Are bond issues a good deal for the children or taxpayers?
I realize those who always push for more school spending for projects small to large believe themselves to be acting in the interest of children. I’ll show you why it’s not true when these folk advocate debt spending, in the form of bond issues. Take Lubbock ISD’s bond proposal. The district says it’s a $198,000,000 bond but it’s not, really. With the interest residents will be compelled to pay, it is a $415,000,000 expense – this they admit. What that means is that every item, for the children, that costs one dollar, residents will pay two dollars and ten cents for. That’s how debt financing works. Certainly there is a place for public-debt spending through bonds: emergencies. If a disaster were to wipe out enough infrastructure that a local government, whether a school or city, could not effectively operate while citizens were still in need of services, debt can be justified. Another form of emergency for a school district might be massive rapid growth where the tax-base is just comi
Related Questions
- Since all taxpayers subsidize schools whether or not they have children in the schools, why shouldn’t all taxpayers subsidize trash collection even if they aren’t generating much trash?
- THE CHILDRENS FATHER REFUSES TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, BUT OWNS A GOOD DEAL OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY. CAN A LIENBE ISSUED AT THE SAME TIME THE ORDER FOR SUPPORT IS ESTABLISHED IN COURT?
- What are good ways of mediating between families and runaway children?
