Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down School Vouchers

Jeff Strickland wrote:

>>Every minute they spend being indoctrinated in religion, they aren't
>>learning something else.
>>
>
>
> You are so totally clueless. How do you even function?

But that particular statement is true.To what is your objection?


--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10teeg9nff2vfe0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi RemoveThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
> news:cr4t08$71vv$1@news3.infoave.net...
> >
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:10tb5pc88lobfe4@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi RemoveThis @comporium.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cr2b6i$5u67$1@news3.infoave.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:10t98afc73m7neb@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> > Anecdotal evidence of a few individuals - and unprovable anecdotes
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > that -
> >> >> > do not change the fact that most people trade up every few years .
> >> >> > If
> >> > they
> >> >> > didn;t could you explain the market for upscale homes, the used
home
> >> >> > market,
> >> >> > and how first time buyers can afford all of these luxury homes
being
> >> >> > built?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Unprovable? It's a matter of public record. Having access to the
> >> >> public
> >> >> record as a matter of my job, I happen to know without doubt that at
> >> >> least
> >> >> three of the homes my father has sold still belong to the families
he
> >> >> sold
> >> >> them to. I know without a doubt that my brother still lives in the
> > house
> >> >> that he and I bought from my father, and I still live in the house
my
> >> >> wife
> >> >> and I bought 15 years ago. Anecdotal, my ass.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course people buy and move up, but many many people buy a home
and
> >> >> live
> >> >> in it for the rest of their life. Being actively involved in real
> > estate,
> >> > I
> >> >> can say that most people do not move more than twice once they
settle
> >> >> into
> >> >> home ownership. Yes, there are notable exceptions to that statement.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Your logic making California the national example is flawed, too.
> > While
> >> >> > large, CA is still only 1 statem, and none of the other 49 have
this
> >> > rule.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, yes, CA is only one state. It is the most populous state
though,
> >> >> and
> >> >> it makes a reasonably good example of the point that we are trying
to
> >> >> illustrate.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
> >> > report
> >> > that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
> >> > acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
> >> > defeat.
> >> >
> >> > larry
> >> >
> >>
> >> Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
> >>
> >
> > So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a foll of
myself
> > in
> > public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
> >
> > Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
> >
> >
> >> 1. 20-somethings have babies that are not in school yet, or are perhaps
> >> in
> > K
> >> or 1st grade.
> >
> > And Kindergarten or first grade isn;t school??
> >
>
> Of course it is school, but 1, it is the first year or two of 12 years of
> schooling, and 2. these years represent practically none of the complaint
> areas with regards to public education.
>

Huh????? We were talking about who pays the most taxes to support schools -
homeowners with kids in school or everyone else Read what you wrote -
20-somethings have babies that are not in school yet, or are perhaps in K or
1st grade. You said 20-someth9ing have no school age kids or they have kids
in school.


>
>
> >> 2. 30-somethings are buying homes in record numbers.
> >
> > So what? Less than 2 in 3 own their home. From one of the links that you
> > cowardly deleted:
> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr304/q304tab7.html
> >
>
> You know, it doesn't help your argument to call people that have another
> view a coward. I deleted nothing. Your links are still available to
anybody
> that wants to read them, but they have very little to do with the issues
we
> were discussing when you provided them.
>

I call them as I see them. You deleted the links. Why?

> And, the question we were discussing was, why don't we simply give people
a
> tax break if they send their kids to private schools. The idea was that
this
> would be better than a voucher. The problem with this idea is precisely as
> you are pointing out, many people that will receive a voucher do not
> contribute to the tax base that funds schools.
>

No. I was refuting your lie that homeowners with kids in school pay more in
property taxes than those without kids sin school.

>
> >> 3. 40-somethings in the links YOU provided are precisely the people
with
> >> kids in middle schools and high schools, where the greatest
> > dissatisfaction
> >> with public schools exists.
> >
> > WRONG. By the time parents are in their forties the kids have graduated
> > from
> > grade school and have either entered college of gone off on their own.
> > NONE
> > of my freinds and cowrkers in their mid forties or older have kids in
> > grade
> > school.
> >
>
> Most of the families in my area with kids in high school and middle school
> are in their 40 and 50s. I am 51, and have a kid in the 8th grade. My
older
> kid that just graduated high school did so this past June. You clearly
live
> in a different world than I do.
>

Obviously. Having kids in your late 30's is relatively rare. Look at the
census link Bob posted.

>
>
>
> >> 4. Lots of older people are buying smaller homes that are cheaper to
own
> > and
> >> easier to maintain.
> >
> > Wrong. By the time people reach their 60's they are looking to pay off
> > mortgages as a cost reduction for retirement. And buying down runs the
> > probabvility of having to pay a large capital gains tax on the profits
of
> > thier home. It is rare that this "buy down" you mention happens before a
> > homeowner enters the 70's
> >
>
> Alternatively, older couples live in a home they have owned and raised
kids
> in for 20 or 30 years. They have built significant equity in the home.
They
> sell the home, pay any remaining mortgage off, and take the cash proceeds
> and buy a smaller home for cash. In my state, they can even take the tax
> base of the old home and carry it to the new home, so they pay taxes on a
> much lower assessed valuation. So, what happens is the old couple have a
new
> home they paid cash for that is valued at (say) 200,000, but they get to
> carry forward the assessed valuation of the home they sold, so they pay
> taxes on a valuation of perhaps 75,000 - or less in some cases. The young
> couple that lives nearby in a home of the same price will have property
> taxes of 2500 per year, or just over 200 per month.
>
>

Again, relativelty rare. Did you read the links Bob and I posted or did you
dismiss them out of hand?? I suspect it was the latter.


>
>
> > Since you invoked unprovable anecdotes, I'll toss mine in. EVERY one of
my
> > mother's friends - 60's and up, own the same home they did for
> > years.except
> > for the two who moved into an assisted living home.
> >
> > They are effectively buying down, not up. They are
> >> moving out of homes they owned for 30+ years and taking equity dollars
> >> and
> >> paying cash for homes with no mortgage, and often in retirement
> > communities
> >> that have taxation rules that even shield them from school taxes that
you
> >> claim they are paying.
> >
> > This must be a California thing. I can find no state that has tax-exempt
> > locations. Heer, for example.,the tax rate is reduced if you are over
80.
> >
> >
>
> Not tax exempt, only school taxes are waived in certain types of
> communities. For example, a benefit of buying a home in a senior community
> that the school taxes are sometimes waived. I am not certain what the
> conditions are for such a waiver, and how the community goes about getting
> it. But I know for a fact that the senior communities in my area do not
pay
> school taxes.
>

How do you separate school taxes from the others?? Oh. it sounds like you
are making this up - you have no evidence aand are "not certain" what you
are talking about.

> To be sure, if an old couple buys a home outside of the senior community,
> the property is assessed school taxes, so the exclusion is limited to
> certain properties.
>
>

Bull hockey.

>
> >> 5. The 40-somethings that are buying homes today are paying
substantially
> >> more than their parents paid, therefore the younger people are paying
> >> more
> >> property taxes, not less. <caveat, I am discounting the people that
live
> > in
> >> luxury homes and focussing on the normal tract home owners. People in
> > luxury
> >> homes are not having problems with schools that are addressed by
voucher
> >> plans.>
> >>
> >
> > Bogus math. Inflation accounts for the increased costs. And we are not
> > comparting todays tax paymetns with those of twenty years ago. You are
> > dverting the attention in a futile attempt to lie your way out of your
> > problem.
> >
>
>
> Not true. It is perfectly appropriate to make the comparison. Here's why.
20
> years ago, an home sold for $150,000. Today, that home sells for $450,000.
> The guy that bought 20 years ago pays taxes at 1.250% based upon the
> purchase price of 150,000 plus a small rise not to exceed 2%. The guy that
> bought recently also pays taxes at the rate of 1.250%, but it is based on
> the 450,000 value. The old family pays about 1875 in property taxes, the
new
> family living next door pays about 5625 in property taxes.
>
> I'll grant you that 20-year olds are not living in a 450,000 house, but
> there are many many children in my school district that are living in a
> 450,000 house. My point is that the 20 somethings will be buying the
450,000
> homes in a few years. But, the people that are getting vouchers will never
> be living in a 450,000 home, and the amount of the property tax that goes
to
> the school from any given property is in the range of about 600, the
> vouchers are in the range of 4500.
>

But we are talking about TODAY - not twenty yearsa go, not ten years from
now. So your statements are meaningless.

>
>
> > And tell me whhy you are ignoring luxury home sales if not for the fact
> > that
> > these sales put the lie to your assertion? ALL homes are taxed.
> >
>
> Yes, but schools in areas that serve luxury homes are not considering
giving
> vouchers to families. The schools in these areas are generally doing
pretty
> well at their mission of educating kids. You need to remember the context
in
> which this discussion started, and your points are not relevent to that
> discussion.
>

Bull hockey. Are you stating that there are no affluent areas in the entire
state of Florida that would have taken advantacge of vouchers? Or that there
were no upperclass neighborhoods in Milwaukee or Cleveland, for example? Or
that the governor and repuglicon legislators of my state, who are pushing
for statewide vouchers would deny them based on how much your house costs?

> Your points are relevent to the broader discussion of vouchers, but they
are
> not relevent in the particular discussion that was going on when you
joined
> in.
>

I made a specific point. I am keeping to that point. You got caught in a lie
and now you are trying to change the subject.

larry

>
>
>
> > And lastly, look at the census reports again. There are far more
> > americans40
> > and over than there are between 20 and 39. And they own homes at a much
> > greater rate than those 20-39.
> >
> > Larry
> >
>
>