Q
Queenie60
Guest
The rich can afford to pay more for public services than the poor.
If they made all pay the same tax the poorest wouldn't have money for food.
With the current scaled tax obligation, the rich have less money for ... uhm ... luxuries.
I prefer how it is now, but then I'm not in that unmentionable political party.
But also there's this ... the higher prop taxes in wealthier neighborhoods mean their local public schools get more money.
So, when little Jonny and Susie go to better schools they grow up to earn more money.
This way the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer ... the American way.![]()
The rich can afford to pay more for public services than the poor.
If they made all pay the same tax the poorest wouldn't have money for food.
With the current scaled tax obligation, the rich have less money for ... uhm ... luxuries.
I prefer how it is now, but then I'm not in that unmentionable political party.
But also there's this ... the higher prop taxes in wealthier neighborhoods mean their local public schools get more money.
So, when little Jonny and Susie go to better schools they grow up to earn more money.
This way the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer ... the American way.![]()
![]()
This is why school choice is a better option. And personally, I would not send my children to the “government“ schools based on their teachings regardless of property tax dollars being shuffled in via the “wealthy” neighborhoods. And yes, why shouldn’t those who work hard have the ability to have luxuries? You’re on a diamond forum for Gods sake.