 |
From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:42:51 +1000
Local: Thurs, Oct 20 2005 1:42 am
Subject: Re: [epistemology] Re: Sam Carana is right - education needs to be reformed and here's only answer that will ever ever work.
On 10/20/05, Jason Lang <jasonlang2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Non-profit organizations don't issue shares, but if you regard
> If you do this then you must allow non-profits to run at a profit. The
strings a lavish lifestyle, under the false pretence that it was set up for a good cause, then such an organization may indeed disappear if it has to pay tax just like everybody else. But if a non-profit organization spends money on a good cause or on social services for the needy, then it has to pay no tax and it shouldn't have to pay tax. There's no reason why such an organization would disappear. Companies should be encouraged into tax-deductable sponsorship of social services provided to the needy, rather than to go into all kinds of tax evasion schemes. Non-profit organizations would benefit from that and flourish. > organized from time to time, to see whether reform is appropriate. Such
> > discussion should not be portrayed as efforts to "hand over public
It shouldn't be. Large public schools should first be split up into
> assets to > > greedy commercial enterprises". It's simply a discussion that has to be > held > but vouchers is just a way to funnel tax payers funds into private
smaller schools. Then, poor families should be given vouchers. Initially, vouchers could be made applicable only to public schools, in which case private schools wouldn't benefit at all. Vouchers can be used in many ways, they do not inherently benefit public or private schools. Ownership is not the issue. The quality of education is and our rights are! It will have an inflatory effect on private education fees
> (more people with more money trying to go to the same good schools) and
Wild speculations driven by political preference, that doesn't constitute
> federal goverments will use it as an excuse to strip funding. If you believe > taxes will drop in equal measure you are a fool. (no company/government ever > passes on 100% of their savings, it's called making a profit if you didn't > know). an argument against vouchers. I already said that I disagree with government funding the education of kids from rich families. If that money was used instead to fund vouchers, public schools would benefit. As said before, large public schools should be split up into multiple smaller ones, so that they become more responsive to the educational needs of their students. > > Schools, universities and other educational institutions should
Apparently, current audits of public schools are insufficient. Why else
> similarly > > be held accountible, including public schools. By incorporating, public > > schools simply provide more accountibility and their expenses can be > > scrutinized through the tax system. I see a luxury car for a Principal > more > Come on, show me evidence that public schools aren't audited now. Just
did they end up spending funds so miserably? > as a way to avoid higher personal income tax and I wouldn't approve tax
Why should poor students who are already fit, run around on sportfields
> > deducations for that. I much rather see the institution sponsor the > > education of poor students instead. Alternatively, government could tax > the > > school and fund vouchers with the money currently spent on a luxury car > for > > the Principal. Vouchers come with a choice how and where to spend them, > so > tax the school ? from what income ? and which Principal of which school
that are worth a fortune, while those who aren't fit don't? If those sportfields were sold and the money was really spent on the poor, each kid would be a milionaire. Some good accountancy doesn't do any harm. Billions disppear into an educational black hole. In the end, families should have more say in what education they want for their children and vouchers are a good step into that direction. > cartel legislation onto educational institutions, in aprticualr to
Companies pay tax and are accountible to their shareholders, who vote in
> professional qualifications and accreditation schemes. > > in terms of accountibility and flexibility. Take Lloyds insurance, they
> you've got to be kidding about the accountability of corporations. the
general meetings at least annually. Furthermore, companies, just like any person, can face legal charges. Accountibility for companies is essential and mistakes in accountancy are crucial for companies who operate in competition with other companies. Public schools, on the other hand, lack such accountibility. > haven't yet been invented. Therefore, I propose a pledge for scientists,
Given the current nuclear proliferation, such a pledge makes a lot of
> > similar to the Hippocratic Oath for doctors. > since everyone is allowed to do science then i think very many people must
sense. > speculation. Instead of making deals in currency, it makes ever more sense
As discussed, those who seek more stability can always invest in gold. I
> > to agree on shares of a reputable company to facilitate trade. Shares > > typically outperform other forms of investment, so it makes more sense > to > > have an account in shares than in currency. One's people understand the > > basics, they will shift to shares, especially in regard to larger > amounts of > > money. > Yeah right, just like they did before 1929 ! People already understand
> High-tech currency speculation is the option of choice for speculators
don't see what kind of argument this could lead to. > instead of government-issued coins. In the end, the assets and the
As trade increased between the various European nations, each such trade
> prospects > > of the company issuing the coins constitute the back-up, just like they > > constitute the back-up for shares such a company may issue. In the case > of > > coins, anti-trust and cartel legislation should be imposed to ensure > that no > > such company (nor any government agency) will be able to unfairly > exploit a > > monopoly. > It's strange then, that the Europeans would switch to a single
> - Jason
required currency conversions, adding to the already heavy load of paperwork. Hence, a transnational currency makes sense in Europe, compared to multiple nation-based currencies. But that same argument could be used to justify the use of shares instead of multiple nation-based currencies. It just confirms what I said. I see no argument in there against a shift towards the use of shares instead of currency. Sam You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||