Great definition of "white privilege" I just heard

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


It will be dependent on wages, how much a community can input into the tax systems, so that point is vital.
So did you ask also what wages they are given in that area, because I bet you there is a big disparity on that was well in some areas?

Low income applies to white people as well though, so they are likely to buy a house in a cheaper area and be subject to less local spending on schooling. According to Ben, they are still at an advantage because they're white though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

didge wrote:


Local taxes?
Again the same will apply if they are within the same money threshold, again if one are gets more funds over the other, that ceases to be any form of benefit, when people wil struggle to pay that tax in the first place.
I fail to see how any of what you are saying is a benefit.

Ben said that schools are paid for by local property taxes.

public school districts are funded by local property taxes, which are generated at far greater amounts in wealthy communities than they are in poor communities.

The idea is that those who buy houses in cheaper areas pay less in local property taxes, and therefore, less money is spent on schools. However, if they choose to buy a house in a cheaper area, they save money on the mortgage and they pay less in tax, so isn't it their own choice?

I'm still checking if schools are funded solely from local property taxes actually, but I'm just going on what Ben said at the moment.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you really think that white people are never on low wages, that's your problem. The second point was based on what Ben said. I was referring to what Ben said, and it's fuck all to do with "evidence". If you have an issue with what he said, take it up with him.

Tbh, I shouldn't have replied to you at all. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt - the triumph of hope over experience I guess.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm not interested Didge. I can see the usual problem arising with you, and I'm going to avoid it. Knock yourself out.

Raggamuffin wrote:So if people in a particular area paying more in local taxes than people in another area, isn't it fair that they get more for what they're paying?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So if people in a particular area paying more in local taxes than people in another area, isn't it fair that they get more for what they're paying?

I agree with that up to a point, the point being that children have no say over where they're born or who their parents are.

We can't make the argument that everyone has the same chance to succeed when they don't get the same quality education.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So if people in a particular area paying more in local taxes than people in another area, isn't it fair that they get more for what they're paying?

I agree with that up to a point, the point being that children have no say over where they're born or who their parents are.

We can't make the argument that everyone has the same chance to succeed when they don't get the same quality education.

So is there a case for removing school funding from local control and making it national? If you simply add public money in areas where people pay less property taxes, those in areas where they pay more will probably just complain. Those who have more expenses houses aren't necessarily better off IMO - unless they're living in huge mansions of course.

didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Why do you care whether the "forum joke" answers you or not? Have you stooped that low?

Because Ben its simple, you only care about certain discrimination

And its based on a darker shade ratio

That is what is troubling and we are seeing the effects of white guilt by leftists in Europe. Now Europe has been miles and leaps forward thinking than the US for the last few decades, but the left when in power, have over compensated for prejudice to minorities. To now see poorer whites suffer, but you do not care about that. You will only do so in a couple of decades when you see the same happen within the states. That is how many years behind the US is behind Europe. There is still problems for minorities in this country with prejudice and discrimination, in the judicial system, for example. Of which I all the time on speak out on, but the moment people show where problems are now coming up with the poorer whites, we see the worst hypocrisy ever from you. 

You go off suffering poverty as a child, using some sob story, sorry but I do not need to go on about on this topic. The fact I grew up in severe poverty. I strove like everyone else in my family to do well, even though society disadvantaged me, being of the lowest class and discriminated against. You forget I am off immigrant parents also, at a time when the Irish were treated with disdain and prejudice. So do not dare pull that bullshit with me as you have never suffered discrimination like I did growing up. Its about wanting to succeed, even when disadvantaged, which nothing is stopping any of us from doing. So don't dare play the victim card to me about poverty. Even you have succeeded with journalism and why? With hard work, just like everyone has the opportunity to do when disadvantaged, but the difference between us is this. You do not want equality and suffer white guilt. I am against all discrimination and look to obtain equality for all. I want to see bad ideas become of a thing of the past, because these bad ideas effect the well being and equality of people. You though defend them. Your method only brings further imbalance because again, you only look through the American leftist white guilt lens and if there was ever a more flawed system, it is that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So is there a case for removing school funding from local control and making it national? If you simply add public money in areas where people pay less property taxes, those in areas where they pay more will probably just complain. Those who have more expenses houses aren't necessarily better off IMO - unless they're living in huge mansions of course.

Again, it's not about the taxpayers, it's about their children. I would favor a state-level "Robin Hood" plan in which money is pooled and distributed as evenly as possible.

Rich kids already have countless educational advantages. The government shouldn't be institutionalizing even more advantages for them while failing the poor.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So is there a case for removing school funding from local control and making it national? If you simply add public money in areas where people pay less property taxes, those in areas where they pay more will probably just complain. Those who have more expenses houses aren't necessarily better off IMO - unless they're living in huge mansions of course.

Again, it's not about the taxpayers, it's about their children. I would favor a state-level "Robin Hood" plan in which money is pooled and distributed as evenly as possible.

Rich kids already have countless educational advantages. The government shouldn't be institutionalizing even more advantages for them while failing the poor.

You can't really separate the tax payers from their children because they're the ones who are paying. Are you assuming that all white people are "rich"? The point is that if it was funded at a national level, there wouldn't be the issue of property tax paying for it, and then it wouldn't matter how much someone's property was worth.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't really separate the tax payers from their children because they're the ones who are paying. Are you assuming that all white people are "rich"? The point is that if it was funded at a national level, there wouldn't be the issue of property tax paying for it, and then it wouldn't matter how much someone's property was worth.

First of all, if you've read my posts in this thread you'll know that I don't think all white people are rich. I'm white and I'm not rich, and I only know a few white people I would consider rich.

School funding has to come from somewhere, so the wealthy could still claim they deserve more funding in the communities because the wealthy generate a larger portion of the public treasury.

I also wouldn't favor funding at the national level (other than perhaps supplementary funding) because the U.S. is too big. An appropriate per-student allotment is going to vary quite a bit between New York State and Mississippi, given the wide gap in cost of living between places like that. For example, if you make $50,000 per year in Manhattan, you could have a lifestyle comparable to that in Jackson, Mississippi for just $19,000.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So if people in a particular area paying more in local taxes than people in another area, isn't it fair that they get more for what they're paying?

I agree with that up to a point, the point being that children have no say over where they're born or who their parents are.

We can't make the argument that everyone has the same chance to succeed when they don't get the same quality education.