> Students in Oregon saw their reading and math scores decline over a decade when the state’s spending on schools rose by 80%, an analysis by Georgetown University shows.
Spending more on administration is not the same as spending more on education. It's the same problem as colleges right now: The superintendent making $250k a year in a school system where the teachers cannot afford to pay their rent.
The average teacher salary in Oregon is $45k. It has NOT increased by 80% in that time frame.
Nobody can afford to be a teacher, certainly not people with a valuable level of time, effort, productivity, and success.
> For decades, taxpayer spending on K-12 education has consistently increased, outpacing inflation by 2.5 times over the past 50 years. But while most people believe that more funding should lead to better outcomes for students, the evidence indicates that higher spending alone has had little impact on improving student achievement.
> Art that can’t even try to offend is barely art.
Good art is secondary to avoiding some journalist writing a hit piece about how they used your company’s AI generator to depict Hitler saying the gamer word.
>* Very few people demonize gun ownership. They just want some laws preventing criminals from owning guns.
Don't gaslight us. Democrats have been pushing civilian disarmament HARD recently.
Restricted magazine sizes, requiring all transfers to go through a FFL, basic features bans, permits to purchase, restricting ammo purchases to FFLs raising prices, and now repeated attempts at semi-auto bans.
This isn't focused on criminals, it's trying to discourage firearm ownership in general. When states ban the federal government marksmanship program from shipping firearms to civilians AFTER they have already been background checked by a federal agency it's clear there is no attempt to stop criminals.
In many states in the US, if you go and buy materials, as a business, you pay a sales tax. There are exemptions and partial rebates, but there's nothing across all industries, and it varies by state. So if you were a farmer you might find you were exempt on fertilizer and tractors but not on a pickup truck.
That's different to a VAT, because there, as long as you're a registered business for VAT purposes, all purchases you make are exempt from VAT - either you don't pay it when you purchase and are invoiced by a business, or you can claim it back if you keep receipts. Companies have to register for VAT when revenue hits a certain amount; here in the UK it's £85k for e.g.
>either you don't pay it when you purchase and are invoiced by a business
As a business you pay VAT when you purchase. And you collect VAT when you sell.
Then you pay to the government the difference between collected VAT and paid VAT.
That's what the "Value Added" part means.
No, if you provide a VAT number, in business to business transactions, companies will not normally charge VAT in the first place, so you don't pay it when you purchase in many cases as a business.
However if you go into something aimed at consumers, and make a purchase, they're normally not set up for this, which is why you're able to reclaim when you have paid it.
> So if you were a farmer you might find you were exempt on fertilizer and tractors but not on a pickup truck.
There are items that generate a non-deductible input tax in VAT countries (often entertainment items or cars).
But usually, those will be the exception and deductible would be the default.
Wrong.
https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2025/02/05/dramatic-incre...
> Students in Oregon saw their reading and math scores decline over a decade when the state’s spending on schools rose by 80%, an analysis by Georgetown University shows.