• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Tax time for students!

Last time I checked public schools were not taxed either.

Maybe we should tax all schools?

:laugh3:

:scottm: Then give the tax money to the local peasants.


Yes I know, come on over to El Paso and check out or school taxes:flamemad:

Taxing public schools is pointless, they opperate on taxes. Private schools operate on private money.
All I was asking, again, is why private schools are tax exempt, like public schools?
 
Yes I know, come on over to El Paso and check out or school taxes:flamemad:

Taxing public schools is pointless, they opperate on taxes. Private schools operate on private money.
All I was asking, again, is why private schools are tax exempt, like public schools?

A private, for profit, school is taxed on the basis of gross receipts taxes. Private school that are attached to a religious affiliation are not taxed on the basis that Churches and religious organization aren't taxed.

If it's a business that operate for profit, it's taxed. The stink here is that no private individual should be taxed on the expenses that they must pay to get an education. We're not talking about the schools being taxed, we're talking about the students being taxed.
 
IMHO, the gov't should never, ever discourage people from bettering themselves. College graduates on average earn way more than non-grads. Therefore, the measly $150/semester or whatever this municipality is seeking will be more than made up for through the revenue garnered through future taxes (sales taxes, property tax, advelorum tax etc). Whoever is proposing this is an asshat.

As a matter of fact, if some local gov't wanted to impose an arbitrary tax like this on me for trying to go to school, I would make a point after I graduated to not reside inside their sphere of influence, thereby depriving them of any future revenue from me.

Guess you've never read The Prince by Machiavelli, eh? He has a few things to say on the matter of "an informed people".

That aside, I agree with you - this is just another example of biting the hand that feeds, or (if you prefer) strangling the golden goose.
 
A private, for profit, school is taxed on the basis of gross receipts taxes.


I assume you are talking about taxes in your state only, and not Federal, as there are no gross receipt federal taxes on schools that I know of, that said, on a state level the tax situation probably varies by state. In Texas the state uses other taxes, and state income to pay out $$s for student grants to low income students in College, and does not to my knowledge have a gross receipts tax on private schools, but that might have changed for any for-profit universities, but then again I am not sure there are any for-profit universities around? Then again there are for-profit trade and technical schools around that might be getting taxed.

Most major universities get huge state and federal research grants and funds.
 
As a matter of fact, if some local gov't wanted to impose an arbitrary tax like this on me for trying to go to school, I would make a point after I graduated to not reside inside their sphere of influence, thereby depriving them of any future revenue from me.

Something I'm kinda wondering about - word of something like this will have a way of getting around. I wonder how they're going to explain a sudden massive drop in admissions after something like this gets ramrodded through? I can see it happening, although I'm not going to bother to guess at the explanation (it should be rather interesting, no?)

Not so much a "moving outside their sphere of influence" as "never bothering to show up in the first place."
 
Something I'm kinda wondering about - word of something like this will have a way of getting around. I wonder how they're going to explain a sudden massive drop in admissions after something like this gets ramrodded through? I can see it happening, although I'm not going to bother to guess at the explanation (it should be rather interesting, no?)

Not so much a "moving outside their sphere of influence" as "never bothering to show up in the first place."


I don't know much about going to school. But is $150 a semester really going to stop anyone from attending schools like the ones mentioned in the article? I know its not the point, I'm just saying. They constantly raise the tax on tobacco and people are still smoking and chewing.
 
I don't know much about going to school. But is $150 a semester really going to stop anyone from attending schools like the ones mentioned in the article? I know its not the point, I'm just saying. They constantly raise the tax on tobacco and people are still smoking and chewing.

True - but it would be interesting, no? See a measure like this pass, then see registration drop sharply, and then the challenge - see if legislators can determina a causal relationship? I think they'd have a hard time doing it, but you never can tell...
 
True - but it would be interesting, no? See a measure like this pass, then see registration drop sharply, and then the challenge - see if legislators can determina a causal relationship? I think they'd have a hard time doing it, but you never can tell...

Yea I just don't think it would drop off enough for the school to care enough to fight the city on it.
 
Yea I just don't think it would drop off enough for the school to care enough to fight the city on it.

I know - it was just a musing. I'd like to think it damn sure would cause trouble, the the frogs are swimming happily along as the water gets hotter and hotter...
 
Considering how quickly the cost of a college education is out pacing average wage increases across the middle class in this country, trite little shit like this may be just enough for some kids parents to make the decision for him/her.
 
They constantly raise the tax on tobacco and people are still smoking and chewing.

Funny you mention that. We have raised the taxpayer costs and taxes with the war on drugs, and raised the street price (I think) of illegal drugs, but that has only increased the profit motive of the drug lords to keep pushing drugs. Me thinks that if the government offered free drugs on the street corners the profit would die, and so would the illegal drug trade and the drug war.

Problem is it would kill about 20% of the economy and jobs, or so I heard on an in depth news study once. Perhaps part of the reason the government keeps escalating and fighting a war it can never win.

But never mind that, getting side tracked, let's tax all those rich college students that are using up city services!
 
Funny you mention that. We have raised the taxpayer costs and taxes with the war on drugs, and raised the street price (I think) of illegal drugs, but that has only increased the profit motive of the drug lords to keep pushing drugs. Me thinks that if the government offered free drugs on the street corners the profit would die, and so would the illegal drug trade and the drug war.

Problem is it would kill about 20% of the economy and jobs, or so I heard on an in depth news study once. Perhaps part of the reason the government keeps escalating and fighting a war it can never win.

But never mind that, getting side tracked, let's tax all those rich college students that are using up city services!

Yah - I've been an advocate of "decriminalisation" for a long time. Knock the status of narcotics down to something along the lines of alcohol, and most of the problems associated with street drugs will likely evapourate.
 
Yah - I've been an advocate of "decriminalisation" for a long time. Knock the status of narcotics down to something along the lines of alcohol, and most of the problems associated with street drugs will likely evapourate.


The problem I have with legalization is what would be legalized.

Most people don't have a problem with weed, probably hash too. But what about coke, meth, LSD, heroine?

Everyone wants to talk about tax it but thats just silly. How many people have started brewing their own beer/wine in the last 10 years. They jumped on the internet found out how to do and started. Thats exactly what will happen with drugs.
There just isn't a good answer.
 
The problem I have with legalization is what would be legalized.

Most people don't have a problem with weed, probably hash too. But what about coke, meth, LSD, heroine?

Everyone wants to talk about tax it but thats just silly. How many people have started brewing their own beer/wine in the last 10 years. They jumped on the internet found out how to do and started. Thats exactly what will happen with drugs.
There just isn't a good answer.

That's a fair question. I personally think drug laws defy logic, and as long as your habit isn't interfering with someone elses ability to live their life, so what? It's like blaming the gun for the murder.
 
That's a fair question. I personally think drug laws defy logic, and as long as your habit isn't interfering with someone elses ability to live their life, so what? It's like blaming the gun for the murder.

I see where your coming from with the gun point, but I don't really agree with it.

Most gun owner can continue to function in society. They go to their jobs, drive cars, shop in the mall etc... all while carrying a gun.

Most heroine addicts can't hold down a job, don't have a place to live, can't afford their habit and a car at the same time, and if they try to go to a mall most of the time will get escorted out quickly, all while strung out.

Yes there are the few gun owner, that go crazy and start wasting mofos. Just like there are heroine users that function everyday just fine.

We want everyone to be a responsible gun owner and a responsible drug users. Shooting mofos isn't addictive like shooting-up though. (well for some)
 
The problem I have with legalization is what would be legalized.

Most people don't have a problem with weed, probably hash too. But what about coke, meth, LSD, heroine?

Everyone wants to talk about tax it but thats just silly. How many people have started brewing their own beer/wine in the last 10 years. They jumped on the internet found out how to do and started. Thats exactly what will happen with drugs.
There just isn't a good answer.

As usual there are many sides to the issue. But we started out in the 60's and 70's locking people up for +20 years with a felony record just for possession of any amount of weed. Some of them are still in jail today for nothing more than possession of the remains of a joint some one else left behind.

I read recently that something like 70% of the Texas prison population is there for non-violent offenses, many are in just for drug possession. IIRC we (Texas, USA) have the largest per capita prison population in the world, by several hundred percent.

Some of the FDA approved food additives, drugs and drug additives are far more dangerous than some of the outlawed, Illegal drugs. Check out the connection between mercury in teeth fillings..... mercury in vaccines and Autism for one example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/22/eveningnews/main625458.shtml

I think I heard recently that autism has been declared an epidemic in the USA.
1 in 150 children have autism in the USA now.
http://www.tacanow.com/autism/latest_autism_statistics.htm

Many FDA approved food colors are crude oil derivatives, that are documented to cause ADD. Several of them were banned a decade ago as human carcinogens in Europe, but we still allow there use in food and drinks like Gatorade in the good ol' USA.

Britain does not have the drug war problems that we have, because they decriminalized these drugs decades ago. They hand out free needles and free Methadone to those that need it to help them kick heroin addictions, and to help slow the spread of AIDs via needle swapping by drug abusers. Also this removes the need for drug addicts to rob and steal to get money to support their expensive drug habits.
Britain has much less of drug problem because they removed the profit motive from drug pushing, and gave users a free drug alternative.

We have illegal drug, drug pushers in part because there is such a huge profit margin in it, and too little legal opportunity for the young, and poor people to advance to the middle class by a means other than selling and pushing highly profitable illegal drugs. By decriminalizing it you kill the large massive profits, and people stop becoming pushers because the profit motive is gone. Then all you need to do is create real job opportunities, and education opportunities.

The drugs and drug users are not the real, major problem right now. Personal profit, greed, government corruption and greed (many state and local governments have been railroading people into the jails with false evidence, just for their own profit, as the DEA pays handsome rewards for drug convictions. But they don't pay for murder or rape convictions. Also note that it is far easier to find, arrest and convict someone for drug possession, than it is to find and convict a murderer. So police in low drug crime areas, plant evidence and force convictions on any easy undesirable local targets they just don't happen to like, just for profit, to get the DEA money, and the fruits of selling seized property (they profit from that too, and it bypasses the courts in violation of the US Constitution, no due process of law).

FDA sets a limit of 1 ppm for the max mercury content in a can of Tuna fish. They randomly sample 20 cans of tuna fish a year. They do not do any enforcement of any kind if they find more than 1 ppm of mercury in canned Tuna, and the Tuna industry is not required to do anything if they find excess mercury in a batch of Tuna fish. It just gets filled away and ignored.

But the EPA limit for total mercury in drinking water is .002 ppm.
20 ppm of total mercury (must all be leachable) in a waste makes it a Hazardous waste! Today, silver colored tooth fillings are still about 50% elemental mercury. Until recently ethyl mercury, Thimerosal, one of the most neurotoxic forms of mercury, was used at concentrations as high as 50,000 ppm in vaccines!

Pure LSD is being tested for prescription medicinal uses! While we throw LSD users in jail. DEA still considers California medicinal marihuana dealers as felons from what I have heard recently, even though California law legalized medicinal uses for relieving chemotherapy symptoms years ago.

Our society and our laws are full of huge contradictions, bias, and inequities that bear much closer examination by the electorate!

If you want to cure the illegal drug problem, make it unprofitable by legalizing it. All criminalizing it ever did was make it more profitable for the good guys and bad guys, and the attorneys, and jail builders.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about "decriminalisation," not "legalisation." There is a difference.

If it's decriminalised, then mere posession and use is no longer illegal. There ca (and should be!) penalties for inappropriate use, and the guidelines for "inappropriate use" can be derived from those for booze. However, "decriminalisation" makes mere possession no longer a crime. It makes mere use no longer a crime.

I'm not wild about the effects of herion and other opoids on people - especially in the long term - but once it's been decriminalised and legitimised, it can be more properly addressed and we can begin to recover these people into useful members of society (akin to what is done in Europe. I don't normally draw favourable comparisons between us and Europe, but there are a few cases where they are ahead of us. Drugs and associated problems. Nudity taboos and their attitude towards the body. Public transportatioin infrastructure. &c.)

As long as we continue to make the mere possession of these substances illegal, we are going to continue to have the street crime associated with them. We are going to have signficant amounts of dollars leaving the country (which doesn't do the economy any good. Money goes out, but nothing useful comes back in that case.) And, we are going to continue to have a large unproductive segment of the population. And continue to ramp up our rate of incarceration. As said, a good percentage of the people locked up to-day (and getting stigmatised as felons) are not violent. And a good portion of them (mainly the users of THC - weed and hash) aren't likely to become violent.

The principal reason I advocate decriminalisation is simple and twofold: 1) What we've been doing for the last fifty years just flat is not working. 2) Prohibition of booze didn't work either. So, we after criminalising it (by Constitutional Amdendment,) and decriminalised it (by Constitutional Amendment.) This wouldn't take anywhere near as much work.
 
Part of the problem must be the LEO's ability to detect drug use acurately, inexpensively, and quickly much as a BA detector checks during suspected DD stops.
 
I see where your coming from with the gun point, but I don't really agree with it.

Most gun owner can continue to function in society. They go to their jobs, drive cars, shop in the mall etc... all while carrying a gun.

Most heroine addicts can't hold down a job, don't have a place to live, can't afford their habit and a car at the same time, and if they try to go to a mall most of the time will get escorted out quickly, all while strung out.

Yes there are the few gun owner, that go crazy and start wasting mofos. Just like there are heroine users that function everyday just fine.

We want everyone to be a responsible gun owner and a responsible drug users. Shooting mofos isn't addictive like shooting-up though. (well for some)

I suspect there are just as many Illegal drug users with normal daily lives, if not more, than there are gun owners who lead normal daily lives in the USA. And I am pretty sure there are way more drug abusers leading normal lives than gun owners.
 
Back
Top