In an ideal world, homeschooling is great. However for many kids, it would be a nightmare.

A private, competent teacher would be ideal.

My sister wanted to homeschool her daughter. Thank goodness she didn’t and went with a private school. Not mentioning her anti-vaccine, anarchist views, she was so uptight that her daughter was 4 years old before she ever took a step off the sidewalk. She screamed at the uncertain terrain as she stepped on grass.

I just saw Lady Bird at the movies. That could practically be my autobiography. While Mom was loving, she was baggy and overbearing. homeschooling would have been a subtle, relentless torture.

“In an ideal world, homeschooling is great. However for many kids, it would be a nightmare.

A private, competent teacher would be ideal.”

The standared is not perfection, the standard is the alternative.

Most public schools are now so poor that staying home with a parent who did nothing more than teach you to read well and do some math would be a superior environment. Especially now with all the great free courses on the internet.

Government schools are rapidly devolving into indoctrination factories that are little more than holding pens for the unintelligent and unmotivated.

Many of the public schools are failures, but this is largely a societal problem: low expectations by parents of their kids, thinking their kids are special snowflakes, and the corresponding refusal to apply discipline when it is required.

My impression is that too many parents think that homeschooling will automatically cure these problems. Thinking that your kids are special snowflakes? That's going to be even worse. Teaching is hard work - are the parents capable of it? Are the parents themselves well-enough educated to teach the material? Are the parents able to teach - it's a skill like any other, and not everyone can do it effectively.

If the answer is "hire a teacher", then the real answer is: choose a good private school. Setting up your own, private school system seems just as (non-)sensible as building your own house, or growing all of your own food: It's a huge undertaking, and most people are going to screw it up.

I work in the GED department at a school, and I've seen quite a few of these homeschooled kids who can't add 2+2 or spell cat. Sure, it's fine if the parents can hire a private tutor, or are intelligent, knowledgeable and know how to teach.

In the real world, it's religious kooks who don't want their precious darlings to have any contact with the outside world, people who pull their daughter out of school for free baby-sitting, or hippy-dippy flakes who don't want to 'fill them up with rules'.

That being said, I'm no fan of the public school system either. The schools need to be improved.

For a start, get rid of the jock worship, and start separating the kids by ability so the smart kids aren't bored out of their minds even if it does hurts little Jhayden's fee fees.

That being said, I'm no fan of the public school system either. The schools need to be improved. ~ JoJo at December 3, 2017 7:38 AM

Part of the problem is children develop at different ages. One child might learn to read at an early age and one later, but by the time they're both 13, you won't be able to tell which one was first to read.

Our system is set up to advance children by age, not ability. So, a 9 year old is expected to be in 4th grade. Similarly, a 15 year old is expected to be a sophomore in high school. So, to hold a student back is to knock them out of their established grouping. Hence, social promotion to keep a student in line with his age group, not his development group.

We need to devise a system whereby children advance by level when they're ready. We also need to eliminate the repetition. Children spend 12 years the same subjects over and over, but learning nothing since the next subject does not build on it. 12 years of English grammar - and most high school graduates cannot conjugate a verb or diagram a sentence. 12 years of American History - but only up to World War II. No wonder people today think Communism is wonderful, they never studied the Cold War.

Faster students could move at a challenging pace and not get dragged down by slower students. Slower students could move at their own pace.

Public schools aren't failing universally. Areas with a strong tax base (i.e., wealthy areas) have good ones. We can afford private school but will be sending our daughter to public school next year because the schools here are excellent.

Wealthy areas tend to have, in addition to money, parents with the time, energy and motivation to make sure the schools are performing well. Their kids are getting plenty of food and health care, and they have regular bed times and tutors when they need them. Kids in poor neighborhoods have more problems than just bad schools.

Homeschooling can no doubt be an excellent choice, but it's hit or miss. I know some people homeschooling for religious reasons. It's indoctrination of a different sort, but they are the parents and that is their right. The kids seem well educated enough, so whatever. With another kid I know (who is an adult now), he just didn't want to go to school, and making him go was too much work for his profoundly dysfunctional parents, so he was "homeschooled."

We need to devise a system whereby children advance by level when they're ready.

The public school we're likely sending our daughter to next year offers some of this flexibility. Kids who are reading above or below grade level, for example, can move to a higher or lower grade for more advanced or easier material, without leaving their grade entirely. Innovation schools are trying some interesting thing. The principal is tailoring her budget toward hiring high-quality teachers, and a lot of them. She's sacrificing materials, so we'll need to make up for that with more fundraisers, or do without, but I'd rather have teachers than iPads.

"Public schools aren't failing universally. Areas with a strong tax base (i.e., wealthy areas) have good ones."

You've completely failed to understand what is going on. Money is not the issue. Areas with high tax bases don't spend significantly more and often spend less per student. Essentially teachers don't matter in our current education system. They don't have a positive impact and they don't have a negative impact. What makes a school good or bad is the students attending it. The culture their parent impart to them makes all the difference.

Which is kind of depressing. I feel that teachers could make a difference. It is just in the current system they really don't matter.

"In the real world, it's religious kooks who don't want their precious darlings to have any contact with the outside world, people who pull their daughter out of school for free baby-sitting, or hippy-dippy flakes who don't want to 'fill them up with rules'."

Not true JoJo. I understand you've seen the dark side of home schooling. And this is a significant percentage of home schooled kids. You also have a very significant percentage that are better educated and better trained than their public school peers. But since they aren't an issue they would never come across your desk.

I work in a lower income school. We have had three students come into our school from a home-school background. These students have all come in far behind educationally. I teach middle school math intervention for students who are at least two years behind.

One student had virtually no education. When I found out that she could not even count to 20, I first assumed it was a language barrier. I had her tested in Spanish. She actually performed better in English. She was bright but we were trying to teach her algebra when she didn’t know that 15 was more than 12.

The other two had learning disabilities. Mom did well with an older sister but didn’t even realize that the younger daughter was falling behind because she was just letting her work st her own pace. The last boy had a mother that worked her tail off to try to help her son. She had pulled him out of school because she felt that the school wasn’t meeting his special needs. After three years she decided to try public school again and can’t believe the progress that he has made. She couldn’t get him to write anything but after 2 years in a public school, he is able to write pages and has made 5 years progress in math and is now on grade level.

I know other students who are home-schooled who are far above grade level.

Most of those parents have the intelligence and resources to do a good job. This doesn’t hold true the the general population.

I was in a class with a long-term sub while the regular teacher was on maternity leave. While organized, and pleasant, she did not have a grasp of the materiel, which would be typical of the layman who has been out of school.

It's a huge undertaking, and most people are going to screw it up.

Yes, if you really want to screw it up, turn it over the professionals in the teacher's union.

Let's go back to this: thinking their kids are special snowflakes. Maybe, maybe not. I saw a piece that posited that the current generation of parents are the products of the shitty school system. They were lied to by that system from the start, and now that they have children of their own, they don't care to be lied to as adults and care even less for their children to be lied to. They know the system, they think the system sucks, and that's from hard won experience.

What makes a school good or bad is the students attending it. The culture their parent impart to them makes all the difference.

I understand well what's going on. In fact, you virtually restated what I said. Large tax base = families that are not struggling to survive. Those kids bring a culture to education that poor kids don't. So we agree.

In 5th grade in a good school, we had the IBM SRA reading program, self-paced. Within a couple months I had progressed all the way to high school 12th grade level. I was so disappointed that there was no more. So in this subject I could go zooming ahead of the class, off the charts really. In most other subjects (math, chemistry) I needed a classroom. I don't see simple solutions.

I don't see simple solutions. ~ cc at December 3, 2017 10:00 AM

Because there aren't any. There never are.

Government solutions tend toward a bureaucratic one-size-fits-all model. Hence, grade levels based on age, not ability.

Is homeschooling the answer? Not on a broad scale, since the abilities of parents differ widely. We need a DoE that will help us search for flexible solutions, not stubbornly defend a rigid bureaucracy that has failed as many students as it has helped. I had hopes that DeVos might move us in that direction, but she's allergic to criticism and too busy trying to avoid rocking the boat.

Once again, the woman who sits sequestered at home and therefore has no experience with the new home schooled generation thinks she has something valuable to say.

My overwhelming experience is that these children are utterly ruined. Irreparably. They are so used to mommy spoon feeding them they cannot learn from any other person. They try to tell *you* how to teach *them.* They are easily triggered snowflakes, yet they don't want to start at the bottom with even the most menial of tasks. They are the very people that you, Amy, rail against. Why you would advocate making more of them is baffling.

In one memorable case, I was trying to teach a young woman the basics of her new job. She kept asking me "are you sure?" Um, yes, dingleberry, I'm sure. That's why the boss, the owner of the company, is having me train you.

I finally pulled her into a meeting with the boss. He initially thought it was going to be a petty cat fight, but when I told her what she was doing to me he hit the roof and was quite irritated with her. Her explanation was that she should be able to share her experiences of the job. When we pointed out that she HAS no experience of the job, she started to cry.

This is what you are advocating for Amy. A world full of people like this. Because there is a paucity of smart kids who need to be fast tracked, and even fewer parents equipped to educate them. Hell, my mother established the Gifted Program in her school district, and even *I* wouldnt have benefitted from home schooling past a certain point!

“The principal is tailoring her budget toward hiring high-quality teachers, and a lot of them. She's sacrificing materials, so we'll need to make up for that with more fundraisers, or do without, but I'd rather have teachers than iPads.”

Who is your principal? Hillary Clinton?

I dont know which is funnier. That a public school employee actually spouted this bullshit or that you believe it.

High quality teachers and lots of them is an oxymoryn. You get one or the other.

Your principal does not set the salaries in your district. The school board and the union does.

Nor does she set the textbook budget.

When they hire, you get exactly who the union wants because the already in place poorly quailified union teachers are given control of the interview and hiring process in most districts.

Ask this poser to define *highly qualified*. I bet she trips all over her tongue feeding you the NEA talking points.

There are basically three places new teachers can come from. The first is other public schools. The second is private schools, and the third is directly out of the dismal teacher certification programs operated by a number of second and third tier colleges and universities.

The education departments bottom feed off of students who cant hack it in any other real major with the lowest average standardized test scores of any college major.

They don't need them -- not always, not as much as the bureaucrats think. That's what makes them radical and, to those with a certain view of the world, terrifying.

I can guarantee you that 99.99% of the "bureaucrats" could not care less if you homeschool your child, but that doesn't fit Williamson's persecution-centered view of the world, which also includes this statement:

Like all radical movements, homeschoolers drive the establishment bats.

Not particularly; there is no organized movement to end homeschooling, and there is no appetite for it. But some people — left, right, centrist, whatever — aren't happy unless they feel persecuted.

But how can I teach my child that Jesus hates queers and abortionists and Jews and Muslims and black people and pacifists if I can't isolate her from her peers and society until I marry her off at 15 for a fat dowry from an old farmer?

You city people just are't thinking this through.

My overwhelming experience is that these [homeschooled] children are utterly ruined. Irreparably. ~ Anonymousie at December 3, 2017 10:49 AM

Anonymousie, in your recent posts, you seem to rely almost solely on personal experience when framing your position, offering anecdotal evidence only ("My overwhelming experience...."). As Ben points out, personal experience skews the data and makes the conclusion biased.

If you want to argue that home schooling is harmful, present evidence, or at least a cogent argument, not simply, and only "in my experience" arguments.

Because there is a paucity of smart kids who need to be fast tracked, and even fewer parents equipped to educate them. ~ Anonymousie at December 3, 2017 10:49 AM

Everything I've read on the subject indicates that most public schools and teachers don't have the resources to fast track the kids that need it and are instead holding them back.

By the way, "paucity" means "scarcity or insufficient quantity." So, your argument is that there is an insignificant number of kids who need to be fast-tracked and even fewer parents who can teach them?

I also wonder at the faith you seem to have placed in "professional" teachers being smarter, on average, than parents. This faith may be misplaced, given that the majority of teachers today hold an education degree, a degree generally recognized as one of the least rigorous, although that is changing as alternative entry routes to teaching become more widely accepted.

In a somewhat recent Quartz article, Jonathan Wai, a researcher at Duke University, examined intelligence by chosen college major using standardized tests and compared the results with two tests conducted in 1946 and 1951.

"Reflecting back on the graphs from 1946 and 1951, both agriculture and education were also at the bottom. And again, the traditional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields such as engineering, physical sciences, and mathematics/statistics tended to be at the top."

"These data show that US students who choose to major in education, essentially the bulk of people who become teachers, have for at least the last seven decades been selected from students at the lower end of the academic aptitude pool."

The author notes that SAT scores for first-year teachers has recently been on the rise.

Seems there are two issues here:
Indoctrination and quality of teaching.
Indoctrination should be obvious to any aware parent. I helped tutor an immigrant in his last year of high school. A work sheet on WW II had seven bullet points about the war and forty-three about mean old Americans and race relations and so forth.
So if you know, as I do, some WW II history, you can make some progress.
At dinner, the parent is entitled to say "She said WHAT?"
Quality of teaching can't be measured except in relation to the kid's actual ability.
One teacher I met said that, after her district had been paired with another, the new kids were "home-impaired". Any kid who's home-impaired is going to have a hard time in any setting. But home schooling there is a catastrophe.
Recently met a family who is conservative Christian. Three daughters were home-schooled and all are doing very well as young adults. One of them was late to the event since she had to attend her promotion ceremony. She's an Air Force med tech, does martial arts on her own time.

a_random_guy: My impression is that too many parents think that homeschooling will automatically cure these problems. -- I haven't met a single home schooling parent who thinks home schooling will "automatically" cure any problem. But it does in fact avoid quite a few problems.

Thinking that your kids are special snowflakes? -- Home schooling parents think their kids are special as much as any parent should. Such thinking motivates parents to seek the best interests of their kids. Snowflakes? -- One motivation for home schooling is to keep kids from being indoctrinated in the left-wing, social justice warrior-infected, victim-worshiping, snowflake coddling, government institutions euphemistically referred to as "schools".

Teaching is hard work -- No it isn't. Children evolved to learn naturally from their parents- and parents evolved to teach their own children- over a hundred-thousand generations before any holier-than-thou, knows-what's-best-for-you Utopian or wanna-be tyrant ever thought of mandatory, government-controlled schools. Teaching may be hard work for the so-called "experts" teaching in government schools; what they're struggling to do goes against nature. It takes a huge, well organized, well funded bureaucratic institution run by well paid, highly "educated" and trained, idealistic professionals, backed up by the threat of force and violence, to keep a normal child from learning.

Are the parents capable of it? -- Of course. They evolved by doing it capably over a hundred-thousand generations before delusional, grandiose bureaucrats imagined the state could do it better.

Are the parents themselves well-enough educated to teach the material? -- What material? Do you mean the knowledge and skills needed to live productively and peacefully in a community of productive, peaceful people? Or do you mean the delusional, hate-filled, politically correct bullshit spewed inside the fences of authoritarian, government compounds? Fuck "the material". That's exactly what good parents are avoiding by taking their children out of those mind-deadening government institutions.

[Teaching is] a skill like any other, and not everyone can do it effectively. -- As is amply evident in the disgraceful results of the bureaucratic institutions and their experts.

If the answer is "hire a teacher", then the real answer is: choose a good private school. -- There are many excellent private schools; and there are many that seem to go out of their way to be like the public schools. So emphasis should be on "choose a good private school".

Setting up your own, private school system seems just as (non-)sensible as building your own house, or growing all of your own food: It's a huge undertaking, and most people are going to screw it up. -- That is a remarkably ignorant comment. A home based education is not a "private school system", nor anything like one; nor is there any intent or desire to be so. It's an education that originates from the student's home, provided and directed by the family, and supports the individual needs, interests, goals and dreams and of the student.

Gog: But how can I teach my child that Jesus hates queers and abortionists and Jews and Muslims and black people and pacifists if I can't isolate her from her peers and society until I marry her off at 15 for a fat dowry from an old farmer?

Wow, now there's a bigoted stereotype.

The thing is, if you don't want your 15-year-old child to be taught to hate anybody- like white people (especially cis-gender, heterosexual, white men), Christians, Jews, Isreal, Trump-supporters, conservative Republicans (especially gay and black ones) and any kid who chooses not to have sex- and you don't want your kid to be abused and bullied by teachers and peers taught to hate all of the above... then you may need to home school her.

MonicaP, I was objecting to how you sounded like wealth was causing quality schools. It doesn't. Both wealth and quality schools are symptoms of certain cultures. We've shown over and over again that moving money from wealthy districts to poor ones doesn't improve the education outcomes. If anything there is a slight negative correlation.

Honestly we could cut our national spending on education by over half without impacting quality. But once you start moving that way the bureaucracy immediately drops quality and hurts students in the most public way as a form of advertising for more money. It is just how bureaucracies work.

Kevin, bullshit. Complete bullshit. Some districts are home school friendly. But most go crazy. They just don't like anything that isn't part of their system.

"In one memorable case, I was trying to teach a young woman the basics of her new job. She kept asking me "are you sure?""

That story is millennials in general, not home schoolers. It isn't all millennials. But there are far more of them in my generation than in the past few.

IRA, that was me with the general distrust of the education system. Incidentally my parents disagreed with me. They thought the issue was the increase in the number of single child families. When you have only one child getting the little emperor syndrome started is common. I can see their point. But I don't let go of mine at the same time.

As for the topic at the top, the best solution I see is still charter schools. The current unified government monopoly continues to reduce quality while increasing cost year after year. It flat isn't working. But having everyone train their own kids isn't a reasonable solution either. Most people can't afford to spend the time and effort on this. So just breaking the monopoly and allowing competition to decide which schools survive and which close is the best solution I can see. I understand that small towns won't have the population to allow two schools to survive. But most of us don't live in such small towns. Sacrificing 90% of us to make 10% of us feel better isn't a good answer. And if you only have one school how is that different from the current system?

Kevin: I can guarantee you that 99.99% of the "bureaucrats" could not care less if you homeschool your child

If that's so, then that other 0.01% were a royal pain in the ass while homeschooling my kids. There were bureaucrats who attempted to interfere all the way until my kids were juniors in college. I was accused of depriving my kids of education by bureaucrats who intentionally created obstacles for them, who actually tried to deprive them of education. Having only a high school education at the time, I was accused of being unqualified to teach my own kids (my daughters, wife and I all went to college at the same time).

But once my girls graduated from college and were ready to have a go at making their own way they actually found advantage, favor and opportunities because of the way they were raised, educated and socialized - i.e. in the real world, instead of in isolation from the real world, inside the fences of authoritarian, government institutions. The real world is outside the fences.

Bureaucrats and unions actively and politically oppose homeschooling, and support like-minded politicians. There are many who would outlaw it if they could, and would fully support the use of the police, guns, courts and jails of the government to make sure no kid is homeschooled. Every kid who is successfully homeschooled represents lost revenue to a public school, lost membership to teachers unions, and loss of face to professional educators and their failing institutions.

Anonymousie: Once again, the woman [referring to Amy Alkon] who sits sequestered at home and therefore has no experience with the new home schooled generation thinks she has something valuable to say.... My overwhelming experience is that these children are utterly ruined... In one memorable case, I was trying to teach a young woman the basics of her new job. She kept asking me "are you sure?" Um, yes, dingleberry, I'm sure. That's why the boss, the owner of the company, is having me train you.

What does your "memorable case" have to do with homeschooling? Your overwhelming experience? You don't have any experience at all. From the snotty, condescending, holier-than-thou tone of your comments, and your description of your interaction with the young woman you failed to train, I can see why your coworkers think you're a bitch. You're the problem. You need to learn some people skills.

"Once again, the woman who sits sequestered at home and therefore has no experience with the new home schooled generation thinks she has something valuable to say."

The irony overload required a restart.

You could at least learn something about your hostess before you said that. You would have found out about her organizing dinner parties for behavioral scientists and her speaking at inner-city schools. I bet she knows more principals and teachers than you.

"Are the parents themselves well-enough educated to teach the material?"
Probably not in every subject. But hopefully there are two parents and one will be, or a close friend/family/other parent brought in. Or other resources such as Khan academy. If no friends/family/other parents know the material, I do wonder if that material is actually needed/useful in real world life.

"Teaching is a skill like any other, and not everyone can do it effectively."
But it is much easier to teach one or two than to teach 30 of varying interest and abilities. Especially if you know the one or two really well.

If the answer is "hire a teacher", then the real answer is: choose a good private school."
Have talked with some homeschoolers and some were doing it as a small group of parents.

MonicaP says, Homeschooling can no doubt be an excellent choice, but it's hit or miss. I know some people homeschooling for religious reasons. It's indoctrination of a different sort, but they are the parents and that is their right.

In looking for resources while homeschooling our kids, we found that the most organized groups out there, including the providers of textbook and curricular resources, are affiliated with not just the Christian Right, but the far Christian nutcase right. We literally had to closely check science texts to make sure that we wouldn't buy something that taught young-earth creationism. Families like ours had to fly under the radar with organizations like the Minnesota Association of Christian Home Educators (MACHE) to get what we needed but not be "outed" as non-lunatic Christians. (My wife, who is much more charitable than I, would probably have a different view, to be fair.)

Homeschoolers do so for any number of reasons - in our case, to help a child with Asperger's learn without the stress of the elementary school environment - but the best-organized homeschool support machine in the US is backed by the scariest part of the Christian right.

Home schooling is evolving. I know a group of home schoolers here. They have set up an education co-op. For some of the classes, they get their kids together, and either work with the parents who are most knowledgeable about the particular subject, or they bring someone in if there isn't a parent who has expertise. Someone mentioned, "why not send them to a private school?" Well, $$$ is the main reason. What they are doing instead is essentially growing a private school from the ground up.

The textbooks are another thing. I understand Grey Ghost's concern, but it's not like public school textbooks are any better -- it's just a different form of indoctrination. Ironically, they also teach a form of creationism: all species were created at some point in the distant past. All species extinctions are the result of human activity, and the number of species is dropping as a result. This, of course, is not the way evolution works.

"Wow, now there's a bigoted stereotype."

All stereotypes are bigoted and baseless, like illegal Mexicans being criminals, or young black men in gangs being dangerous. It's all just bigotry, I tell you!

I love a good anecdote-slinging mud-wrestle as much as the next guy, but:

1. Parents are more reliable advocates for their children's welfare than bureaucrats.
2, It's not the government's job to educate children in a free society.
3. Free markets always produce better results - higher quality, lower cost, more choice.

All of which leads us to vouchers. Vouchers recognize the public's valid interest in an educated populace, and the charitable desire to ensure each family can afford to educate their children - while leaving the decisions where they should be: with the parents.

I used to support government involvement in a basic syllabus and standardized testing so that parents could evaluate their child's education - but the heavy PC indoctrination in the schools has given me pause. Let the syllabus be determined locally. Or have independent industry/academic bodies post required skills for jobs.

"Parents are more reliable advocates for their children's welfare than bureaucrats."

The problem today is that there are a significant number of cases where neither party is a good advocate for the child's welfare. Historically, there have always been a few such cases, but today they are overwhelming the system. I think it's a case of trouble being caused not by their percentage of the population, but by their absolute number: as the number grows, the resources required for each case increases, so the cost is multiplicative rather than additive. I don't have a completely good handle on why this is. I think part of it is government's natural tendency towards administrative bloat. Another part is that as such groups get larger, they obtain the political means to advocate for feeding their dysfunctions. Another may be the familiarity problem: when there's a few, people can find compassion for them. When there's tends of thousands, it's overwhelming and people feel helpless to do anything about it. The fact that our ruling elites see these groups primarily as easily manipulated voting blocs does not help either, because it creates a disincentive to improve the situation.

Most such children will grow up to be lifelong wards of the state, either on welfare or in prison.

Cousin Dave: inner-city unwed mothers (or the grandmothers raising their bastard grandchildren) are breaking down the doors whenever a charter school opens.

And fighting the (turf-protecting, underclass-sustaining) liberals in city government and teacher's unions tooth and nail.

Sorry - I trust the most uneducated parent over any politician or "educational expert".

Politically, vouchers-n-charters is the ONLY issue with the potential to simultaneously sway middle class whites while prying the black vote away from the Democrats. And it's a great issue for conservatives to:

-shatter the "heartless Republican" label

-counter "it takes a village" fear-mongering by showing that big government is often the
problem, not the solution

-counter race-baiting while simultaneously pointing out how class warfare works

-make abstract conservative concepts like limited government viscerally understandable.

Cousin Dave,

Parents are far far more likely to be better advocates for their kids than bureaucrats. While not 100% being in the upper 90s is a far better solution. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

Also, what I think you are describing is a typical positive feedback cycle created by good intentioned but short sighted policy. It isn't that costs increase (i think you ment) exponentially instead of algebraically. It is that a few people go a certain way. Then they attract a few more. And soon there are hordes of people. Far more than the system could handle. At which point the system breaks.

For a better documented example lets take social security. When there were 10-20 people paying in for each one taking out you were only talking about 5-10% of a working man's income as taxes. Not a big deal for most people. But now there are 3-4 people paying in for each one taking out. This is 25-33% of a person's income. And most cannot afford that. Especially since this isn't the only tax people have to pay. Hence the system is collapsing.