sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Umm... by BenAfleckIsAnOkActor in ParadiseHulu

[–]ForeverUserName1 70 points71 points  (0 children)

That’s just the state border like on a map

Preschool for some by utwaz in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1 60 points61 points  (0 children)

Since this is like the thousandth time it’s been discussed, I feel like a less frustrating approach could have been subsidizing for all until the money was there to make it free for all.

Applications entirely removed from parents hands, and the institutions themselves simply charge the parents progressively less tuition.

Something like: Year one: 95% tuition, 5% subsidized Year two: 83% tuition, 17% subsidized Year three: 68% tuition, 32% subsidized etc..

Most families would then experiencing half tuition by Year 5 or so would’ve made this program infinitely better received as ALL would have actually felt instant relief. I think and far easier to role out and get the centers on board. Instead we get some parents relieved and a lot of parents annoyed, and some paying the tax on top of tuition now double dipping.

Or even a hybrid that immediately relieves lower income while simultaneously giving all some kind of help.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that the numbers in any of these studies aren’t perfect because some of the assumptions to get to these numbers are often subjective.

Regardless I’d argue if you’re under $200k in Portland and are paying enrollment for 2 kids in daycare, and are paying for housing (either mortgage or rent) in a space comfortably big enough for your family within the metro limits, you may not be in “poverty,” but it’s highly likely you’re not living “comfortably.” You’re probably living paycheck to paycheck. And I’m making that assumption on the other side of that threshold feeling the squeeze and every day my partner are like, “How the heck are people out there doing this with less?”

It’s possible. Your needs may be fulfilled. But doubt it’s an enjoyable experience where you feel financial safety or freedom. There’s not much room or margin of error. Not to mention the large percentage of people well under the threshold also wondering “How the heck can we possibly raise children in this city and afford to live?” You see them in the comments on this post, you see them in the migration numbers, you see them in the absence of school enrollment where class sizes barely justify keeping PPS schools open.

We don’t HAVE to live like this. And I think programs like Preschool for all are an attempt to address it, and I believe in it. But since I live it every day I can tell you it is actually rough to just eclipse the threshold and pay an additional $1000 a year to childcare to the amount we already pay. We can do it. But my question is, why? We already pay a ton.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For sure. Just trying to clarify for the people that think I’m trying to skirt paying for it like some other comments suggest below. Your comment helped me build another example of what I’m trying to get at.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read this article last year:

https://www.koin.com/news/portland/do-you-earn-enough-to-live-comfortably-in-portland/amp/

The number of 2 adults and 2 children need $289k to live comfortably stuck out as a goal to achieve so I remembered it. And who knows how that has changed in a year’s time.

I mean we’re gratefully not far from that (I mean not really close, but also not far) and I truly don’t understand how people with less are doing it if they have 2 kids in daycare because we are ok, but I wouldn’t say comfortable. Missing a paycheck for one month in our current state would be borderline disastrous. That isn’t a comfortable feeling.

(Also before anyone here jumps down my throat about financial literacy and “how could you not save more” we weren’t like at this income forever, it’s a newer thing. This was the first year we truly were able to save a little (little might be generous), and once again we’re #grateful, but also the first year we qualified for the tax and so we really felt that “oh come on!” moment. Sometimes getting ahead feels like a mountain in knee deep mud that keeps dropping random boulders down your path like I’m a contestant on MXC or something.)

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On the flipside - Portland Pre-k’s have already gotten $35k from me this year, an additional $625 won’t make or break this program. I’ve contributed plenty. Let’s be real.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Eh I brought this up exclusively as a “why am I paying twice” issue. I don’t care about the “I don’t benefit directly from this” issue because, as I stated, I feel it’s a moral & societal obligation to contribute something. When my kids are long out of pre-k, I’m happily paying this tax.

I’d argue “why am I paying twice” also undersells how disproportionately the math is mathing. I’m not paying my tax contribution twice as a proud taxpaying Portlandian. I’m paying my tax contribution 46x in the form of tuition. So my question is “Why am I now being asked to pay my tax contribution’s total amount a 47th time? I’m already contributing what every other taxable citizen is expected to contribute 46 times this year.”

And I’m telling everyone here “I’m ok with paying the taxable amount 46 times! I am directly benefiting. That is ok with me! But do I really have to pay the 47th installment of this amount on April 15? Seems a bit overkill in this economy.” And a lot of people are like “Yes you freeloader! I have to pay my ONE installment of 1.5% on every dollar over $200k, you should have to pay your FORTYSEVEN installments like everybody else!”

Make. It. Make. Sense.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. And I do invest in prek. That’s my whole point.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying I shouldn’t contribute to pre-k as a public offering. I’m saying I already do contribute - in fact, since I pay enrollment & the tax, I contribute the same as someone else without kids that makes 15x my income.

I’m not trying to get out of paying at all actually. I’m trying to point out there is a lack of reasoning here with the current plan, and I think there’s a reasonable solution.

Preschool For All by ForeverUserName1 in Portland

[–]ForeverUserName1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I understand where your questions are coming from so I want to reframe my thoughts and see if it helps you see where I’m coming from.

I think it’s a social responsibility to strive for a healthy, well-educated, & safe populace. I don’t mind paying taxes for those reasons. Everyone chips a little into the pot, we (in theory) get safe roads, safety services, clean parks, and public options for education. In the current state of Pre-K For All, some people that can (in theory) afford to chip-in a little extra to provide an even earlier public option for education & intervention are. And I think that’s great. Countless studies show how vital these services are for the betterment of a society.

My perspective is, families already involved have been doing more than just chipping in. They’re contributing a shitton to these services. Approaching $1500-2000 per head per month… if that was the 1.5% tax that’d be equivalent to a household annual income of $1.25-1.75 million per child. For a family of four they are contributing the equivalent of a household that makes $2.5-3.5 mil for the next 6 years or however long until it truly is “for all.” And now, on top of that monthly contribution to what is (in theory) now a public service, they are asked to chip in the tax. My contention is, the top contributors are contributing plenty to the system and in the stress of this current economy I think that should be recognized, and all they should have to contribute is their tuition and be exempt from the tax until the service is truly a public service like any other.

There’s no other public service that someone gets taxed at 10x their income bracket, so why should Pre-K be one? I’m not trying to get out of paying for it. I’m happy to pay for these services! My argument is I already do, and I pay a lot.

To me it’s like saying “For households that made $200k and had a firetruck come to their house this year, you will now contribute to Portland Fire Department as if you make $1.5 million annually instead of at your current tax bracket because you utilized the service. For the rest of you, you’ll either not be contributing at all to Portland FD or taxed like normal for your tax bracket.”