Bill to raise OK Teacher Pay via Fuel Tax Hike

[Bobby5280]

Proposed bill increases teacher pay by raising tax on gas

TULSA, OK (KTUL) – Lawmakers will address a bill that would increase teacher pay by increasing taxes on gas.

"My bill is giving teachers a four percent raise this year and a four percent raise next year,"  said Stanislawski, who claims tax on gas has not been raised in 20 years.

"So my proposal is to raise diesel tax seven cents from 14 cents to 21 cents. Raise regular unleaded from 17 cents to 23 that's six cents raise. That should bring in approximately 178-million dollars of new revenue. That is enough to pay for the teacher pay raise,"  said Stanislawski.

He says the plan would mean consumers paying more for fuel. He will introduce his bill during Education Day at the Capitol.

There's no denying teachers in Oklahoma are among the lowest paid in the nation. I personally know a couple teachers who left for schools in Texas, effectively getting over $10,000 more annually in pay for moving. However, I think the idea of hiking fuel taxes to fund pay raises for teachers is just a lousy idea. I believe fuel taxes should be spent only on building and maintaining roads. Oklahoma's funding mechanism for its roads is already badly under-funded and badly out of date by more than 20 years. Our highway system has gone without any funding increases despite the fact it's far more expensive now to build and maintain roads than it was in the early 1990's. The idea that fuel taxes would be hiked for the first time in a generation, but the new funding would get misdirected elsewhere is just crazy. If the state needs to raise taxes to fund teacher pay raises they ought to look elsewhere.

[inkyatari]

Here in Illinois, in the last election, citizens voted on a proposal to make sure that gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be for roads anyway, are to be used for roads only.  If I recall correctly, the measure passed, but it wasn't binding.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Many other government bodies in the backwards state I live in said that money should go wherever it's needed (Illinois is in terrible financial shape, hence  why they were opposing this bill,) but as I posted in the Illinois notes thread, I-55 SW of Chicago was widened to three lanes 6 years ago, and already it's deteriorated very badly. If road funds can be diverted elsewhere, we could be driving on the country's first unintentional gravel interstate.

[SP Cook]

Money is fungible.  One of the big lies, perhaps the biggest lie, of government is the idea that some tax increase is "for" this or that idea that most people are for.  No.  In fact government has plenty of money to do whatever you want done, it simply has wasted it on other things. 

Thus so, the proper way to analyze ANY tax proposal is not the supposed purpose, but in light of the MOSTpointless and worthless thing government currently does.  The tax increase is to continue doing that.  Otherwise, simply cut that and use that moeny for proper things.

[jeffandnicole]

Do the teachers start telling the kids how dangerous it is to be on those school buses?  This will encourage the kids to get their parents to drive them to school...thus buying more gas...thus giving them more money!!

[corco]

Money is fungible.  One of the big lies, perhaps the biggest lie, of government is the idea that some tax increase is "for" this or that idea that most people are for.  No.  In fact government has plenty of money to do whatever you want done, it simply has wasted it on other things. 

Thus so, the proper way to analyze ANY tax proposal is not the supposed purpose, but in light of the MOSTpointless and worthless thing government currently does.  The tax increase is to continue doing that.  Otherwise, simply cut that and use that moeny for proper things.

I get this argument for the federal and to lesser extent state government, but not local government.

At least wherever I've lived, school districts are an entirely independent governmental entity that oftentimes is actually underfunded - they have no power to take money from the county or the state or whatever beyond what the county/state is willing to give them.

Because of that, the money from the "Obnoxious Bureaucratic Regulatory Commission" that your county has that doesn't do anything can't possibly be redirected to the schools. You can make the argument that said commission should go away, but you can't take their money and give it to the schools because they aren't the same entity and have completely different elected officials. That may be annoying but unless you don't want the local school board to be independent and want it even more beholden to the county/state government, which I'm guessing you don't, there's no way around that.

[Brandon]

Here in Illinois, in the last election, citizens voted on a proposal to make sure that gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be for roads anyway, are to be used for roads only.  If I recall correctly, the measure passed, but it wasn't binding.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

It's very binding.  It's an amendment to the state constitution.

[inkyatari]

Here in Illinois, in the last election, citizens voted on a proposal to make sure that gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be for roads anyway, are to be used for roads only.  If I recall correctly, the measure passed, but it wasn't binding.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

It's very binding.  It's an amendment to the state constitution.

I thought it was just a proposal to start things rolling on getting an amendment..

I need to re- read the Illinois constitution.

[Bobby5280]

Money is fungible.  One of the big lies, perhaps the biggest lie, of government is the idea that some tax increase is "for" this or that idea that most people are for.  No.  In fact government has plenty of money to do whatever you want done, it simply has wasted it on other things.

Plenty of money to do whatever? That greatly assumes the state government is bothering to collect enough revenue to pay its bills. Anything deemed "wasteful spending" really depends on one's perspective (and hard lined, goose-stepping ideology) these days. Here in Oklahoma lawmakers got into the habit of pandering to voters with tax cuts along with giving all sorts of tax breaks/credits to various industries (like oil & gas). The tactic has done very little to grow the state's economy. Instead the state's budget is badly busted. Oklahoma cannot by law get into deficit spending. So things like public education are going through very deep, very painful and ultimately harmful cuts. There's less money to keep criminals locked up in prison. OK Highway Patrol troopers can drive no more than 100 miles per day.

If Oklahoma can't maintain good quality public school systems, good infrastructure, effective law enforcement, etc. families are going to be leaving in droves. They'll even be leaving if they have to sell homes at a loss or just walk away from the mortgage. The Sooner State's current trend line is that of a sinking ship.

At least wherever I've lived, school districts are an entirely independent governmental entity that oftentimes is actually underfunded - they have no power to take money from the county or the state or whatever beyond what the county/state is willing to give them.

Lawton Public Schools is one example of a large yet badly under-funded school district. Many of the city's biggest earners live in developments outside of the city limits or in other districts like Cache or Elgin. That leaves mostly lower and middle income earners making up the property tax base in town. LPS has lots of military dependents from Fort Sill in its schools. Yet the DOD doesn't give LPS squat for Impact Aid funding. LPS is more dependent on state and federal funding than other far more prosperous districts like Edmond. Unlike Edmond it practically takes a miracle for voters in Lawton to pass any bond measure. Most of the people who show up for any vote are older people, many of them retired military. They don't feel like paying taxes for anything at all.

[SP Cook]

Plenty of money to do whatever?

Exactly.  Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.  Then it lies to you and tells you that the nest tax increase, and the next, and the next, are "for" things it already was doing BEFORE it decided to start doing other things.

Don't fall for it.  Take the most wasteful item in the budget and understand that THAT is what the tax increase is really for.  Thirty seconds of moral courage solves most any tax shortfall.  Unfortuantly, too few have that moral courage. 

[jeffandnicole]

Plenty of money to do whatever?

Exactly.  Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.  Then it lies to you and tells you that the nest tax increase, and the next, and the next, are "for" things it already was doing BEFORE it decided to start doing other things.

Don't fall for it.  Take the most wasteful item in the budget and understand that THAT is what the tax increase is really for.  Thirty seconds of moral courage solves most any tax shortfall.  Unfortuantly, too few have that moral courage. 

Lets say that money is spent on watching grass grow.  You'd have the EPA claiming they're cutting their funding.   Or it's spent on expensive surf and turf dinners.  You'll have the beef, cattle and fishing industries claiming they are being hurt.

No matter how wasteful that spending it, some group(s) will lie claim to that the funding is hurting them. 

[Bobby5280]

Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.

"Other things" is a vague term. Here in Oklahoma what specifically are the "other things" the state is wasting money on so that essential departments like Public Education and Dept. of Corrections are being forced to weather steep budget cuts year after year?

Anyone can talk broad and vague about "wasteful spending" and other popular stances like "they're lining their pockets with our tax dollars!" Anyone can spin these stories without having all the specifics of the state's actual budget and specifically how much tax revenue is being collected.

I'll bet the average American doesn't realize that discretionary spending makes up a tiny part of the government budget. Health care, defense, social security, medicare, medicaid and interest payments on the national debt eat up so much of the budget there is little left for anything else. Eliminating the EPA, NEA, etc. will net very little budget savings at all. Those program eliminations are all about serving ideology rather than saving money. The same goes for efforts to undermine or even eliminate public education. Between the high, rising cost of health care and the generally high cost of raising kids we're already ushering in a trend of negative population growth in the United States. Without public schools America's birth rates would fall off precipitously. Only a small minority of people can afford sending their kids to private schools.

[kphoger]

Without public schools America's birth rates would fall off precipitously.

Now who is spinning a story?  Do you have some sort of data to support your assertion that people's decision about whether to have kids or not is based on the availability of public education?

Only a small minority of people can afford sending their kids to private schools.

My wife and I are people of limited means, and we have two school-aged children (and one 2½-year-old).  We don't send our children to public school, but we don't send them to private school either.  You figure that one out; those aren't the only two options.

[corco]

Plenty of money to do whatever?

Exactly.  Government, federal, state, local, whatever, already has PLENTY of money to do whatever needs doing.  The things that are legitimate functions of government, like education, law enforcement/defense, roads and transportation, and so on.  It simply chooses to spend it on other things.  Then it lies to you and tells you that the nest tax increase, and the next, and the next, are "for" things it already was doing BEFORE it decided to start doing other things.

Don't fall for it.  Take the most wasteful item in the budget and understand that THAT is what the tax increase is really for.  Thirty seconds of moral courage solves most any tax shortfall.  Unfortuantly, too few have that moral courage. 

What does your local school district, an entirely independent entity, spend money on that isn't related to education?

[Rothman]

The idea that state governments are awash with cash is not founded in reality.  Here in NY, we have enough to slow the decline of pavement or bridge conditions, but not stem them or improve them.  In fact, our available funding would need to grow by 150% to achieve a state of good repair.

This is a personal opinion stemming from my experience...which is considerable.

[Bobby5280]

Now who is spinning a story? Do you have some sort of data to support your assertion that people's decision about whether to have kids or not is based on the availability of public education?

Lack of public education would increase the high cost of raising children. That would add negative incentive to already emerging downward trends of population growth in the United States.

The fertility rate in the United States declined from 3.65 births per woman in 1960 to 1.88 births per woman in 2012. The US is now hitting new all-time lows in fertility rate. For the past 30 years the United States has netted most of its population growth via immigration from less developed nations and the higher birth rates of those immigrants. Our government hasn't exactly been rolling out the welcome mat lately. Developing nations like India are going through the demographic transition as they improve, pushing down their own birth rates in the process. India had a fertility rate of 5.87 births per woman in 1960 to 2.5 per woman in 2012. Many already developed nations have regressive growth among their native-born population.

The US is now showing record growth in percentages of women who don't have children. In 2014 the US Census said 47.6% of women between age 15 and 44 never had children, up from 46.5% in 2012. More women are choosing not to have kids for very obvious reasons. Health care costs a ridiculous fortune. Day care is expensive. Other industries catering to kids have parents over a barrel. Many women are pursuing professional careers and don't want to perform double duty raising kids at home. Divorce rates have fallen to a 40 year low, but people are waiting longer to get married and there is less social stigma on co-habitation. The government is working to cut funding for various childhood programs. That makes parenthood look less desirable and increases the financial burden for those who have unplanned pregnancies.

Fewer people are having unplanned pregnancies. Look at America's teen pregnancy rate. In 1991 the rate was 61.8 births per 1000 for females ages 15-19. In 2014 that number dropped to 24.2 births per 1000.

There's not much in the way of regulations for what private schools and charter schools can charge for tuition. Vouchers don't cover all the cost, whatever the hell that might be. Anyone deliberately considering parenthood is absolutely going to be doing a lot of financial math. One of my co-workers took a second job for a year to pay for medical bills from his wife's pregnancy. Not everyone is willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

Undermining public schools or eliminating them entirely would be a stupidly self-destructive move for this nation. Public schools literally make the difference between America being a developed country or a third world country.

My wife and I are people of limited means, and we have two school-aged children (and one 2½-year-old).  We don't send our children to public school, but we don't send them to private school either.  You figure that one out; those aren't the only two options.

Not all parents are honestly qualified to home-school their children. Of those who can do an effective job, not all can fit the tasks of educating their kids into their schedule. You pretty much need at least one stay at home parent. Not every family can afford to have just one bread winner.

[hbelkins]

How many states have schools as independent governmental agencies that answer to the state vs. schools as arms of the city or county government?

In Kentucky, school districts are independent of any local government and get funding from state (and I presume federal funding passes through the state) and local sources. Around here, real estate taxes for schools are the highest of any taxing body (state, county, city if applicable, library board, etc.).

[Scott5114]

Oklahoma has a budget problem, but it's not because of waste, fraud or abuse (although I'm sure there's examples of that). It's because 23rd & Lincoln* has slashed revenues by offering tax breaks for all sorts of things. Oklahoma's oil and gas industry is doing quite well, but the state is not seeing any of that money because of tax incentives extended to those industries. Which begs the question–what are they going to do if they don't have the subsidy? Leave the oil in the ground? They didn't do that during the Henry or Keating administrations.

We had a SQ back in November that wanted to raise the state sales tax by 1% to fund teacher pay. I voted against it–in Newcastle, where I work, sales tax is already 9%, and it's 8.75% here in Norman. Sending sales taxes up to 10% is not something I'm okay with, although I'm okay with tax increases of other types (due to the fact that sales tax is the most inherently regressive form of taxation). The SQ failed, although I don't know what part of that was because of people thinking like me, and how much of it is people who just hate all tax increases.

I definitely support raising the gas tax, but if and only if that money goes to ODOT. Education should be funded through the traditional means–property tax. If the general fund needs more cash, that should come from income tax increases, not raising the sales tax ad nauseum. And cut it out with the carveouts for special interests.

I'm quite fortunate to live in Norman. Voters here are willing to agree to tax increases to keep the city funded. 0.5% of the 8.75% sales tax we pay goes to the Norman Forward program, which is a slate of improvements to expand and maintain the parks & rec system, build roads, and build us a new library branch. Our roads may be questionably designed (and are wanting in terms of walkability), but they are generally in good repair. Overall, I tend to feel that the money we send down to Gray Street is being spent well, and that Norman's government is generally on our side, which is more than I can say for 23rd & Lincoln.

*This is the intersection the state capitol is located at. This is a common metonym for the Oklahoma state government. "Oklahoma City" is not used much as a metonym because the OKC government in many ways is the antithesis of the state government, and the two are at odds most of the time.

[wxfree]

This is somewhat paralleled in Texas.  Our constitution dedicates one quarter of the fuel tax to schools.  It's been that way since at least 1946.

Answering the question just asked, in Texas schools are all independent districts.  The districts have the highest property tax rates and receive state and federal funding, including one quarter of the state fuel taxes.  There is one exception, the Stafford Municipal School District.  The city of Stafford separated from a larger district and formed their own city-run district.

[J N Winkler]

Oklahoma has a budget problem, but it's not because of waste, fraud or abuse (although I'm sure there's examples of that). It's because 23rd & Lincoln* has slashed revenues by offering tax breaks for all sorts of things. Oklahoma's oil and gas industry is doing quite well, but the state is not seeing any of that money because of tax incentives extended to those industries. Which begs the question–what are they going to do if they don't have the subsidy? Leave the oil in the ground? They didn't do that during the Henry or Keating administrations.

I don't follow Oklahoma politics closely, but this all sounds like the situation Kansas was in following the 2014 election.  Our state budget has been structurally unbalanced (by roughly $600 million) as a result of the 2012 tax cuts (not just the nationally infamous LLC tax cut, but also a flattening of tax brackets), but it is only now that the Legislature has accumulated a majority (though not veto-proof) in favor of complete rollback of the tax policy changes.  Those of us who saw from the start that the tax cuts were a disastrous, anti-Keynesian mistake have had to wait through the 2012 ultraconservative landslide in the Legislature, Brownback's re-election in 2014, and "the biggest tax increase in Kansas history" in 2015 when Brownback and the Legislature unsuccessfully attempted to stabilize the budget by hiking consumption taxes.

Voters, taken as a large group, are not usually especially far-sighted, nor do they have the intellectual equipment to see opportunities to get from point A to point B by taking the third side of the triangle instead of the other two sides.  It took four years of shortfalls almost every month, bottom-of-the-nation economic growth, and school districts making progressively harder and harder cuts before voters' patience finally started to fray.  In the Wichita public schools this year, for example, many students are now in class longer than their parents are at work, for the sole purpose of reducing the number of days school is in session each year and thus the cost of keeping buildings open.

I definitely support raising the gas tax, but if and only if that money goes to ODOT. Education should be funded through the traditional means–property tax. If the general fund needs more cash, that should come from income tax increases, not raising the sales tax ad nauseam. And cut it out with the carveouts for special interests.

The worm will turn, but it will take time.  I think you are going to be hearing a lot more about sales tax increases because consumption taxes are ideologically aligned with income tax cuts and business incentive tax cuts, and it will take a while (and some economic stagnation) for the politicians who push all three to exhaust their support.  Capital investments of all kinds are easy cuts when things are down to the wire and the budget has to be balanced; in Kansas we have already seen this with repeated cuts to planned KDOT lettings.  Brownback's current budget proposal, which has now died in committee, calls for the KDOT FY 2019 construction budget to be less than half that of FY 2015, with maintenance and local support essentially kept flat.

Up here we have been hearing a lot about a flat income tax.  What is telling (especially in contrast to the past several years) is the way in which it is spoken of:  the ultraconservatives left in the Legislature describe it as an alternative they can suggest so that they aren't just saying No, while the rest say it is basically DOA.

*This is the intersection the state capitol is located at. This is a common metonym for the Oklahoma state government. "Oklahoma City" is not used much as a metonym because the OKC government in many ways is the antithesis of the state government, and the two are at odds most of the time.

This also seems to be a natural consequence of OKC also being the biggest city in the state, with a robust and diversified economy in which the state government is a relatively small player.

Up here "second floor" has become a shorthand reference to the current central problem in Kansas politics, which is Brownback's stubborn determination to resist rollback of his tax policies.  That is, of course, the floor of the Capitol on which his offices are situated.

[compdude787]

This is somewhat paralleled in Texas.  Our constitution dedicates one quarter of the fuel tax to schools.  It's been that way since at least 1946.

That's interesting. And yet TxDOT isn't totally broke, AFAIK...

[Bobby5280]

We had a SQ back in November that wanted to raise the state sales tax by 1% to fund teacher pay. I voted against it–in Newcastle, where I work, sales tax is already 9%, and it's 8.75% here in Norman. Sending sales taxes up to 10% is not something I'm okay with, although I'm okay with tax increases of other types (due to the fact that sales tax is the most inherently regressive form of taxation). The SQ failed, although I don't know what part of that was because of people thinking like me, and how much of it is people who just hate all tax increases.

I, too, voted against the sales tax for teacher pay. Lawton's sales tax would have been hiked to 10% if the measure passed. That high rate would drive even more shoppers online or make others sitting on the fence about a purchase decide not to buy.

Online-based merchants are killing brick and mortar retail and inflicting pain on any other kind of business vulnerable to online competition. We've had a few different stores in Lawton close in the past couple years. Sears is shutting down in Central Mall at the end of this month. We're lucky our JCPenney location survived the latest round of store closings. Funny thing, as of March 1 Amazon is now collecting sales tax at the time of purchase for orders in Oklahoma. Plenty of other online merchants are selling goods tax free.

Property tax is the better way to go funding teacher pay.

[Scott5114]

J.N. Winkler–all insightful points, as per usual. Although things have been bad enough in Kansas that they occasionally make national headlines, I don't follow Kansas politics closely enough to get more than a birds-eye view of the problems. My guess is that Fallin is much like a "Brownback lite", although I think that Oklahoma's slightly larger tax base and more diversified economy has allowed her to coast a lot longer than Brownback was able to. Most local media focuses on the education crisis; while other parts of the state budget have seen drastic cuts as well, the call to fix education funding has reached a fever pitch.

Funny thing, as of March 1 Amazon is now collecting sales tax at the time of purchase for orders in Oklahoma. Plenty of other online merchants are selling goods tax free.

Don't buy what Fallin is selling–she is more than happy to take credit for this, and has presented it as a personal victory, as if she was able to negotiate with Amazon to remit sales taxes to Oklahoma. Amazon is in the process of building a distribution center in southwest Oklahoma City. That gives them nexus in Oklahoma and they are therefore required to collect Oklahoma sales tax. It has nothing to do with Fallin and is purely a logistical move.

If Oklahoma were smart, we would leverage our central location and hub status on the Interstate system to make our state (and OKC-Norman in particular) a hub for the ecommerce industry. I own a (minuscule) ecommerce company, and shipping from Oklahoma means I have competitive shipping times and rates to both coasts and, because I have no nexus in any state but OK, for 99% of the country I don't have to collect sales tax. Being here has some decent perks for an ecommerce company.

As time goes on and more and more of the retail sector goes online, I think the concept of sales taxes in general will need to be radically overhauled. More and more cities will start to suffer from lack of sales tax revenue due to businesses with no nexus in the state. Theoretically, customers are supposed to remit use taxes on out-of-state sales, but compliance on this is extremely low. (Quick, how much did you spend online in 2016? yeah, I have no idea either.) It would require auditing a large number of returns to force compliance, and the amount recovered is likely to be less than that spent doing the auditing. Multiply this problem by every municipality in the US that collects sales taxes. So I think some sort of interstate system is going to be required to collect all sales taxes at the national level and send them to where they need to go. Obviously that is going to be very complex and very difficult to implement (How do you make sure the right rate is charged? Do you stop people from renting a PO box in a city with a lower tax rate to have their packages delivered to?) In addition to the regressive nature of sales taxes, that makes me think that, in the long term, sales tax is going to become an untenable concept and will be phased out in favor of a taxation system that's easier to administer. So something like income or property taxes.

[kphoger]

Now who is spinning a story? Do you have some sort of data to support your assertion that people's decision about whether to have kids or not is based on the availability of public education?

Lack of public education would increase the high cost of raising children. That would add negative incentive to already emerging downward trends of population growth in the United States.

The fertility rate in the United States declined from 3.65 births per woman in 1960 to 1.88 births per woman in 2012. The US is now hitting new all-time lows in fertility rate. For the past 30 years the United States has netted most of its population growth via immigration from less developed nations and the higher birth rates of those immigrants. Our government hasn't exactly been rolling out the welcome mat lately. Developing nations like India are going through the demographic transition as they improve, pushing down their own birth rates in the process. India had a fertility rate of 5.87 births per woman in 1960 to 2.5 per woman in 2012. Many already developed nations have regressive growth among their native-born population.

The US is now showing record growth in percentages of women who don't have children. In 2014 the US Census said 47.6% of women between age 15 and 44 never had children, up from 46.5% in 2012. More women are choosing not to have kids for very obvious reasons. Health care costs a ridiculous fortune. Day care is expensive. Other industries catering to kids have parents over a barrel. Many women are pursuing professional careers and don't want to perform double duty raising kids at home. Divorce rates have fallen to a 40 year low, but people are waiting longer to get married and there is less social stigma on co-habitation. The government is working to cut funding for various childhood programs. That makes parenthood look less desirable and increases the financial burden for those who have unplanned pregnancies.

Fewer people are having unplanned pregnancies. Look at America's teen pregnancy rate. In 1991 the rate was 61.8 births per 1000 for females ages 15-19. In 2014 that number dropped to 24.2 births per 1000.

There's not much in the way of regulations for what private schools and charter schools can charge for tuition. Vouchers don't cover all the cost, whatever the hell that might be. Anyone deliberately considering parenthood is absolutely going to be doing a lot of financial math. One of my co-workers took a second job for a year to pay for medical bills from his wife's pregnancy. Not everyone is willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

Undermining public schools or eliminating them entirely would be a stupidly self-destructive move for this nation. Public schools literally make the difference between America being a developed country or a third world country.

You threw a bunch of statistics in there, but I don't see any support for your assertion that less access to public education causes people to have fewer children.  You said it would, but then merely posted stats about birth rates.  What about Europe, where public education is famously more free than here, but birth rates have been declining for just as long as ours?  (Germany is a decent example, where even public universities are tuition-free but the birth rate is 1.38 compared to the US 1.88.)

I should also correct your assertion that the birth rate declined from 3.65 in 1960 to 2.5 in 2012.  Our birth rate crossed the 2.5 threshold clear back in 1968, and in 1974 reached 1.74–lower than 2012's rate.  Our birth rate has been at a rough plateau since the mid 1970s, and that's the same for most of the developed western world.

USA:  1.77 in 1975, 1.88 in 2012
Canada:  1.82 in 1975, 1.61 in 2012
UK:  1.81 in 1975, 1.90 in 2012
France:  2.09 in 1975, 2.01 in 2012
Sweden:  1.77 in 1975, 1.91 in 2012
Switzerland:  1.61 in 1975, 1.52 in 2012

Some developed western countries have been declining even more:
Italy:  2.17 in 1975, 1.40 in 2012
Portugal:  2.33 in 1975, 1.28 in 2012
Hungary:  2.35 in 1975, 1.34 in 2012

This is not about free public education.  It's a product of industrialization and economic growth.  Nations follow the trend I've drawn below as they become more developed.



On the left end of the graph is a less-developed nation.  These societies are largely agricultural and require much labor, therefore people find it advantageous to have a lot of children to help them.  Some random examples here:  Central African Republic, 4.45 birth rate; Honduras, 3.05; Laos, 3.11; Mozambique, 5.26.  Pick a less-developed nation, and the figures should be on the high end.

On the right end of the graph is a more-developed nation.  These societies rely less on agriculture and labor, therefore people no longer find it advantageous to have a lot of children.  I've listed some random examples above.  Pick a well-developed nation, and the figures should be on the low end.

But in the middle is what you described in India.  The nation has been on the upward trend of development for some time, but the birth rate hasn't quite dropped off yet.  It takes time for the cultural attitude towards having children to change, even after a society becomes more developed.  India, you may know, actively campaigns for family planning and birth control, which does help explain why its birth rate isn't even higher than it is.  This part of the graph is when people are having more children than are actually advantageous to them.  It happens, but it eventually evens out again.  Take Mexico, for example, where birth rates didn't start to fall until the early 1970s, even though its economic development began dramatically improving in the 1940s; nowadays, it's leveling out toward what you see in more-developed nations.

My wife and I are people of limited means, and we have two school-aged children (and one 2½-year-old).  We don't send our children to public school, but we don't send them to private school either.  You figure that one out; those aren't the only two options.

Not all parents are honestly qualified to home-school their children. Of those who can do an effective job, not all can fit the tasks of educating their kids into their schedule. You pretty much need at least one stay at home parent. Not every family can afford to have just one bread winner.

My wife stays home, but we are not a single-bread-winner household.  She works from home.  I'm not trying to say that everyone is qualified to home-school, but I do want to debunk the notion that only wealthy people can afford to.  My family is right around the food stamps line on that scale:  some months we qualify, some months we don't.  Childcare for more than one kid isn't doesn't cost all that much less than minimum wage, so staying at home isn't necessarily as much of a disadvantage as people make it out to be.

[Bobby5280]

You threw a bunch of statistics in there, but I don't see any support for your assertion that less access to public education causes people to have fewer children.

It's plainly simple financial math. Private schools are expensive. Those tuition costs are rising at inflation rates that outstrip that of average wage growth (just like what's happening with college tuition by the way). Many conservatives ultimately want to eliminate public schools. They only want to offer help to parents in the form of vouchers, which is nothing more than a coupon to pay for part of the expensive yearly tuition fees. There's very little regulation on what these schools can charge.

Home schooling is an alternative. Your own family might be doing fine with home-schooling. Very few families are honestly cut out for that for reasons I previously described. I would love it if home-schooling could be a mainstream option. But, putting it bluntly, we have a lot of idiots in our country who have no business teaching smaller versions of themselves.

It costs a shit-ton of money to raise children. There is already enough incentive for young, child-bearing age people to avoid having kids. Elminating public schools would create another tremendous incentive against parenthood on top of all the other valid reasons to avoid it. Law-makers can counter with lots of pro-life/anti-abortion legislation to trap all the people who have unplanned pregnancies. But I think such legislation will only result in a lot of child-less people choosing preemptive sterilization (vasectomies, tugal ligations, etc.) to avoid the financial catastrophe that parenthood could become.

You said it would, but then merely posted stats about birth rates. What about Europe, where public education is famously more free than here, but birth rates have been declining for just as long as ours? (Germany is a decent example, where even public universities are tuition-free but the birth rate is 1.38 compared to the US 1.88.)

The cost of living is expensive as hell in those European countries. I don't know much about the public education systems and how they are funded over there. I'm sure there are other socio-economic factors at work to explain those low birth rates. The "Demographic Transition" is one part of it, like in the graph you showed between nations transitioning from impoverished, undeveloped countries into more affluent developed countries. But, like your graph shows, that downward trend on fertility is supposed to level off at around 2.0 births per woman, achieving population stability. Different factors, like making it expensive as hell to raise kids, will push that rate lower. France has improved its fertility rate into positive territory by offering more generous programs to mothers, like paid maternity leave. America ain't too big on any of that right now.

I should also correct your assertion that the birth rate declined from 3.65 in 1960 to 2.5 in 2012.  Our birth rate crossed the 2.5 threshold clear back in 1968, and in 1974 reached 1.74–lower than 2012's rate.

The fertility rate in the US did dip below 2.0 in the early 70's, but since then it has been hovering at or above 2.0 until late last decade when the housing industry bubble exploded. Since then it has been on a downhill slide. In terms of births per 1000 women ages 15-44 the birth rate fell to an all time low of 59.8 per 1000 in 2016. During the peak of the post-war baby boom in 1957 the rate was 122.9 births per 1000 women. Our nation's birth rate is definitely trending downward.

[kphoger]

You threw a bunch of statistics in there, but I don't see any support for your assertion that less access to public education causes people to have fewer children.

It's plainly simple financial math. Private schools are expensive.

Do a poll of the parenting-aged couples you know, and ask them if the availability of affordable public education played a part in their decision to have kids or not.  You might be surprised when nobody says yes.

The "Demographic Transition" is one part of it, like in the graph you showed between nations transitioning from impoverished, undeveloped countries into more affluent developed countries. But, like your graph shows, that downward trend on fertility is supposed to level off at around 2.0 births per woman, achieving population stability. Different factors, like making it expensive as hell to raise kids, will push that rate lower. France has improved its fertility rate into positive territory by offering more generous programs to mothers, like paid maternity leave. America ain't too big on any of that right now.

The number 2 is nowhere on on that graph.  You assume it's in a society's best interest to maintain the current level of population.  I'm not convinced that's necessarily true.  It might be that a country is overpopulated for its actual needs, and a birth rate of lower than 2 would be perfectly sustainable.  IIRC, France was offering a full-blown stipend to parents who chose to have a third (?) child; my memory is a little fuzzy there.  But what is inherently wrong with parents in general choosing to have fewer than two children?