Slashdot Mirror
Is Google's Non-Tax Based Public School Funding Cause For Celebration?
theodp (442580) writes "Google's "flash-funding" of teachers' projects via DonorsChoose continues to draw kudos from grateful mayors of the nation's largest cities. The latest comes from Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto (fresh from a Google-paid stay at the Google Zeitgeist resort), who joined Google officials at Taylor Allderdice HS, where Google announced it was 'flash funding' all Pittsburgh area teachers' crowd-funding campaigns on DonorsChoose.org. DonorsChoose reports that Google spent $64,657 to fund projects for 10,924 Pittsburgh kids. While the not-quite-$6-a-student is nice, it does pale by comparison to the $56,742 Google is ponying up to send one L.A. teacher's 34 students to London and Paris and the $35,858 it's spending to take another L.A. teacher's 52 kids to NYC, Gettysburg, and DC. So, is Google's non-tax based public school funding — which includes gender-based funding as well as "begfunding" — cause for celebration?"
Is that the newspeak for golddigging?
Thank you, Google, for your public works. Spending a tiny percentage of the amount tax that you save by screwing countries over using the Double Irish Arrangement with a Dutch Sandwich is really a great marketing ploy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-burden-google-expands-use-of-the-double-irish/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/silicon-valley-attempts-to-slow-new-global-tax-avoidance-reform-proposals/
Now you get to join the ranks of other philanthropic entities, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Maybe you'll buy more good faith by funding NPR.
So, is Google's non-tax based public school funding
They pay billions in profits to an empty office in the Carribbean so they don't have to pay taxes, and give a small portion of that money back through school funding, and take that as a tax deduction.
In the process, they get enormous influence over the educational agenda. It is largely in a direction Slashdotters can agree with, but imagine it was a church doing this.
Like Al Capone giving some of his money to the Chicago slums, it may be better than if they weren't doing it, but it hardly gets Google out of the crooked, lobbying megacorp set.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Yeah, I'd rather that Google paid the taxes that it owes to the US government. That would end up putting more money into the schools than $40K here and $60K there for one-off trips.
It may be argued to have a moral duty to pay them, but 'owe' implies a legal obligation. The reality is that corporate lobbyists have created some loop holes that the corporations are legally using to avoid paying what they don't have to pay. However unless you forgo ALL the tax claw backs you are eligible for, it is questionable if you have a right to criticise Google.
So basicly good has financial control over public education. Even without making demands, it is now understood that google is a player than you pander to for funding. So Administrators will adjust coursework, perhaps disciplinary actions, etc... not only to cater to what google wants done, but perhaps might even start censoring negtive opinions about google in the classroom.
Then, it becomes very possible that google can use financial incentives, penalties, and other more "active" measures to ensure compliance with their goals.
Many of google's goals in the short term seem noble, and I am thankful for this, but its a really bad dangerous trend towards privitization that can take a really nasty turn down the road if it ever takes hold. It also sets precident and opens the door for other companies to do the same.
What we are going to have in 25 years, is a return to feudalism, where various companies control all matters of public life in various diffrent spaces, and their users will be made to fight against eachother for the sake of the company.
We see this beginning with Apple vs Google vs Microsoft. They have entire continuums of space where you are expected to use the entire range of company products, and socially identify with the company, and your fellow users.
First they fight like hell to dodge taxes, then they spend money in public goods in place of taxpayer money.
The difference is that taxpayer money is spent under democratic control (or at least it should be, your mileage may vary depending on how much your political system is kinked). And Google will probably spend depending on its own interest instead of on the general interest.
Ok thank you I can see it now
ALECs support for stand your ground laws are anti-bad police office, their support for privatizing prisons is anti-bad prison guard, their support for labeling animal rights organizations and environmentalists as "terrorists" is anti-bad veterinarian / EPA worker, support for prohibiting public broadband is anti-bad telecommunications worker, voter ID laws (anti bad poll workers)
Maybe I am delusional, but here is what I do know for certain.
I am a public high school math teacher in Arizona(The state that's taken the brunt of ALEC's agendas'), I am sure that I am not the best math teacher (but I am certain I am the best the district can afford) and when they find someone better I will gladly step aside, I have 40+ students in each class, no text books, broken furniture, and limited technology. So far this year, I've spent about $500 of my own money on books and supplies (and it doesn't even come close to what is needed). So yeah, maybe I am delusional, but my students are being hurt by ALEC and Google IS a member of ALEC so funding trips to Europe is frankly insulting to me
In a working democracy the public would be able to decide what to do with the tax money. However since in the US the democratic system is severely broken, it's not surprising parallel systems are starting to come up.
You're half-right. It's not underfunded; education funding per pupil has doubled in real terms over the past few decades. But it isn't built to evenly distribute the funding; in general poor areas are favored over more wealthy areas.