By James

March 2, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

I agree with Steve. We must stop the Dayton school board. Let’s make sure that they don’t give the students of Dayton a diverse and quality education. We don’t want them to compete fairly with the rich kids. Ha Ha!

By Oldprof

March 2, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

In general, we have no system of taxes in this nation that’s fair. Businesses in Dayton can usually get city commission to cut their property taxes just by asking. Income taxes get loopholed to absurdity (usually to favor the higher-income); sales taxes are the most unfair of all. Unless and until we get a national fair tax law—one that says that tax rates may be set for categories but not adjusted specially for individuals—then our complexity-loving politicians will continue to confuse us about revenues vs. expenditures.

By Oldprof

March 2, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

OK, Chris, they’ve already reduced administrative staff, so you’re planning to vote yes. Dayton Taxpayer, I’m waiting for you to show me how Charters, overall, are outperforming DPS; so far they haven’t. (If you want to cherry-pick the few good ones, DPS gets to cherry-pick Stivers and DECA.) Vote no if your conscience so dictates, but please get straight information to base it on.

By Dayton Taxpayer

March 1, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

I agree with Chris. VOTE NO on this levey. How is it that suburban schools, private schools and charter schools who outperform Dayton City Schools opearate on $7,000 per pupil and the Dayton City District who recieves over $12,000 per pupil is still crying for more money???? It’s been shown that District school can operate more efficiently. Less administration and more for teachers. DPS needs to trim the fat!! This tax increase is not fair to the homeowners of Dayton.

By Buford

March 1, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

Scott, let’s see if I have this right. An Earned Income-related tax dedicated toward school funding would not generate enough money to take care of the school needs? And, it would hit middle-income workers hardest? Haven’t seen any concrete rationale from either you or Mr. Gottlieb on why that should be so. Also, if that would actually be true, wouldn’t that be indicative of Dayton being a wage-depressed area? If Dayton is a wage-depressed area, why then should anyone be surprised that money is tight for a lot of people? And property tax levies are a better-more equitable method to obtain school funding? Even though the State Supreme Court has said it is not? Even though voter-approved property tax levies can occur and pass through the renter’s vote? And people on public assistance, whose rent is determined by percentage of family income - cannot have their rent increased just because property taxes went up? And municipality owned or privately owned rental properties face a revenue shortfall due to increased tax base? So where does the additional funding come from, when rents cannot be raised? Can municipalities raise rates on other services performed - to get income - or petition for increased State or Federal monies to restore equilibrium? And where does State or Federal dollars come from, except from the public and businesses? No, I really believe property owners have been a too-convenient target for levies and owners need to just say “No Mas.” Retirees and Senior Citizens have paid and supported well more than they should.

By daddy dearest

March 1, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

Steve I am confused how you make the correlation between school funding and union wages. The new schools are built with money from bond issues, which is not the same as the levies used to pay for operating expenses. The only money paid to union wages from the construction of new schools goes to the skilled trades such as steelworkers, electrical workers, etc. No money from bond issues is used to pay teachers and administrators.

By Steve

March 1, 2007 12:15 AM | Link to this

And now the state is giving the authority for school boards to waste money on “union wages” for new school construction. They never learn. We must stop the Dayton school board from increasing costs on the new schools.

By Keith

February 28, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

I found the editorial rather bland, especially coming from someone unconcerned about the reality of schools and who never saw a charter/private/parochial school that he didn’t like. How boards does he sit on—or at least did sit on. Someone I worked with knew the details a few years back. Notice in the rural farming oriented counties where farm-related families predominate they voted a tax on the working people. Farmers have lots of tax deductions so they essentially show no income; the worker at a job gets a paycheck but doesn’t get to deduct the costs of life as part of his farm expenses. It’s the reverse of people voting an earnings tax such as Dayton’s high tax on other folk rather than themselves… I hadn’t realized the farm counties had succeeded in doing that! Everybody’s looking for the ‘dragon’ for taxing to get money out of someone else. How does Indiana handle operating money tax rates? How does Illinois? Pennsylvania?

By Thomas

February 28, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this

They already have plenty of money. They just need to spend it more wisely. More for teachers, less for administrators.

By Mary

February 28, 2007 7:38 AM | Link to this

I thought Gottleib’s column was mainly a discussion about options on how to bleed and dice a turnip. The bottom line is we need to control costs and set priorities for our schools. The discussion about how we can continue to ignore costs and instead seek magical income sources like non-poisonous mushrooms under a rock to bleed and tax is past its prime. How would a reliance on investment income he also mentions, but does not advocate, do today as the stock market plummets? I expect to hear next, we should simply ask Santa Claus for more money for the children. Grow up folks, we have our limits on what we can afford and what public education should do.

By Chris

February 27, 2007 11:45 PM | Link to this

I refuse to vote for any tax increase for the schools until they cut administrative staff. A greater percentage of the money needs to go to the teachers/students.