Or maybe get vouchers or tax refund for that dumpster fire.

I think that's defeats the purpose of public school. As a society, we decided we need to collectively contribute to every child's education, regardless if they are own. I have no kids, but I pay my school taxes so that other people's children can have an education.

Paying for other children's education gives you benefits like lesser crime and will keep the value of your property high.

And the continuation of modern civilisation to boot!

The parent wasn’t disagreeing with the collective payment responsibility (and I don’t know where you got that), only with the public school model that gives no choice as to which schools the money is spent at.

Suggesting a tax refund is pretty clearly proposing they should not have to fund public schools.

I fully support a public education but in the US, the school system is massively overloaded. We blame schools for everything and schools are all too eager to accept responsibility for anything and everything.

School athletics programs paying for huge multimillion dollar stadiums should not be possible. And on that topic, independent school districts should not exist. One state, one school district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Stadium_(Allen,_Texas)

Refund or voucher to the parent suffering it. Still not seeing how you went from that to “don’t you understand that non-parents should fund public schools?” The premise is that those hurt by it, parents, recover money to otherwise educate their kids. Nowhere in that was a claim that the childless should get money back for being childless, so I don’t see how addressing that is responsive.

I think you’re saying that If your kids are not using the service, then you should not pay the tax.

This doesn’t sound any different from someone having no kids, not using the service, and expecting a refund.

No, they're hugely different. One of them accepts that the state should still be paying for education of children regardless of whether your personally have children -- just with better options than failed public schools. Which is why lectures about how "we should all be paying for kids' education" is very unresponsive. Which is why I said so. And have not yet gotten a substantive reply that addresses the criticism.

The majority of private schools are religious. We don't usually let tax money go to religions.

Like Notre Dame and Brigham Young?

I’m still not understanding your point.

I must pay for socialized education regardless if I use the service. I might choose to not use this service because I lack children or I may choose a different provider. But this doesn’t mean I don’t have to pay my taxes if I don’t want to use a gov service.

What makes adults with kids special that they don’t have to pay this tax when they don’t want to use the service?

But I don’t care if their kids use it. They are not funding their child, they are funding the system of public education.

Which vouchers are. Why is this so hard to understand?

No, they aren't. Perhaps you're having trouble telling the difference between people who don't understand your argument and people who disagree with it?

You would not pay those taxes if they were optional. Most wouldn't anyways. Most people live in a paycheck to paycheck world and would love to get a free pass on that tax bill.

"We" also have not really decided anything as a society but were born into the decisions of prior generations and it could be changed. See Roe v Wade, marijuana, etc.

The purpose of a public school is the opportunity to educate children at little to no out of pocket cost. It has nothing to do with specifics of the tax system, or whether a voucher program exists.

Also, if you are American, voluntarily donating money without oversight to a local school has as much return as breast cancer awareness.

How is a voucher not collectively contributing to every child's education?

If you give your kids a stable home they will do fine in public school

I don't get a refund for having no kids in public school. Why would anyone else?

Having been through public school in the U.S., I would not send my own child to one if I had any other choice.

Then you went to a bad public school.

The way you say this implies that there's some easy way to move your kids from a bad public school to a good public school. This is of course laughably wrong, since moving schools requires buying a home in a nicer/more expensive area.

If you’re sending 3 kids to private school for $1000/month each, you could afford instead another $400k of mortgage or so on top of what your mortgage already is with todays interest rates.

That’s almost as much as the median home in America. So assuming you already live in the median home, you could send your kids to private school, or you could buy a house that’s twice as expensive.

Where I grew up, the median home is less than the national median, and the public schools are pretty good.

No, I went to three bad public schools.

And people I know went to many bad public schools.

I on the other hand went to public school and would send my children to one. Anecdotally, some of the most successful people I know went to public school, many of which had parents that could easily afford to send them to private school.