on what goes on is the case, the parents that are good ones should be more interested in being involved. Anyone who becomes apathetic is merely an idiot and breeding more idiots, which are the true problem in the society.
If the child is forced to go to a poor school, then what exactly is a parent supposed to do? People get put in jail because they sign up their kids in the "unapproved" school in the hopes that their kids might get a better education.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-mom-jailed-sending-kids-school-district/story?id=12763654
Quote:
Plus, while some things may be "engineered learning", the reality is that the basics that are truly important: reading, comprehension, math and most sciences are what they are. Calculus and algebra and chemistry do not change because you disagree with someone on the school board or whomever is in whatever other office.
Are you saying that there is a universal agreement as to what and how things should be taught? I would highly disagree.
The best people to determine what a child's needs are, are the parents. The people on the education board and the people that fund them cannot know what each individual child needs, and what the families' values are. They don't even know they exist.
If parents can't remove a child from a situation they believe to be poor, there really isn't an reason to put a lot of effort into paying attention to the school and it simply becomes a free daycare service.
Plus, the very real ousting of famous teacher Jaime Escalante as well as the director of the DC school district, Rhee, by the unions, indicates that improving the education of students isn't the primary focus of public schools.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If the child is forced to go to a poor school, then what exactly is a parent supposed to do?
Huh? Forced? By who? Last I checked anyone was free to move wherever they desired.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you saying that there is a universal agreement as to what and how things should be taught? I would highly disagree.
The techniques used for the last 100 years have worked very well for those who desire for them to work. Apparently you know better though since the administrators and teachers dont, so prey tell what the correct approach is... LOL.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The best people to determine what a child's needs are, are the parents. The people on the education board and the people that fund them cannot know what each individual child needs, and what the families' values are. They don't even know they exist.
No kidding, note what I said. You go off quoting and rebutting what I say, but that's what my premise was. If parents cant make lemonade from lemons, then it is THEIR fault. They are free to move elsewhere. Or to get an IDP for the kid, which is exactly what others seem to have issues with as it increases that child's costs of education SUBSTANTIALLY and far beyond what their tax burden can support.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If parents can't remove a child from a situation they believe to be poor, there really isn't an reason to put a lot of effort into paying attention to the school and it simply becomes a free daycare service.
Who is forcing them to live there? Nobody, right? Where one lives is just like employment - nobody is forcing them to be there, and they can move on and go elsewhere if desired. Of course homeschooling is also an option. My cousins are doing that right now, and getting by just fine in a state with some of the top schools and high taxes. Surely others can too, no? Or they can move to LA (Lower Alabama) pay $400/yr in taxes and afford to do the same, right?
If the child is forced to go to a poor school, then what exactly is a parent supposed to do?
Huh? Forced? By who? Last I checked anyone was free to move wherever they desired.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Are you saying that there is a universal agreement as to what and how things should be taught? I would highly disagree.
The techniques used for the last 100 years have worked very well for those who desire for them to work. Apparently you know better though since the administrators and teachers dont, so prey tell what the correct approach is... LOL.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The best people to determine what a child's needs are, are the parents. The people on the education board and the people that fund them cannot know what each individual child needs, and what the families' values are. They don't even know they exist.
No kidding, note what I said. You go off quoting and rebutting what I say, but that's what my premise was. If parents cant make lemonade from lemons, then it is THEIR fault. They are free to move elsewhere. Or to get an IDP for the kid, which is exactly what others seem to have issues with as it increases that child's costs of education SUBSTANTIALLY and far beyond what their tax burden can support.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If parents can't remove a child from a situation they believe to be poor, there really isn't an reason to put a lot of effort into paying attention to the school and it simply becomes a free daycare service.
Who is forcing them to live there? Nobody, right? Where one lives is just like employment - nobody is forcing them to be there, and they can move on and go elsewhere if desired. Of course homeschooling is also an option. My cousins are doing that right now, and getting by just fine in a state with some of the top schools and high taxes. Surely others can too, no? Or they can move to LA (Lower Alabama) pay $400/yr in taxes and afford to do the same, right?
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Turk
Over $23,000 spent per student per year in Minneapolis and the Graduation rate is about 50%.
Proves more money does not = better performance.
Right. Parents taking interest in their kids' existence and education does. Some equate money to interest, but in these inner city and ghetto type places where the outcomes are poor, throwing money is not the answer.
Over $23,000 spent per student per year in Minneapolis and the Graduation rate is about 50%.
Proves more money does not = better performance.
Right. Parents taking interest in their kids' existence and education does. Some equate money to interest, but in these inner city and ghetto type places where the outcomes are poor, throwing money is not the answer.
A $58 million dollar school levy was recently passed here. This is in addition to the one that passed last year which I believe was a renewal. Both levies had failed in previous years. New buildings, football stadium will all be constructed. One of the buildings being replaced was built in the 20's. This area is upper middle class but growing pretty fast. I think the increase will be $137 per year on a $100k home.
I thought no way this thing would pass. But the oldest building was getting sewage back up, six times since June. Ever since the new McDonalds was built across the street. The roads and side walks around here are in bad shape. The mayor reminds me of boss hog.
I thought no way this thing would pass. But the oldest building was getting sewage back up, six times since June. Ever since the new McDonalds was built across the street. The roads and side walks around here are in bad shape. The mayor reminds me of boss hog.
Quote:
Huh? Forced? By who? Last I checked anyone was free to move wherever they desired.
So making people move their residence so as to attend a different school is acceptable? What other services should be limited based on your address? Should people have to move to go to a hospital? DMV? Work?
Quote:
Apparently you know better though since the administrators and teachers dont, so prey tell what the correct approach is... LOL.
There is no correct approach, which is the point.
Quote:
Of course homeschooling is also an option.
If parents aren't competent to choose a school for their kids, they can't be expected to be competent to educate their kids at home...
Huh? Forced? By who? Last I checked anyone was free to move wherever they desired.
So making people move their residence so as to attend a different school is acceptable? What other services should be limited based on your address? Should people have to move to go to a hospital? DMV? Work?
Quote:
Apparently you know better though since the administrators and teachers dont, so prey tell what the correct approach is... LOL.
There is no correct approach, which is the point.
Quote:
Of course homeschooling is also an option.
If parents aren't competent to choose a school for their kids, they can't be expected to be competent to educate their kids at home...
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So making people move their residence so as to attend a different school is acceptable? What other services should be limited based on your address? Should people have to move to go to a hospital? DMV? Work? .
People do for jobs all the time. It is well known from looking at any school district ranking workup by any state that the demographics and financial situation of the residents has a major part in the end results. So if someone cares to do better for their kids, they can move to a better district, or even a better state. Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, and exactly why homes in better school districts command higher prices.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
There is no correct approach, which is the point.
Well, the reality is that much of what is taught hasnt changed at all in the last 100+ years. 2+2 is still 4, 2*2 is still 4, and 2^2 is still 4 as well. Maybe some theories have changed, but in reality, while there are lots of failures, the knowledge coming out of the better students these days is far beyond what the product was even 30 years ago. For example, Calculus BC test, which equates to the second of three calculus levels in college, wasnt even introduced until 1969, and the ranks of kids taking it increase year over year. Calculus hasnt changed in that time, it isnt a "no child left behind" matter, so it is a good indication that kids that want to learn, will learn, and will excel, including with the current teaching theories and methods.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If parents aren't competent to choose a school for their kids, they can't be expected to be competent to educate their kids at home...
So which is it then? The administrators are useless, the teachers are all controlled by the union and dont care about outcomes, and the parents are too stupid to take matters into their own hands and have any active role (even if uncomfortable or difficult, or requiring some thought into long-term decisions). So there is no end solution, right? Oh sure, some for profit schooling company will be able to take over where parents who couldnt care less left off, for less money, and emply people other than the same teachers, educated in the same pipeline, right?
Perhaps we should offshore our education to China, no?
Personal responsibility... Say it with me... Personal responsibility... Parents taking an active and caring role in their kids' education... Parents are practically one on one... Teachers are maybe one to fifteen. Hmmmm, wonder how that ratio will work, even if it was all privatized in the magical and "always successful" private sector.
Hint: It wont. The poor and ghetto kids will still be left hanging, and the well to do kids will still excel and go on to good colleges and jobs. Because it is PARENTING, not throwing tax money or blaming teachers who have to overcome the parents' shortcomings.
So making people move their residence so as to attend a different school is acceptable? What other services should be limited based on your address? Should people have to move to go to a hospital? DMV? Work? .
People do for jobs all the time. It is well known from looking at any school district ranking workup by any state that the demographics and financial situation of the residents has a major part in the end results. So if someone cares to do better for their kids, they can move to a better district, or even a better state. Absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, and exactly why homes in better school districts command higher prices.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
There is no correct approach, which is the point.
Well, the reality is that much of what is taught hasnt changed at all in the last 100+ years. 2+2 is still 4, 2*2 is still 4, and 2^2 is still 4 as well. Maybe some theories have changed, but in reality, while there are lots of failures, the knowledge coming out of the better students these days is far beyond what the product was even 30 years ago. For example, Calculus BC test, which equates to the second of three calculus levels in college, wasnt even introduced until 1969, and the ranks of kids taking it increase year over year. Calculus hasnt changed in that time, it isnt a "no child left behind" matter, so it is a good indication that kids that want to learn, will learn, and will excel, including with the current teaching theories and methods.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If parents aren't competent to choose a school for their kids, they can't be expected to be competent to educate their kids at home...
So which is it then? The administrators are useless, the teachers are all controlled by the union and dont care about outcomes, and the parents are too stupid to take matters into their own hands and have any active role (even if uncomfortable or difficult, or requiring some thought into long-term decisions). So there is no end solution, right? Oh sure, some for profit schooling company will be able to take over where parents who couldnt care less left off, for less money, and emply people other than the same teachers, educated in the same pipeline, right?
Perhaps we should offshore our education to China, no?
Personal responsibility... Say it with me... Personal responsibility... Parents taking an active and caring role in their kids' education... Parents are practically one on one... Teachers are maybe one to fifteen. Hmmmm, wonder how that ratio will work, even if it was all privatized in the magical and "always successful" private sector.
Hint: It wont. The poor and ghetto kids will still be left hanging, and the well to do kids will still excel and go on to good colleges and jobs. Because it is PARENTING, not throwing tax money or blaming teachers who have to overcome the parents' shortcomings.
I remember our local district had an increase of 2.75% of their levy in 2011 and again in 2012, but wanted to make sure everyone knew that they "didn't raise taxes". Creative.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage soon.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage soon.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SevenBizzos
I remember our local district had an increase of 2.75% of their levy in 2011 and again in 2012, but wanted to make sure everyone knew that they "didn't raise taxes". Creative.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage soon.
Still, I cant really see how you can blame the teachers who educate the kids who will be the producers in the future. Its the boomers who set up these unsustainable situations for themselves, then raided the funds to pay for the beenfits, and snuck the bill to their kids and their kids kids...
For the teachers to be villified when the parents dont care and arent proactive in their childrens' education is just a sorry excuse. Yes, taxes are way high, but for a given number of pupils, you will always need a certain number of classrooms, teachers, heating/cooling, etc. If those expenses have increased, it doesnt mean to let it be a free for all, but its not because the teachers' union is trying to get a 1.5% COLA.
I remember our local district had an increase of 2.75% of their levy in 2011 and again in 2012, but wanted to make sure everyone knew that they "didn't raise taxes". Creative.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage soon.
Still, I cant really see how you can blame the teachers who educate the kids who will be the producers in the future. Its the boomers who set up these unsustainable situations for themselves, then raided the funds to pay for the beenfits, and snuck the bill to their kids and their kids kids...
For the teachers to be villified when the parents dont care and arent proactive in their childrens' education is just a sorry excuse. Yes, taxes are way high, but for a given number of pupils, you will always need a certain number of classrooms, teachers, heating/cooling, etc. If those expenses have increased, it doesnt mean to let it be a free for all, but its not because the teachers' union is trying to get a 1.5% COLA.
I'm sure I've outlined it before. Our community of about 25k people has THREE school districts. There is one district for the high school. There are two K-8 districts. One K-8 district was one school for the longest time. They finally split out the 6-8 into a new middle school.
But why do they need three school districts with three administrative staffs, etc?
Needless to say, the community voted against the tax increase being sought by the larger of the two K-8 districts.
It's a tough problem.
oilBabe is in one of the St. Louis area school districts getting students from other districts that lost accreditation. Normandy and Riverview Gardens lost their state accreditation and students in those districts could apply to transfer to districts selected by the unaccredited district.
So oilBabe's school is now taking students from other districts and is supposed to receive tuition payments from the sending school district.
It's not a perfect solution. But it does offer parents in an unaccredited district a option to send their children to measurably better schools.
But the other side of the coin is not all aspects of accreditation are under the control of the school district. Attendance and dropouts are really a parenting issue, not a teaching issue. Yet, as oilBabe describes it, the districts are measured on critera that go beyond a students test scores.
If I recall correctly, the schools are graded on:
Academic Achievement 56 points
Subgroup Achievement (Minority/Free|Reduced Lunch etc) 14 points
College and Career Ready 30 points
Attendance 10 points
Graduation Rate 30 points
Any district with less than a 50% is unaccredited. Provisional accreditation is 50-70% and over 70% is accredited.
So out of 140 points, 40 are largely out of the school districts control. The other 100 points or about 70 percent are largely influenced by the district.
But if parents don't care enough to make sure their kids go to school or stay in school, will they care enough to help with homework?
I just sat at the table tonight with my daughter doing French and Honors Algebra, while doing my Cisco CCNA homework
But how many parents can or will help their students like that?
We are quick to blame teachers. But how much of our education issues are parenting issues? Throwing more money at such a problem will not fix bad parents.
But why do they need three school districts with three administrative staffs, etc?
Needless to say, the community voted against the tax increase being sought by the larger of the two K-8 districts.
It's a tough problem.
oilBabe is in one of the St. Louis area school districts getting students from other districts that lost accreditation. Normandy and Riverview Gardens lost their state accreditation and students in those districts could apply to transfer to districts selected by the unaccredited district.
So oilBabe's school is now taking students from other districts and is supposed to receive tuition payments from the sending school district.
It's not a perfect solution. But it does offer parents in an unaccredited district a option to send their children to measurably better schools.
But the other side of the coin is not all aspects of accreditation are under the control of the school district. Attendance and dropouts are really a parenting issue, not a teaching issue. Yet, as oilBabe describes it, the districts are measured on critera that go beyond a students test scores.
If I recall correctly, the schools are graded on:
Academic Achievement 56 points
Subgroup Achievement (Minority/Free|Reduced Lunch etc) 14 points
College and Career Ready 30 points
Attendance 10 points
Graduation Rate 30 points
Any district with less than a 50% is unaccredited. Provisional accreditation is 50-70% and over 70% is accredited.
So out of 140 points, 40 are largely out of the school districts control. The other 100 points or about 70 percent are largely influenced by the district.
But if parents don't care enough to make sure their kids go to school or stay in school, will they care enough to help with homework?
I just sat at the table tonight with my daughter doing French and Honors Algebra, while doing my Cisco CCNA homework
But how many parents can or will help their students like that?
We are quick to blame teachers. But how much of our education issues are parenting issues? Throwing more money at such a problem will not fix bad parents.
JHZR2
Staff member
^well said java.
Some of the school districts around here just just bad. Violence in schools and a poor quality of education.
The problem is, NYS punishes the teacher if he/she has bad students. If two people don't give two cents about their child and just let it roam the streets, and it goes to school and does poorly ... guess who gets punished? The teacher.
Furthermore, those students ruin it for the otherwise bright students; they have to dumb down to the level of those who don't care and have parents who do not care.
House values in the city of Syracuse are still going down even though the housing market has somewhat recovered.
People are, quite literally, fleeing the city of Syracuse to the suburbs to get their children into schools. Not because of the quality of the teachers, but because of the deadbeat parents.
Of course, to correct that, they are now busing the problem children to the better districts outside of the city.
It's nuts.
However, it may help me find a house. I don't see myself having children.
The problem is, NYS punishes the teacher if he/she has bad students. If two people don't give two cents about their child and just let it roam the streets, and it goes to school and does poorly ... guess who gets punished? The teacher.
Furthermore, those students ruin it for the otherwise bright students; they have to dumb down to the level of those who don't care and have parents who do not care.
House values in the city of Syracuse are still going down even though the housing market has somewhat recovered.
People are, quite literally, fleeing the city of Syracuse to the suburbs to get their children into schools. Not because of the quality of the teachers, but because of the deadbeat parents.
Of course, to correct that, they are now busing the problem children to the better districts outside of the city.
It's nuts.
However, it may help me find a house. I don't see myself having children.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Im working on dumping my house ASAP...the property taxes are just too much & have nearly quadrupled in five years.
Its just not worth it anymore.
There are a lot of people in the northern suburbs of Syracuse that are having to do the same thing.
Property tax on some houses is, literally, $20K a year. These are $200K houses.
The Cicero-North Syracuse school district's budget is $129 million. Gotta get the money from somewhere.
When I get a house, I am going to have to stay within the city or move 15-20 miles outside of the city in order to have reasonable taxes. Granted, moving 15-20 miles out of the city will increase my commute costs, but I'd be saving so much in taxes that it would more than pay for gas.
Im working on dumping my house ASAP...the property taxes are just too much & have nearly quadrupled in five years.
There are a lot of people in the northern suburbs of Syracuse that are having to do the same thing.
Property tax on some houses is, literally, $20K a year. These are $200K houses.
The Cicero-North Syracuse school district's budget is $129 million. Gotta get the money from somewhere.
When I get a house, I am going to have to stay within the city or move 15-20 miles outside of the city in order to have reasonable taxes. Granted, moving 15-20 miles out of the city will increase my commute costs, but I'd be saving so much in taxes that it would more than pay for gas.
Originally Posted By: SevenBizzos
I remember our local district had an increase of 2.75% of their levy in 2011 and again in 2012, but wanted to make sure everyone knew that they "didn't raise taxes". Creative.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage soon.
I passed that point a long time ago; 15% of my mortgage payment goes to P&I, the other 85% go to taxes and insurance. On the tax bill, 2/3 of my payment goes to support a school district that had not one, but 2 schools sitting empty for almost 5 years because they had bond money to build, but not to staff.
I stopped voting for increased taxes for schools after 2 years in a row of "if you give us this increase, we promise we won't come back to ask for more for at least 5 years..." promises. Doesn't seem to make a difference though.
I remember our local district had an increase of 2.75% of their levy in 2011 and again in 2012, but wanted to make sure everyone knew that they "didn't raise taxes". Creative.
My taxes will be more than my mortgage soon.
I passed that point a long time ago; 15% of my mortgage payment goes to P&I, the other 85% go to taxes and insurance. On the tax bill, 2/3 of my payment goes to support a school district that had not one, but 2 schools sitting empty for almost 5 years because they had bond money to build, but not to staff.
I stopped voting for increased taxes for schools after 2 years in a row of "if you give us this increase, we promise we won't come back to ask for more for at least 5 years..." promises. Doesn't seem to make a difference though.
- Status
