Follow Up on the School Supply Tax

Last week, I wrote this post, in which I complained about the additional "tax" levied on parents and students in the form of school supplies for general class use instead of for the child's personal use.

I got an email comment from Dew which reads:

Stop! What is with you whiny anti-tax activist types? So you don't like paying for school supplies for your girls and the supplies that help them learn, should have thought about that before you had them.

I don't have children and don't plan to have children, but I still pay for your kids education through my taxes, and for the most part that doesn't bother me. I'd like your girls, and all the children of today, to be well educated and I am willing to pay for that. What do I get out of it? Hopefully, educated leaders for the future of our country and an educated workforce that continues to drive the economy. Heck I don't care what they do, the mere fact that education has also sorts of positive social impact is enough for me to keep paying without complaining. That is until I hear someone complaining about the unfair burden placed on them by the demands of our evil schools.

Here's an idea, how about if those of us without children, including all those who have not yet had children, those who don't intend to have children, and those whose children are grown and out of school stop paying any taxes related to your daughters' education? Let that happen for just two years (you of course now get to pick up the full bill) of your children's education and I bet you never complain again about the over burdensome extra school taxes you pay today.

There are two reasons why I chose to respond to Dew. First, these kinds of comments just tell me that they have not read the full post. Had Dew read the full post they would have seen these sentences:

I pay a pretty penny in federal, state, and local taxes that support my local schools. I do so grudgingly and did so even when my kids are not in the schools.

Taxes for public education are a fact of life and one that while I don't like to pay taxes (who really, really does anyway), I pay them to support important public work--like schools.

But my real reason for responding is to discuss a few points about Dew's comments. I realize something that Dew never will, that people with children pay a fair amount in extras in our society, and not just in school supplies or things like that. I realize that having children incurs a significant financial burden, a burden I not only willingly shoulder but I am happy to do so since the benefits of children far outweigh the cost.

The last few sentences of Dew's comment and others like it generally irriate me. Such comments imply that I am unwilling to pay for my child's education. I am more than willing, even to the point of considering private school if that is the best course for my children. So that means I would have to choose a private school and still pay taxes to support public education, in effect paying twice, or more than twice, my fair share. The problem with such a scenario of course is that while I have the means to either pay out of pocket for public school or a private school, not everyone can. Dew seems to indicate that only people who can afford children should have them, which is a violation of their freedoms, which would probably offend the liberal sensibilities of Dew.

My beef with the school supply list is simple. With the money that I pay and people like Dew pay in taxes, there should be plenty of money to buy common use supplies, like tissues, hand sanitizers, dry erase markers or chalk and other materials. If I buy tissues or a small bottle of hand sanitizer for my child, that is my expense and my choice. If other parents are unwilling to do the same, that is their choice. The state of Maryland spends nearly $9,000 per student in education expenditures, all of which comes from local, state and some federal taxes. Is it too much to ask that those taxes pay for common use supplies? Why can't the school be more effective in budgeting its funds?