I'm in as a childless adult, but will the local richy riches knock down any measure that increases taxes that would pay for such a worthy policy choice. Hell, those b*****ds won't accept a state income tax since they believe educated kids and good infrastructure can be created with mirrors.
What about people who might be reluctant to pay the cost because they don't have kids in the school system, or have kids at all?
A "use tax" is the dumbest fucking idea. If the state didn't provide these services, they'd get paid for anyway, in a way that means that the people paying the "use tax" got to use them.
All taxation should be progressive. The whole point of leveraging social pressure in the form of a tax is to force people with excess money to pay for things that people with insufficient money need.
I don't have kids. I probably will never have kids. I am exactly the person who should be strong-armed into paying for universal pre-school. Because I don't have kids, I don't need all of this fucking money that I'm making.
It's nice that the favored pedagogical model seems to allow interest to guide our tiniest students in at least part of their daily activities. But this is worth keeping a close eye on.
BUT there is such a thing as logistics and on that point, the City Council seems a bit tone deaf.
Especially Burgess who seems to think that there is some plethora of space in Seattle Schools. There is NO room at the inn. We don't even have room for the K-12 kids and are squishing/building/moving chess pieces around as fast as the district can.
Yes to Pre-K but the space - logical though it is to have them at existing schools - does NOT exist.
As a person who just put their kid through two years of pre-school, I highly recommend that Seattle run, not walk to this idea. The thing is, most of 'em won't learn THAT much, in terms of stuff you can test. Which is fine! Really what they are doing is learning how to learn, how to get along in a classroom environment. Then by the time they start Kindergarten they are champs. I have absolutely seen a difference between the kids in my kid's class who went to pre-school, and those who didn't. Across the board the pre-k kids are happier, better integrated socially and more confident. I had to pay for it, but it was some of the best money I ever spent. It should be available to all.
I have a ferret and am about to get another one. Farret proofing my entire house would be too expensive so I keep her in the master bedroom. Ferrets are great pets and I think society would benefit from taking care of them.
So, I propose a tax on everyone so ferret owners in Seattle, like myself, can have "free" ferret care. I'll be okay with childfree people like myself being taxed to take care of someone else's brats if you non-ferret owners are okay with being taxed to take care of my ferret. Deal?
And the comment "you don't use the fire department but still pay for it" is absurd. A fire is AN EMERGENCY. Have crotch dropplings isn't. Don't have money for pre-k, daycare etc? That's what birth control and abortion is for.
Fucking liberals.
Seattle Public Schools is considered essential in this partnership. District officials went on a trip with the Chamber of Commerce and city officials to visit preschools in Boston, New Jersey and Washington DC. SPS spent $14K on this junket and the state is under a court order to fund K-12. Why didn't the citu pay for this trip?
The city does not have funding for facilities and is dependent upon SPS. I'm not confident the city will reimburse SPS. Yet, we're seeing bloated administrative salaries. The director of preschool for all is expecting a salary of $200K per year.
Universal Pre K will be subsidizing families making $143K/ yr.
And I'm child free, if that matters.
This doesn't COST money, it SAVES money. Just do it.
A "use tax" is the dumbest fucking idea. If the state didn't provide these services, they'd get paid for anyway, in a way that means that the people paying the "use tax" got to use them.
All taxation should be progressive. The whole point of leveraging social pressure in the form of a tax is to force people with excess money to pay for things that people with insufficient money need.
I don't have kids. I probably will never have kids. I am exactly the person who should be strong-armed into paying for universal pre-school. Because I don't have kids, I don't need all of this fucking money that I'm making.
1) I have a job to keep and a career to grow, I need people making more money and spending more money.
2) I'd like to see crime and homelessness go down because I actually do stuff in the city.
3) I'd prefer it if there were stupid people around me.
BUT there is such a thing as logistics and on that point, the City Council seems a bit tone deaf.
Especially Burgess who seems to think that there is some plethora of space in Seattle Schools. There is NO room at the inn. We don't even have room for the K-12 kids and are squishing/building/moving chess pieces around as fast as the district can.
Yes to Pre-K but the space - logical though it is to have them at existing schools - does NOT exist.
Those bastards? You mean 65% of WA state, 55% of King County? Those bastards may be your best friend, be careful.
You know what would really save money? Figuring out why 70% of black children in Seattle are illegitimate.
So, I propose a tax on everyone so ferret owners in Seattle, like myself, can have "free" ferret care. I'll be okay with childfree people like myself being taxed to take care of someone else's brats if you non-ferret owners are okay with being taxed to take care of my ferret. Deal?
Fucking liberals.
The city does not have funding for facilities and is dependent upon SPS. I'm not confident the city will reimburse SPS. Yet, we're seeing bloated administrative salaries. The director of preschool for all is expecting a salary of $200K per year.
Universal Pre K will be subsidizing families making $143K/ yr.
I'm voting NO.