Letter: S. Ann Robinson, Leesburg

Editor:  In his letter to you David Dickinson wrote, “…parents (of privately schooled children) watch … a significant portion of their taxes go to schools they are not required to use and from which their children derive no benefit.”

Really. He can’t be serious.

Education is not a consumer good. It is a public benefit for the public good. Would you rather live in a region of the country where most of the residents are not educated? Imagine the difference in your quality of life… instead of the networks of competent, skilled and involved citizens that live and work in Loudoun due to it’s excellent public education. That is certainly a benefit that all — including children –– receive and enjoy.

I haven’t had a child in the public schools for 20 years now, and it does not bother me at all that my taxes go to pay for good schools. Education is the foundation of a decent and prosperous society as a whole.

S. Ann Robinson, Leesburg

2 thoughts on “Letter: S. Ann Robinson, Leesburg

  • 2016-03-01 at 4:42 pm

    “Being forced to pay for an unused system” is an absolutely ludicrous thing to say, because it implies the LCPS budget is determined by the the total number of ALL school-age children in the county. Only then could anyone be paying for “unused” capacity, but we’re not: we’re paying for the kids who show up at our schools – and for whom state law demands that we as a community provide (and fund) an education and related services.

    No, what he’s really saying here is that people who don’t have kids in the public schools shouldn’t have to pay anything to educate anyone else’s kids.

    Imagine what that would be like: how difficult might it be to sell your house here in Loudoun County if potential buyers got wind that our public schools were available only on a subscription basis? That’s what he seems to be advocating.

    Their property tax bill would depend less on the value of their home and more on how many kids they have. That would boost many families’ taxes around here enormously.

    First, forget about that $12,000 per-pupil expense on which the LCPS budgets are currently calculated. If you’re going to have the same number of kids in school but “excuse” thousands of families from their share of the payment, that number would go up substantially.

    Worse, every time a family had (or adopted) another kid and sent them to school, their annual tax would suddenly balloon beginning with their public school enrollment. Even if the per-pupil cost held around $12,000 each, quintuplets would cost a family an extra $60,000 per year in “school taxes”!

    It gets even better than that, though. Because many of the school system’s costs are fixed from year to year, all of those families would see their tax bills fluctuate greatly – depending on how many parents decided to send their kids to those schools each year.

    And if parents took their kids out of our public schools solely because they couldn’t afford these stratospheric taxes? Everyone else’s tax bills would have to balloon to compensate for that. It would be just a matter of time before NO ONE could afford to educate their kids in public schools.

    I honestly believe he’d be okay with that – until he realized the society he’d created had degenerated so far that he couldn’t survive in it any longer.

    In other words, he doesn’t want anything remotely like the “fairness” his words appear to seek. All he wants is his tax money back, and he’ll say or do anything to get that. If it requires destroying the rest of the world to make that happen, that’s just fine with him.

    That’s worse than hypocritical: it’s downright depraved.

  • 2016-02-16 at 4:27 pm

    Fine…from which their children derive no DIRECT benefit….happy now?

    The fact that the taxpaying parents of 10,000 Loudoun students are being forced to pay for an unused system doesn’t upset you, but you are upset over the lack of recognition of the intangibles?

    Is there a social justice hypocrite in the house?

Leave a Reply