|
|
|
|
|
|
by germinalphrase
4110 days ago
|
|
|
Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if gov't funded education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is not working, but that the problem is not dependent on the source of funding. When we turn public schools into private schools (as Chicago has done by the dozens in the last few years) we don't see educational improvements when the students population remains the same. When we do, it's modest or an outlier (and education is filled with outliers). |
|
|
Everyone lives somewhere, and somewhere basically always has a value attached to it. Maybe run down apartments aren't worth as much as fancy new ones, but property tax still has to be paid.
Even if you rent, you still pay property taxes. The owner of the apartment considers property taxes as a part of his/her expenses the same way a mortgage, insurance, maintenance, etc are expenses. Those expenses get rolled into the rent.
Sales taxes are largely regressive, because any money saved is by default not going to get any sales tax applied. And poor people spend a larger portion of their income on things which are taxed than wealthier people do; look at the whole "buying experiences" advice that well-to-do participate in. Those are generally arranged as "services" which aren't taxable, rather than products, which are.
Progressive taxes are generally based on income, not property value or transaction value. As a result, funding for education is currently borne fairly evenly amongst people who both have an address and buy things, no matter their income level.