I wouldn't have a problem with continuing to fund it through property taxes, but I want to decouple it as such a direct pipeline. Bad, poor neighborhoods should still have nice schools. In many places the money collected never leaves the neighborhood, so if you live in an affluent area, your schools are great. If you don't, your school sucks. So while state funds are divvied per pupil, the local revenues have no such obligation. And, in my experience, those revenues are the difference makers. Even in Minnesota, which does pool funds and redistributes them, there is still roughly 30% of school funds that come from local sources. So your local 30% vs. someone else's 30% can vary wildly. Nationally about 45% of funding is locally driven. To piggyback this post with a response to Mike, I do like free market capitalism. But I don't worship it and i think what that can look like varies wildly. (Like you, I think some sort of Basic Income idea and I think it is workable with the free market and capitalism) But one of the central pillars of capitalism is a vibrant, educated, inventive work force. Education is critical for that. By allowing many in our society to suffer under poorly funded schools is antithetical to the free market. At least one that works IMO.