4 ms·

So who provides them if the government does not without falling into the tragedy of the commons and/or cutting off the poor from access to such services?

clarkmoody 11y ago
James Tooley has done fascinating work on private education for the poor around the world, putting the lie to the myths that private education is only for the wealthy and that the government must provide education. There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm... [2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/ http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  1) What does that have to do with roads, military, etc? 2) His argument still would fundamentally function as a regressive tax burden greater than the existing tax burden [for education] on the poor. 3) A fee-for-service regressive tax burden will ultimately cut the poor off from services. > With a minimum wage of about $33 per month in the area, monthly fees in the private unrecognized schools are thus about 12 percent of the average monthly earnings of an adult earner. You do understand in the US the poor aren't paying 12% of their income to send their kids to school right? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi... http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco... The full federal tax burden for education, infrastructure, etc. on the poor is ~3%. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rankings-fy-2012 http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rank... If you factor in the state-and-local burden, the full burden is barely higher at ~13%. So for literally one service, the cost is nearly the entire tax burden for the poor.

clarkmoody 11y ago

James Tooley has done fascinating work on private education for the poor around the world, putting the lie to the myths that private education is only for the wealthy and that the government must provide education. There is an excellent EconTalk expisode[1] with Tooley, as well as a lengthy article here[2] by the author. [1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/12/james_tooley_on.htm... [2] http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/ http://educationnext.org/privateschoolsforthepoor/

fweespee_ch 11y ago
1) What does that have to do with roads, military, etc? 2) His argument still would fundamentally function as a regressive tax burden greater than the existing tax burden [for education] on the poor. 3) A fee-for-service regressive tax burden will ultimately cut the poor off from services. > With a minimum wage of about $33 per month in the area, monthly fees in the private unrecognized schools are thus about 12 percent of the average monthly earnings of an adult earner. You do understand in the US the poor aren't paying 12% of their income to send their kids to school right? https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spendi... http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco... The full federal tax burden for education, infrastructure, etc. on the poor is ~3%. http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rankings-fy-2012 http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-local-tax-burden-rank... If you factor in the state-and-local burden, the full burden is barely higher at ~13%. So for literally one service, the cost is nearly the entire tax burden for the poor.