Topic: why do people agree to pay taxes? - page 105. (Read 51023 times)

This is called free market. When people don't have the "free school" but still demands it, then alternatives appear, this is what the free market is like.
Online courses are not created by the government but by entrepreneurs, as you rightly said, they are allowed to do it because there is no cost effective way of going to public college.
Any subsidies or action by the government to either promote or regulate such online courses will stifle competition in the favor to those that have the best political network, not the best product.
Online courses did not have to wait for government help, the demand is enough for sustainable service.

Private college in the US is also not really "private" at all from an economic perspective.
When the money is mostly funded by students loan backed by the government, and not by real demand, the result is that :
1. the tax payer will pay any default. http://mises.org/library/case-against-student-aid
2. Colleges that are not approved, will block any odd of a student of receiving the loan.
3. Skills in high demand will be funded equally than skills without demands, allowing massive misallocation of intellectual resources, which result in unemployement.

This means that the current private school system is entirely funded by public resources, but also protected from competition.
In short, the biggest laundry machine of politicians.

Very interesting to see that education in the US cost 50K per year, while my country is 5K. Cost of living being equivalent.
When you start to investigate why it is the case, you understand that competition walls / elasticity of prices / government aids are the main reason why it cost so much.

Agree that these skills are basic requirement for living in society. But there is no need to be compulsory, since, if it is needed, people will demand to get it anyway, by definition.

No way. In the free market, a school can only make an offer.

If you open your eyes to the world, and look to "emerging" (was emerging) economies, like Argentina, where people have far less resources than here, you will see that families considers education so important that they are willing to allocate half the family income to get just one pupil through school.

Another view: I think it is important to get my children education, in fact I think it is important to offer education to all children, including to those of parents who believe otherwise, and almost everyone around here think the same. How can possibly such a society have no schools? Remember, without the state, more resources are available, and the schools are less expensive for the same quality.

Imagine a State like you are saying. There is no low-cost public education. No 'monopoly." Education costs are variable to market factors only. What about individuals who can't afford this education? Imagine if bettering yourself through learning were sold in the same fashion cars are. You want a good education-- it costs $40K, but you can get an poor education down the street for $2K, but you don't get the necessary skills to even make it worth going and it's not recognized as being valuable anyway.

Education is not a business, however; sadly it is going that way. It will end up just like health care in the US. You want care? Fine, save and pay for everything. You want an education? Fine, save and pay for everything.

You will find out quickly how 'monopolized' everything really is if you keep a capitalistic approach to your entire life.

Private schools can charge whatever they want. That is why they are expensive. The operating costs of a private school are identical to a public school of the same size and activities. Given these constants, the differences in price are made up by salaries, social parameters (exclusivity, religious teaching, special treatments, etc.) and socioeconomic demographics of the families that attend. Taxpayers pay for public schools to exist. The Gov't doesn't dole out extra cash making public schools able to exist better than private schools. The difference between public and private education is that generally private education is for profit. Public schools will always exist given the Gov't mandates compulsory education to a minimum grade level.


This is very true, however; it is not in the ruling party's interest to let the poor do this. Many argue that the poor are not worthy of having an education because they are poor (and why should they be supported if they can't themselves). This is a deep fundamental question in all societies. Education is treated this way in the US. It is a means to separate people. Many complain that the regular average joe who is hardworking can't afford a public school college education valued at ~$30K, yet they have a nice new Prius in their driveway. I am not arguing one way or another, but if you give people options instead of telling them what to do (on some things like education), history shows people are very short-term driven with poor ability to see the benefit in things outside of "what every else has." There will always be poor(er) people than others. Does this mean they don't deserve certain things?


Of course, funding from the Gov't for education (the US) is done mostly by headcount. The public sector of education has far more students than the private ones. It's like the difference between running a company like Google and running a small mom and pop grocery store. The public sector of education is so large, it makes it easy for money to be utilized poorly. The Gov't funds education by throwing money at it with no target or outcome desired. It just does it. The Gov't does this because: IMO, Americans don't really care about becoming smarter or educated. It is all profit driven. More education = more money. That's it.


You can now see the model changing for higher education (college). It is because of the public sector. States are no longer funding public colleges at the level they used to. This has strained colleges and in turn, they extend that strain onto incoming students in the form of higher tuition. It is to the point where a public college costs nearly as much as a private one. This is why people are pushing to put things online for free. Learning should not bankrupt people. It should be widely accessible, low cost and supported (if a country wants to remain competitive and adaptive with a bright people).


The illusion you're buying into is that somehow if you can vote with your dollar, your child will get "a better education" at a private school if everything were not mandatory. The value people place on education for the learning sake is broken. If I told you that paying for college would not get you a higher paying job (on average) in the future would you go? All things constant, if education were optional and that learning was not important to make money, would you still pay for it?

People in America go to college for the wrong reasons. You go to learn. To think. To develop thoughts about the World. Public school (K - 12th grade) teaches kids the basics of existing in a society (basic maths, personal finance, how to read, write). This NEEDS to be compulsory. These skills are a basic requirement of living in a society. See history for millions of examples of why this is important.

Taxpayers do. Even though parents actually fund the public schools, sans a State "to tell them to do it," would they on their own build/run the schools and educate without the hand of the State? My initial thoughts are no. Especially if 'going to school to become educated' is "worthless" in society (the State is indifferent to those who are educated).

That is a good idea, but you have to take in the unemployed those hurt or disabled, and those who simply refuse to pay after a while.

The reasons why private schools are costly, are that 1) those who attend, have to pay for two schools, the public plus the private, and 2) the state has crowded out, or monopolized, the non-premium school.

How so ? private schools can't force people to pay and then say "it is free, education is priceless !". Only public school can do that.
The fact that private schools are costly is just because they can't compete on cheap price with the public school system.
A second reason is regulatory walls (or loan backed by government for 'the approved ones') that keep outsiders from competing with established players.

Without public school system, the poor would still demand education and, as a consequences, the supply will always come.
The supply does not have to come from the rich, poors have brains, hands, and ambitions if you let them work and earn their living.

Very interesting to see that public teacher's are paid less than private one, while the public school receive MORE money than private sector per students.
Source : http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/155515613/how-much-does-the-government-spend-to-send-a-kid-to-school
In my country, the number are the same. My private school cost me 5000€ per year... And it was a school that did not competed on cheap price.

Saying at a time where virtually every book on earth can be read for free. (tip: and it is not thanks to the help of the public sector)

Education has a price. If government spend budget X for Y children, then it cost X/Y per children. Competition drive the ratio X/Y down.
When one says "something has no price", he forgets that a human somewhere lost precious hours of his limited time on earth to pay the price.
"Having no price" put no limit on how much people will be sacrificed to keep a dysfunctional system working.
If you are glad to be that person, good for you. I won't be.

So who creates the resources used for the public schools? Could it be the parents? If so, how could they not be able to afford the school without the state?

"Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."

(Étienne de La Boétie)

You must be young. You really want a system this way? You're telling me you're going to purchase insurance your ENTIRE life (in a financially increasing step-wise fashion as you age counter to your income) planning for your own golden years someday? You're going to save each paycheck now so you can afford your bills as an old person who can no longer physically work (or at a very limited capacity) because you'd rather pay for your own by yourself instead of into a somewhat collective system that will help you and all involved?

In America, it is a human right to live. If it's your right, everyone must be entitled to it, not just the ones who can afford it. Having insurance OPTIONS is perfectly fine (a scalable by affordability/cosmetic/choice), but not the basics.


Bolded for emphasis.

Not everyone can buy their own insurance, so therefore someone has to pay for it for those that cannot buy their own, unless you want to get murdered by a bunch of hopeless poor people.

IMO, it's a decent idea, however; it pigeon holes people into going down particular career/job tracks (i.e. 5% on a police officer's wage is quite a bit more burdening than 5% on an investment banker's salary). It's difficult to do, but education must be competitive for education's sake, not for "better" jobs.

My idea (adding onto this) would be to make education geared for particular jobs or careers. All education for non-specialized jobs (vocational, trades, mid-tier) would be free provided the student's received high marks. You would go to school with the direct intention of a particular outcome (to be a nurse, to be a plumber...) Free = funded by taxpayers.

Should the pupil want a more specialized track (doctor, professor, lawyer, etc.) they would have to have the necessary grades to prove their eligibility into those educational tracks (similar to Germany). If they have what it takes educationally to get in, the schooling would be either lower cost (an educational cost subsidy to keep them competitive) or you pay a % of your future earnings back to the system.

__

The cost of public education (9 - 12; high school) in the US is roughly $100-$1000/year depending on if the student plays sports, there are advanced technology fees, etc. Waivers can be gotten for most of thee costs if you are lower income. The mean adjusted cost is closer to $5-$200/year.

Now just think: Tax payers in America are complaining about this... Complaining about $200/year to send their kid to school. Mind them this includes free day care for 7-8 hours, exercise, low cost lunch, socialization for the kids, learning, etc. The list goes on. It amazes me how stupid most people really are. If you gave them the choice between the latest Ipad or sending their kid to school another year, you can bet there would be some agony involved.

Ahh, yes. Didn't mean it as a slight, I agree.

Does it make any sense for a state to have two competing armies in the state's disposition?

--> Good question. My initial thoughts also sway to competition as it usually benefits all parties in the long run with respect to innovation and advancement. Privatization of regimes would make for a very interesting dynamic (at least on the National stage). It would be similar to France's situation. You have their State defense and than you have the Legionnaires.

Just had a quick idea on education. Someone was talking about free school, but what about commission school (lack of a better name). Possibly private school, maybe public, but for all earnings in the future, a percent of it goes to that school for a lifetime. Something like 10%. School is free (and better quality) and has a lifetime income flow from graduates (assuming the graduates actually go and get jobs). So the 10% is taken from the after tax income, so if you have about 50% income tax thats 5% of your total income, which isn't bad considering you got free quality education. Also keep in mind that private schools are sometimes upwards of 20k per year, thats 240k over 12 years, plus university which brings it to probably 300k rounded, and so that would be about 10% of 3 million dollars of income over lifetime, and I would say that with a GOOD job, only possible through a private education and a good university, that would probably be a lifetime income enough to cover the 10%.
What do you guys think?

It seems that you didn't quite understand what I meant to say. I don't speak about private contractors, I speak about army as whole. Does it make any sense for a state to have two competing armies in the state's disposition? Furthermore, despite the fact that in earlier times kings and rulers bought private armies, nowadays only a "state" army can reliably maintain sovereignty in the long run.

--> Private schools CAN compete with price. The wealthy attend private schools because other wealthy families attend those schools. It's not about the education, it's about the connections one gains there. Private schools are purely designed as meeting grounds for maintaining the future's already wealthy elite. Price is irrelevant to the rich. On-the-other-hand, if you are poor-middle class and gain acceptance into a private school, congrats as the "quality" of your education just got better (i.e. better chance at meeting good contacts).


--> There is no separation between free school and private schools as you say. More money in tax payers pockets (from not paying for education) would not equate to 'cheap private school'. Education through the 12th grade is not optional, it is compulsory (in the US). If the Gov't mandates compulsory education up until a certain point, it is de facto paid by everyone. Having the option to select your education (at the lower rungs i.e. K-12th grade) doesn't do anything for the sake of making education better or more widely accessible. It instead stratifies people based upon income. Public education lacks support in the form of teacher's wages. If you do not incentivize those doing the educating, how could you ever expect the product (the educated) to benefit from such an arrangement?

Private schools don't face this problem per say because they are paid on average far better than public school teachers. The education in either of these settings is equal given the material being presented. The social factors surrounding the conveying of the material is what is vastly different.


--> I don't think you understand the nature of education. Education cannot be price intrinsically. One dollar does not equal learning algebra. One dollar also does not translate into X dollars of earning potential in the future. Politicans and law makers alike have been arguing this fact since the dawn of education in America. You simply cannot put a price on it. Education is an investment into your country for the good of everyone with the hopes that a smarter population equates to higher standards of living in the future. A capitalistic approach (the US) to education results in an education gap that favors those with money gaining access to knowledge over those who cannot afford it. The point of education in America is not to become smarter, but to get richer monetarily by gaining degrees. Knowledge is a gatekeeper in the US. It has nothing to do with becoming better educated to better your life, how you approach the World, think about things, etc..


--> There is ample competition in the Gov't military sectors. Contracts are awarded to many enterprises yearly for producing war machine products. If military spending were more publicly controlled, we would not even have a fraction of the astronomical and uncheck armed forces spending we have today. Privatization helps those in charge. Not the converse.

While I certainly agree with you on schools, there are fields which are either not profitable enough to draw in private capital or too huge to be entirely and effectively digested by it. Furthermore, there are sectors where competition is either simply inappropriate or just dangerous (e.g. armed forces). 

Lol no.
The taxes would not flow back into the pockets of the uneducated unemployed--they don't pay taxes because deadbeat & poor.
When said poor breed, they birth more uneducated poor, because learningz are reserved for teh wealthy.

Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords did not decide on "free" primary education because too kind & warmhearted.  They're Lizards ffs, grow up!
No.
They, in Their wisdom, know that lack of public education breeds fail & AIDS.  They want their sheeple productive, happy, and, most of all, healthy & delicious.
Also because 21st century.


Schools will be cheaper for the rich (who already pay for private schools), and more expensive (or, more likely, simply unaffordable) for the poor.  Because, as previously stated, the poor are lazy & unemployed, so none of their taxes go towards schools.  Deadbeats don't pay taxes.
Their kids will be left unschooled in anything other than stealing ur Lexus & selling crack to ur kids after mugging & raping them--you know how those people are

A private school can't compete with price, so they must compete on quality.

Imagine "Free school" (which is not free) would not exist. All taxes expenses that pay the current public school system would flow back in the pocket of every citizen.
Now, since private school can compete on price because no free school exists, all the funds that citizens won back to their pocket is available for cheap private school.

With the help of competition, you can be sure that the most efficient school will win. Such school would cost less money that the current public school system that have no incentives to be cheap.

Once again, making the payment of a service decoupled from the benefit does not make it free. It only increase price elasticity. (which allows public school to be costly to the tax payer without consequences)