Clinton's Hostile Preschool Takeover

[homesick_american 1]

So from this article it would appear that the main argument against providing free Universal pre-school to children would be that rich people would also get it? Since when was that an argument against something? So we should not provide stuff to poor people because middle class people might benefit now?

So we continue with the system where rich people can afford to educate their children and poor people are ######, right? Rather than give a benefit to middle class families?

OK......

Free public education mainly benefits middle class families...they are the ones who benefit MOST from it. I don't see people saying we should make middle class families pay tuition to attend public school just because their children benefit more from it than children from poor families.

[Nagishkaw 510]

I'm the one who called Cliton a Red, which is a lot more milder than what I really I should have called her. But don't slobber sentimentally over it, it's just my view, and was never meant to increase the number of emotions you already feel.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

which is refunded at the end of the year, so in essence they don't pay income tax, which has been everyone's point.

Their point is that they dislike anyone taking more from the system than they put in. Which is fine, but they cannot falsely claim that the poor and working poor don't taxes; he claimed that "the POOR do not pay TAXES," which is wholly false.

Lets see if I can spell this out to you. I pay 10 dollars in taxes, at the end of the year I get a 10 dollar refund how much tax did I pay? I come up with 0 taxes paid.

Working poor? #######?

Not that it works out exactly like that, but the person still pays the taxes though - even if they do get a refund for (some or all) of it at the end of the year.

[homesick_american 1]

pre-school to me means kindergarten. it's not mandatory at the state level that i'm aware of. and all i can remember of kindergarten is being taught how to take a nap during school

My kindergarten taught us the alphabet, geography, and basic writing. Kindergarten's required in my state, though; your state's program could be completely different.

Chuck is from Texas, like I am...he's correct that kindergarten is not required in Texas. Kindergarten isn't mandatory in many states; I'd go so far as to venture a guess that it is not mandatory in most states.

We also learned to read and write in my kindergarten class, though most of us already knew how to read when we started. We also learned some basic arithmetic.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm the one who called Cliton a Red, which is a lot more milder than what I really I should have called her. But don't slobber sentimentally over it, it's just my view, and was never meant to increase the number of emotions you already feel.

I love it!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

which is refunded at the end of the year, so in essence they don't pay income tax, which has been everyone's point.

Their point is that they dislike anyone taking more from the system than they put in. Which is fine, but they cannot falsely claim that the poor and working poor don't taxes; he claimed that "the POOR do not pay TAXES," which is wholly false.

Lets see if I can spell this out to you. I pay 10 dollars in taxes, at the end of the year I get a 10 dollar refund how much tax did I pay? I come up with 0 taxes paid.

Working poor? #######?

Not that it works out exactly like that, but the person still pays the taxes though - even if they do get a refund for (some or all) of it at the end of the year.

Add in the benefits they extract from the system, we now have a burden.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

which is refunded at the end of the year, so in essence they don't pay income tax, which has been everyone's point.

Their point is that they dislike anyone taking more from the system than they put in. Which is fine, but they cannot falsely claim that the poor and working poor don't taxes; he claimed that "the POOR do not pay TAXES," which is wholly false.

Lets see if I can spell this out to you. I pay 10 dollars in taxes, at the end of the year I get a 10 dollar refund how much tax did I pay? I come up with 0 taxes paid.

Working poor? #######?

Not that it works out exactly like that, but the person still pays the taxes though - even if they do get a refund for (some or all) of it at the end of the year.

Add in the benefits they extract from the system, we now have a burden.

If indeed they are eligible for those benefits (per Karen's email above).

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

which is refunded at the end of the year, so in essence they don't pay income tax, which has been everyone's point.

Their point is that they dislike anyone taking more from the system than they put in. Which is fine, but they cannot falsely claim that the poor and working poor don't taxes; he claimed that "the POOR do not pay TAXES," which is wholly false.

Lets see if I can spell this out to you. I pay 10 dollars in taxes, at the end of the year I get a 10 dollar refund how much tax did I pay? I come up with 0 taxes paid.

Working poor? #######?

Not that it works out exactly like that, but the person still pays the taxes though - even if they do get a refund for (some or all) of it at the end of the year.

Add in the benefits they extract from the system, we now have a burden.

If indeed they are eligible for those benefits (per Karen's email above).

Households have to meet income tests unless all members are receiving TANF, SSI, or in some places general assistance. Most households must meet both the gross and net income tests, but a household with an elderly person or a person who is receiving certain types of disability payments only has to meet the net income test. Households, except those noted, that have income over the amounts listed below cannot get food stamps.

People in Household

Gross Monthly Income Limits Net Monthly Income Limits

1 $ 1,062 $ 817

2 1,430 1,100

3 1,799 1,384

4 2,167 1,667

5 2,535 1,950

6 2,904 2,234

7 3,272 2,517

8 3,640 2,800

Each additional person + 369 + 284

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_reci...lity.htm#income

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In theory. Most benefits programs are far from 'condition-free' and are usually little more than fluff for politicians to say that they're actually trying to 'help' people. Actually getting those benefits is another matter entirely. Half the time its not even worth the effort - but thats not to say that there are people out there who don't need them.

[SteveLaura 0]

Boston Globe editorial

ON THE campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is talking about preschool and its power to help children thrive. It's welcome attention, but so far politicians' ideas about what preschools could be aren't as detailed as the research on what preschool should be.

The senator from New York has a bold vision of universal preschool for the country's 4-year-olds. She would create a federal-state partnership, giving $15 billion over six years to governors who could design flexible programs as long as they were free for children with low incomes and limited English. If states meet high standards -- by using strong curricula and teachers with bachelor's degrees, for instance -- they could serve younger children, raise teachers' pay, and improve their training.

It's a great idea. But it's not ambitious enough.

Start with the focus on 4-year-olds. Last month, a report on New Jersey's preschool program for children in high-poverty districts suggested that children do better when they have two years of preschool, according to researchers at the National Institute for Early Education Research. So it could make more sense to offer preschool seats to 3-year-olds.

Clinton's call for college-educated teachers dovetails with research about boosting the quality of early-education programs; children have better outcomes if their teachers have four-year degrees. The problem is that Clinton's proposal would make raising teachers' pay only a possibility, contingent on other accomplishments. But attracting and keeping good teachers means paying them higher salaries up front.

States should also meet preschool teachers' professional-development needs. One model can be found in the preschool programs run by the US military. Writing in the journal of Early Childhood Research and Practice, Debra Ackerman of the National Institute describes how the military's program includes an initial orientation, annual training, and on going "modules" that cover many issues, including children's cognitive and social skills, health and safety, and professional management of preschool settings.

This issue deserves national attention in part because the estimated return on government investment is considerable. Setting up universal preschool for even one age group could generate as much as $150 billion in benefits, according to the Committee for Economic Development, a nonprofit policy research organization. These range from less school remediation to less crime to more productive workers.

So while presidential candidates may call for only as much change as they think the voting public can handle, solid research shows that the United States needs a larger, more aggressive plan to make revolutionary progress in preschool.

A different perspective. I'm interested to learn about the preschool programs run by the military - anyone have any experience of this with their own children? Sounds pretty comprehensive. I'd be interested to hear arguments why such a scheme shouldn't be offered all round.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Boston Globe editorial

ON THE campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is talking about preschool and its power to help children thrive. It's welcome attention, but so far politicians' ideas about what preschools could be aren't as detailed as the research on what preschool should be.

The senator from New York has a bold vision of universal preschool for the country's 4-year-olds. She would create a federal-state partnership, giving $15 billion over six years to governors who could design flexible programs as long as they were free for children with low incomes and limited English. If states meet high standards -- by using strong curricula and teachers with bachelor's degrees, for instance -- they could serve younger children, raise teachers' pay, and improve their training.

It's a great idea. But it's not ambitious enough.

Start with the focus on 4-year-olds. Last month, a report on New Jersey's preschool program for children in high-poverty districts suggested that children do better when they have two years of preschool, according to researchers at the National Institute for Early Education Research. So it could make more sense to offer preschool seats to 3-year-olds.

Clinton's call for college-educated teachers dovetails with research about boosting the quality of early-education programs; children have better outcomes if their teachers have four-year degrees. The problem is that Clinton's proposal would make raising teachers' pay only a possibility, contingent on other accomplishments. But attracting and keeping good teachers means paying them higher salaries up front.

States should also meet preschool teachers' professional-development needs. One model can be found in the preschool programs run by the US military. Writing in the journal of Early Childhood Research and Practice, Debra Ackerman of the National Institute describes how the military's program includes an initial orientation, annual training, and on going "modules" that cover many issues, including children's cognitive and social skills, health and safety, and professional management of preschool settings.

This issue deserves national attention in part because the estimated return on government investment is considerable. Setting up universal preschool for even one age group could generate as much as $150 billion in benefits, according to the Committee for Economic Development, a nonprofit policy research organization. These range from less school remediation to less crime to more productive workers.

So while presidential candidates may call for only as much change as they think the voting public can handle, solid research shows that the United States needs a larger, more aggressive plan to make revolutionary progress in preschool.

A different perspective. I'm interested to learn about the preschool programs run by the military - anyone have any experience of this with their own children? Sounds pretty comprehensive. I'd be interested to hear arguments why such a scheme shouldn't be offered all round.

Great post.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i can agree w/ that except the above poverty line part. maybe a much smaller percentage. but no free rides.

It's a free ride for everyone, though. If the poverty line was, say 10K and you made 100K, then you'd be taxed on 90K. So, nobody would pay on that first 10K. Seems fair to me.

i don't see how no taxes & no taxes on 10 percent is a free ride for everyone

Everyone has a free ride on 10K. Why is that so hard to understand?

because the guy making 100k is paying taxes on 90 percent of his income & the guy only making 10k isn't paying anything.

You're really not getting this, are you? The guy making a 100K still pays 0% on the first 10K. Just like the guy making 10K, 50K, or 10MM. It's the same for everyone.

yes i get what you're saying the 1st 10k is tax free. but, you're not getting that the other 90k is being taxed......so the guy making 10k is paying $0 on 100% of his income while the guy making 100k is paying $$ on 90% of his income. that is not the same for everyone. and is a free ride for the 10k guy only.

So? What's up with your percentages? By the same token, the guy making 100K pays merely 2% of his income on a nice flat panel TV while the guy making 10K needs to shell out a whopping 20% of his income for the very same thing. What's your point?

[smoke20 0]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i can agree w/ that except the above poverty line part. maybe a much smaller percentage. but no free rides.

It's a free ride for everyone, though. If the poverty line was, say 10K and you made 100K, then you'd be taxed on 90K. So, nobody would pay on that first 10K. Seems fair to me.

i don't see how no taxes & no taxes on 10 percent is a free ride for everyone

Everyone has a free ride on 10K. Why is that so hard to understand?

because the guy making 100k is paying taxes on 90 percent of his income & the guy only making 10k isn't paying anything.

You're really not getting this, are you? The guy making a 100K still pays 0% on the first 10K. Just like the guy making 10K, 50K, or 10MM. It's the same for everyone.

yes i get what you're saying the 1st 10k is tax free. but, you're not getting that the other 90k is being taxed......so the guy making 10k is paying $0 on 100% of his income while the guy making 100k is paying $$ on 90% of his income. that is not the same for everyone. and is a free ride for the 10k guy only.

So? What's up with your percentages? By the same token, the guy making 100K pays merely 2% of his income on a nice flat panel TV while the guy making 10K needs to shell out a whopping 20% of his income for the very same thing. What's your point?

what? how does tax% go to flat screen tv's? you were explaining to me how paying no taxes & paying taxes on 90% of someones income are the same.......you wanna sell some of that sh!t buddy?its better than what i've been getting.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One flat tax.

X% on every dollar earned above poverty line.

Period.

No exemptions, no write offs, no loopholes, no nothing.

No other tax either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bite me. I like to dream every now and then.

i can agree w/ that except the above poverty line part. maybe a much smaller percentage. but no free rides.

It's a free ride for everyone, though. If the poverty line was, say 10K and you made 100K, then you'd be taxed on 90K. So, nobody would pay on that first 10K. Seems fair to me.

i don't see how no taxes & no taxes on 10 percent is a free ride for everyone

Everyone has a free ride on 10K. Why is that so hard to understand?

because the guy making 100k is paying taxes on 90 percent of his income & the guy only making 10k isn't paying anything.

You're really not getting this, are you? The guy making a 100K still pays 0% on the first 10K. Just like the guy making 10K, 50K, or 10MM. It's the same for everyone.

yes i get what you're saying the 1st 10k is tax free. but, you're not getting that the other 90k is being taxed......so the guy making 10k is paying $0 on 100% of his income while the guy making 100k is paying $$ on 90% of his income. that is not the same for everyone. and is a free ride for the 10k guy only.

So? What's up with your percentages? By the same token, the guy making 100K pays merely 2% of his income on a nice flat panel TV while the guy making 10K needs to shell out a whopping 20% of his income for the very same thing. What's your point?

what? how does tax% go to flat screen tv's? you were explaining to me how paying no taxes & paying taxes on 90% of someones income are the same.......you wanna sell some of that sh!t buddy?its better than what i've been getting.

If everyone is exempt on the same amount then I don't see how that approach lacks fairness. You're the one that brought percentages into the discussion that have no place there. I was just picking an example to demonstrate the uselessness of your calculation. Obviously, in a flat tax scheme, someone making more pays more taxes. The idea is to not tax the existential minimum and to flat tax every dollar above that. Yes, some people will be taxed on 50% of their income and others on 99% of their income. I can play percentages all day long. At the end of the day, they are equally exempt on the first 10K, however.

[smoke20 0]

ET-yes they are both exempt from the 1st 10k. YOU said it was equal & fair for everyone. so i put simple round #s in there to try to get you to explain, how 1 person paying taxes on any percentage their income & 1 person not paying taxes on any of their income is fair. and you can't.