From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:55:45 GMT


In article <1992Oct09.152047.25890@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>The other issue is teaching superstitious mumbo-jumbo to children before
>>they've had a chance to develop their bullshit detectors.  I think it's
>>immoral to lay that mind-trip on them.  You can teach your children
>>whatever you want, but I think publicly-funded schools should be 
>>restricted to teaching factual information.

In article <1527@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>John, Christianity is not a superstition. Jesus did walk the earth.
>The question is: Do you believe that He is your savior?

I wonder if you would be so quick to defend Christian schools if you
were a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, or an atheist.

>And I agree. I don't think private schools should receive government
>money. They're private, after all. But, of course, you're saying that
>through tax exemptions they are.  First of all, let's exclude
>non-religious private schools from our discussion. I think we both
>agree that they should not receive public funds. Now, on to the
>religious ones.  I don't think that a school run by a church receives
>public funds just because the church is tax-exempt. The school is not
>a business. No one profits monetarily from it.

Huh? As far as I can tell, giving public funds to a school or church
is virtually identical to not taking funds from them in the form of
taxes. The bookkeeping may be different, but the result is the same.

And are you sure no one profits monetarily? After all, if they
consistently avoided profit, then they wouldn't be paying many taxes
anyway, and hence they wouldn't need a tax break, right?

I think the real answer is that many private religious schools are
quite profitable, and make money which is put into investments and
endowments for future expansion. They don't get the money for new
buildings and sports facilities and computers entirely from charitable
contributions, you know.

IMHO, churches and private schools (or churches with schools, or
whatever) are BUSINESSES. They provide a service to their customers
and charge a consistent fee for it. Perhaps all charitable (i.e.
non-tuition) revenue could be considered tax-exempt, but tuition money
should be treated just like any other revenue.

Charities, on the other hand, provide a service and charge nothing (or
nearly nothing) for it, and make most of their money from charitable
contribution.

>This makes me wonder how fair it is to those parents of children who
>are in private schools who still have to pay education tax.
>Or to those who have no children.

Good question. I suppose the simple answer is that public schools
would no longer be public schools if only their users paid for them.
Then they'd be publically-funded private schools, in a sense. It seems
to me like childless property owners should get a break though.

-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "I want to Krazy Glue my head to the bottom of a BIIIG           #
#      steel girder!" - Weird Al Yankovic                              #