Who to the what now?

[Greenday]

Child tax.

You mean people who use stuff would have to pay for it and those who don't use it wouldn't have to waste their money?

Brilliant!

[Boozy]

If you believe that every member of society, including the childless, don't benefit from a strong state-funded education system, I don't know what to tell you. That's very narrow-minded and short-sighted.

[Rageaholic]

The law, which was passed by a legislature and signed by an executive official, was sure thought worthy of that type of jail time.

Because executive officials never make unfair or unreasonable laws.

[AdminAssistant]

How would you fund it?

Sales tax? Income tax? A state education tax? Pool all the money in the state, and then redistribute based on factors like the number of students enrolled in each district. Look, I had friends in NW Arkansas (Wal-Mart territory) who had working TV stations at their high schools. There are schools near where I'm from (the poorer Delta region) that didn't have working heat or air conditioning. I'm sorry, that's fucked up. The quality of public education shouldn't be based on the income of the residents.

[Andara Bledin]

The quality of public education shouldn't be based on the income of the residents.

This. A million times this. All attendants of public schools should have as equal facilities and curriculums as it is possible to provide. That some schools are barely this side of being condemned is unconscionable.

^-.-^

[RecoveringKinkoid]

If you believe that every member of society, including the childless, don't benefit from a strong state-funded education system, I don't know what to tell you. That's very narrow-minded and short-sighted.

Exactly. Which is why I accepted it when I was getting taxed for schools I thought at the time I'd never use personally.

And, taking it a step further, also the reason I'm not going to get too upset over someone avoiding a lousy school district. Not only would I rather all kids get as good an education as possible, but it's not like the kid in the wrong district hasn't been paid for (many times over, probably). If you tax everyone's income, than you have more people being taxed than will directly send a kid to that school. Hence the homeless lady's kid has been paid for to go to that school.

That poor kid and his mom are already working at a considerable handicap. And now someone's even considering making it even tougher on the both of them over an imagined "inequality"? Shameful. That's a broken ass law, right there. Instead of victimizing a helpless mom, maybe some of these people ought to be spending their time working out what's wrong with this picture.

[FArchivist]

Child tax.

Well, that's truly going to beat the hell out of the poor and those who can't afford health care. Especially if Republicans get their way on pro-life.

Because executive officials never make unfair or unreasonable laws.

On the whole, I find that to be correct.

Sales tax? Income tax? A state education tax? Pool all the money in the state, and then redistribute based on factors like the number of students enrolled in each district.

While I understand the frustration, each time such a suggestion comes up, it gets knocked right back down. Why? Because it's seen as a) a threat to local control of education and b) the intrusion of state or federal government into where it does not belong, and c) as being unfairly weighted towards the lower classes. It's just not going to happen.

[Hyena Dandy]

If I understand it, incredibly rough penalties for small things are not really related to the crime. From the theory as I've heard it, nobody who says you can get up to twenty years for that really intends for you to be put in prison for up to twenty years for that. The idea is that its put in in case they have something else, and want you put away for something else, and they can only get you on this. Like Capone, yeah?

So I don't think she WILL be put in prison for 20 years for this.

as being unfairly weighted towards the lower classes.

Reminds me of something I read on the blog Slacktivist. While I don't agree with everything Fred (the blogger) says, and its something he said about gay marriage, it really rings true here. People who are used to being catered to will accuse you of trying to hurt them if you try to give it to someone else as well.

[Nyoibo]

Well, that's truly going to beat the hell out of the poor and those who can't afford health care. Especially if Republicans get their way on pro-life.

Huh, how so and what now?

[Plaidman]

Huh, how so and what now?

Typically the poorer/less educatied one is, the more kids they have. They already cant afford to pay for their kids and food, (Which is why alot are on welfare). Forcing them to pay even more taxes based on the fact they have more children then childless to send them to school means they are being /unfairly/ targeted.

Not the fact that they were fucking dumb enough to have enough unprotected sex to become pregnet, but were dumb enough to keep doing it to have more kids they couldn't afford to in the first place, espeaclly if they were on welfare so they get even more money.

They couldn't afford their taxes before having a child tax, what makes ya think they can suddenly do so if there was a child tax.

And if pro-life went into effect, then they'd never be allowed to have an abortion.

[Rageaholic]

On the whole, I find that to be correct.

Than explain why this woman deserves 20 years in prison for this. Surely if the law is correct, there would be a good justification for her to go to jail.

[Andara Bledin]

When she gets 20 years, I'll consider the question. Until then, it's spinning wheels over nothing.

^-.-^

[Plaidman]

Than explain why this woman deserves 20 years in prison for this. Surely if the law is correct, there would be a good justification for her to go to jail.

The twenty years is the MAXIMAL time she'd serve, not the minimal or only time. She'd likely just get a slap on the hand and given community service.

Goverment doesn't like it when they belive someone stolen their money, and sadily, it's what it seems like on paper to them.

It sucks, it's wrong, and bullshit. But paper is all that matters to them.

[FArchivist]

Than explain why this woman deserves 20 years in prison for this. Surely if the law is correct, there would be a good justification for her to go to jail.

By sending her child to a school that was not authorized to receive said child, the tax money that should have gone to other students was wrongly spent on this child. That's theft, specifically, theft from every household in the school district that pays property taxes.

So if there are 500 such households, that'd be 500 counts of theft I'd be considering...