This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2014, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Re "Big–family benefits," Forum, Feb. 15:
Dalt T. Ash's support of large families is questionable and contradictory at times. Mainly, it ignores the point of Sen. Pat Jones' bill ("Senate panel OKs bill requiring big families to pay more for schools," Tribune, Feb. 10).
Education funding has been approached from the view of who should provide the most funding for a child's education, the parents or other citizens? In reality, it should be addressed from the view of who should be required to pay the least.
When parents receive tax deductions that result in paying less for education than non-parents, then it is an injustice and irresponsible and needs correction.
Ash has issue with the number of exemptions (two) that Sen. Jones is proposing, and he did not address the deficit in education funding. Try this compromise: Parents could have all the bambinos they choose, but accept no tax write-offs for any dependent, period. Having children was their decision. Taxpayers without children in school would pay the current tax rates but with no future increases.
Think of it like insurance co-pay, a user fee. Premiums are the base, but users and abusers pay more, not less. Problem solved using a fiscal-responsibility platform.
Michael Cooper
South Jordan