Libertarians and gender neutral locker rooms

ABYUFAN wrote:
The greater sin is when these kids have no options for sports, music or other preforming arts.

So now it's a sin not to have sports paid for by your neighbor? And people wonder so many feel entitled.

jvquarterback wrote:

The greater sin is when these kids have no options for sports, music or other preforming arts.

So now it's a sin not to have sports paid for by your neighbor? And people wonder so many feel entitled.

No - I pay a ton of taxes into the education system. Over my lifetime I will pay far more into the educational system than my children used for their K- 12 education - and its not even close. My kids have never set foot in a music classroom, or drama department. But I would be hoppin' mad if those departments were done away with.



My position is that it would be a sin if all of that money that I pay into the system provided a substandard education to the very children that it's supposed to benefit. The actual entitlement is the folks who want to take full advantage of the system that we have here, but cutting out random things that they (and they alone) find superfluous.

So it's a sin if people take your money and don't use it the way you want?



Sounds like we agree and you're a libertarian. Taxation is theft.

jvquarterback wrote:
So it's a sin if people take your money and don't use it the way you want?



Sounds like we agree and you're a libertarian. Taxation is theft.

First, they don't "take" my money. I gladly pay my money through taxes. It's a largely honor system that I gladly comply with. I honestly love paying taxes, in that I see the utility to them. I've been places where there are no taxes, and I've seen the problems that are there.



Second, there's a big difference between using something "ineffectively" and using it "the way you want"... but nice try.



Fortunately, we both know that what you say above actually is your best argument, and we both know that it's a lousy one.

An honor system? Nice one. You do realize what they do to people who don't "gladly pay their taxes."



All I'm going to say here is my argument is better argument than "I want you to want to subsidize my kid's sports program. And if you don't gladly subsidize along with me I'll take your house and send you to jail."



I mean, you gladly pay your taxes to support ridiculously expensive sports programs for your kids. Why shouldn't everyone else?

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

And phys ed? No, not important?

Completely unnecessary. And even if you think it is the cost is outrageous. It costs, what $50 a month at the Y for a whole family? And you want to pay a union PE teacher 80k + benefits and finance a gym, locker rooms, fields and stadium?.

PE doesn't require a stadium, a PE teacher isn't making close to 80k unless they have a PhD and have been teaching for 25 years, and study after study shows how valuable PE (and music, arts, etc.) are for students.

:blush:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

And phys ed? No, not important?

Completely unnecessary. And even if you think it is the cost is outrageous. It costs, what $50 a month at the Y for a whole family? And you want to pay a union PE teacher 80k + benefits and finance a gym, locker rooms, fields and stadium?.

PE doesn't require a stadium, a PE teacher isn't making close to 80k unless they have a PhD and have been teaching for 25 years, and study after study shows how valuable PE (and music, arts, etc.) are for students.

Not to mention that the Y gets a hefty bit of support from our taxes as well.



http://www.ymca.net/news-releases/20110915-grant.html

jvquarterback wrote:
An honor system? Nice one. You do realize what they do to people who don't "gladly pay their taxes."

Only if you are lousy at "not paying your taxes. Millions of people do it every year and don't get caught.

jvquarterback wrote:
I'll I'm going to say here is my argument is better argument than "I want you to want to subsidize my kid's sports program. And if you don't gladly subsidize along with me I'll take your house and send you to jail."







I mean, you gladly pay your taxes to support ridiculously expensive sports programs for your kids. Why shouldn't everyone else?

LOL "ridiculously expensive" You know what some of the other things that are "ridiculously expensive?" Dams. Bridges. Cancer research. Medical helicopters. Crop production. The dairy industry. Do we let you start cutting some of those things out too, and not based on any sort of actual empirical evidence, but instead based solely on your inability to see value in it?

Schmoe wrote:
PE doesn't require a stadium, a PE teacher isn't making close to 80k unless they have a PhD and have been teaching for 25 years, and study after study shows how valuable PE (and music, arts, etc.) are for students.

80K is the least any union PE teacher is making with benefits. I guess you're right they could be pulling down 120K if they have a PhD. And of course the biased educators are going to find benefits for what they teach.



I see some benefit from PE teachers but here's the real question: how much would you be willing to pay them on free market? I know how much I pay for my kids' basketball, softball, soccer, golf, etc. and I'm happy to pay it and volunteer my time to help out. I'm unwilling to force anyone else to pay for it under threat of incarceration and theft of their property.

snoscythe wrote:
:blush:

Not to mention that the Y gets a hefty bit of support from our taxes as well.



http://www.ymca.net/news-releases/20110915-grant.html

I knew someone would bring this up after I wrote it. Well you've gotta have somewhere for the he/shes to shower.

jvquarterback wrote:



I see some benefit from PE teachers but here's the real question: how much would you be willing to pay them on free market? I know how much I pay for my kids' basketball, softball, soccer, golf, etc. and I'm happy to pay it and volunteer my time to help out. I'm unwilling to force anyone else to pay for it under threat of incarceration and theft of their property.

Every single one of those things that you mention are highly subsidized, usually through the municipality in which they're located. And those subsidies are through city or county general fund money raised by taxes. So you like using other people's tax monies for your kids activities, just not at school. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: DO you honestly think that your volunteer time on the baseball diamond covers the cost of building and maintain the park? Same question with the golf course, basketball court and soccer field? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry to disappoint you but none of them are subsidized through government confiscation. Everything is covered by donations (not tax confiscation) and participation fees for every one of those sports. The field maintenance is provided through donations and is part of the lease - the school doesn't pay a dime. The softball and soccer leagues are actually getting ripped off on that one and we could definitely lease the fields for less elsewhere. We pass on millions from the donors for the golf course to other youth golf programs throughout the country.



As far as having my kids participate in school athletics I agree it is another way to claw back what government steals from you and I'm all for that. That certainly doesn't justify the government confiscation in the first place.

jvquarterback wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you but none of them are subsidized through government confiscation. Everything is covered by donations (not tax confiscation) and participation fees for every one of those sports. The field maintenance is provided through donations and is part of the lease - the school doesn't pay a dime. The softball and soccer leagues are actually getting ripped off on that one and we could definitely lease the fields for less elsewhere. We pass on millions from the donors for the golf course to other youth golf programs throughout the country.



As far as having my kids participate in school athletics I agree it is another way to claw back what government steals from you and I'm all for that. That certainly doesn't justify the government confiscation in the first place.

Every single field, if a City field, is either built by developers as a cost of building in the city, or built by the city using impact fees charged to developers. Every. single. one. If a school field, then the cost of acquisition and construction was either covered through property tax, or bond sales (secured by property taxes)



Your paltry participation fees (at most) cover maintenance of the field, not one cent goes back into acquisition cost of the thing. It must stink to realize that you are living the subsidized life when you like to complain about others doing just that. Oh well, you'll get over it.

jvquarterback wrote:

PE doesn't require a stadium, a PE teacher isn't making close to 80k unless they have a PhD and have been teaching for 25 years, and study after study shows how valuable PE (and music, arts, etc.) are for students.

80K is the least any union PE teacher is making with benefits. I guess you're right they could be pulling down 120K if they have a PhD. And of course the biased educators are going to find benefits for what they teach.

Ah, but you said 80k plus benefits, which is very different. It's pretty disingenuous (ie-lying) to include benefits in a projected teacher's salary while comparing it to other salaries where you don't include benefits (most post-college careers include benefits, by the way, so I don't see why you would feel the need to try to lump them in other than to lie about how much they make). Also, 80k with benny's the LEAST any teacher is making? You're absolutely delusional.



As far as paying them privately. If a PE teacher made just one dollar an hour for each student he was responsible for during that time, he'd be averaging somewhere in the range of $55 an hour.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Every single field, if a City field, is either built by developers as a cost of building in the city, or built by the city using impact fees charged to developers. Every. single. one. If a school field, then the cost of acquisition and construction was either covered through property tax, or bond sales (secured by property taxes)



Your paltry participation fees (at most) cover maintenance of the field, not one cent goes back into acquisition cost of the thing. It must stink to realize that you are living the subsidized life when you like to complain about others doing just that. Oh well, you'll get over it.

First, you don't live where I live so you can't know. Second, all the improvements and maintenance on the fields have been paid (overpaid by a large margin) by donations. Third, with one exception the fields adjacent to the schools have been donated by the landowners (sure they didn't have to pay some taxes but remember before when you said taxation was theft then changed your mind when it didn't suit your argument?).

Schmoe wrote:
Ah, but you said 80k plus benefits, which is very different. It's pretty disingenuous (ie-lying) to include benefits in a projected teacher's salary while comparing it to other salaries where you don't include benefits (most post-college careers include, benefits, by the way, so I don't see why you would feel the need to try to lump them in other than to lie about how much they make). Also, 80k with benny's the LEAST any teacher is making? You're absolutely delusional.



As far as paying them privately. If a PE teacher made just one dollar an hour for each student he was responsible for during that time, he'd be averaging somewhere in the range of $55 an hour.

The PE teacher at my daughter's school is in her late 50s, has been teaching for 25 years, has a masters and I'm sure has maxed out whatever education allotments she's allowed to increase her pay. Her salary is 83K + the CA teacher's union benefits (around 125k total). There is no way she could make that money on the free market. Government benefits are ridiculous. You have to include them in the cost or you're being dishonest.



Some morons raised 82k for a brand new music teacher (they were happy because the old music teacher cost 125K) this year by donating to the school district rather than just giving every kid in the school money for a private music teacher. I told them if they hire a nonunion music instructor maybe I'll donate. There's no reason to pay such outrageous prices. It doesn't help that he isn't very good. We get far better instruction for $40/hour from our daughter's piano and guitar teachers.



Wait queue the Bernie Sanders response - you're going to tell me the music lessons I pay for are subsidized too because of the roads.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
PE doesn't require a stadium, a PE teacher isn't making close to 80k unless they have a PhD and have been teaching for 25 years, and study after study shows how valuable PE (and music, arts, etc.) are for students.

80K is the least any union PE teacher is making with benefits. I guess you're right they could be pulling down 120K if they have a PhD. And of course the biased educators are going to find benefits for what they teach.

You're absolutely delusional.

This about says it all.

jvquarterback wrote:

Ah, but you said 80k plus benefits, which is very different. It's pretty disingenuous (ie-lying) to include benefits in a projected teacher's salary while comparing it to other salaries where you don't include benefits (most post-college careers include, benefits, by the way, so I don't see why you would feel the need to try to lump them in other than to lie about how much they make). Also, 80k with benny's the LEAST any teacher is making? You're absolutely delusional.



As far as paying them privately. If a PE teacher made just one dollar an hour for each student he was responsible for during that time, he'd be averaging somewhere in the range of $55 an hour.

The PE teacher at my daughter's school is in her late 50s, has been teaching for 25 years, has a masters and I'm sure has maxed out whatever education allotments she's allowed to increase her pay. Her salary is 83K + the CA teacher's union benefits (around 125k total). There is no way she could make that money on the free market. Government benefits are ridiculous. You have to include them in the cost or you're being dishonest.

So, as you yourself pointed out, it's not the least, as you previously claimed, but MAXED OUT after 25 years with a master's in California, one of the most expensive states in the union.



She could make it in the private sector, if she were one of the best at what she does (which is the problem with the union-negotiated way they pay teachers--she doesn't have to be great, just good enough not to get fired for years).



What you call "government benefits" are the same as most get in the private sector (health insurance you still have to pay hundreds a month for, no dental, and some form of retirement after 32+ years). I'm sure this might be different to a degree in California, which continues to bankrupt itself and whose education system is a joke. If I lived there, I would have homeschooled or private schooled my children long before supreme-leader obama's royal decree.

82k is what it costs our kids' school to hire a first year teacher including the entire compensation package.



Engineers at the best schools in the nation average That coming out of college. And teachers complain they aren't compensated fairly. Meanwhile you can get a decent homeschooling for $500 a year. You can't buy a bridge design for that.



Their current and future benefits far surpass those in the private sector. Close to dollar for dollar present value what their salaries are at the entry level.



If teachers were paid on the free market they'd get room and board and a couple hundred dollars a month. About the same they were paid a couple hundred years ago accounting for inflation.

jvquarterback wrote:
82k is what it costs our kids' school to hire a first year teacher including the entire compensation package.



Engineers at the best schools in the nation average That coming out of college.

Again, you're being disingenuous to try to make this sound like something it isn't. Engineers average that as salary, then get benefits on top of that, and on top of that it costs the company more than just their salary and benefits to hire them (but, again, you're comparing apples and oranges to lie in an attempt to make your point). And just because there's a statistic that says it "costs" that much to hire a teacher, doesn't mean that even close to that is going to the teacher--it's going to district lackeys, school facilities, etc. etc. etc. Also, don't assume that ass-backwards California is some kind of ideal model or that the rest of the country is even close to being as irresponsible as they are.



At private schools (the public sector), teachers earn slightly less on average, but certainly not "room and board and a couple hundred dollars." what a pompous, prideful, ridiculous, moronic, elitist thing to say. I'm done discussing this with you because obviously you have zero regard for teachers and what they do. I would challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and homeschool your kids, otherwise everything you say is hypocritical garbage, but that seems to be par for the course for you.

jvquarterback wrote:
but remember before when you said taxation was theft then changed your mind when it didn't suit your argument?).

.

I don't remember saying that - mostly because I never did..... Show me where you think that I said that (Spoiler alert: you can't). I'm just chalking this up as trying to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.



By the way, you admit that your kids sports are subsidized through other people's money and efforts (i.e. property donation) You also admit that the so-called "market value" of a music lesson is roughly the hourly rate of pay of a public school teacher. It really was nice having this conversation with you

BTW There is a wonderful website called Transparent California - where the world can know what people in the public sector make. I pulled up Fresno Unified School District. Nice middle class school district in the central valley. Here's a link to the Music teachers' salaries....

http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-districts%2Ffresno%2Ffresno-unified&q=music&y=2014



The highest paid teacher has a regular rate of pay at $77,000. the lowest $15,000. There are significant benefits (mostly coming from an excellent defined benefit retirement plan) Teachers are not getting rich on these salaries, but they can at least own a house and a car. At $77,000. they realistically need to be a two-income family to pay for their kids' college education.



so tell us the name of this teacher, and we can see for yourself that teacher's compensation.



PS just for a goof, look up engineer salaries, and see how they compare....



http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=engineer