4 ms·

I know this is a trite comment, but no, you still pay through taxes. The state has no money. I too live in a country with tax-financed universities.

TheForumTroll 8y ago
There is quite a big difference between students alone paying 100 % (or more like 500 % in the US) and every citizen in a country sharing the price between them. Not only is it cheaper overall per capita but you also get much better tuition when schools don't go where they make the most money but concentrate on teaching and research. Look at how research in the US is today. Research what might make big money and when you get the chance run with it and start a company. That is a surefire way of running the school into the ground - or at least the quality of it.
- patricius 8y ago
  Of course there is a difference. You let others pay for your choices (studying). But it doesn't make it free.
  - c12 8y ago
    Things like state funded healthcare are free at the point of care and education is free at the point of consumption. This doesn't mean they don't have costs associated with them as a whole but that for those actually using them they appear to have no personal cost.
    - patricius 8y ago
      Yes, and that is the great deceit of taxation and political resource allocation. Somebody still has to earn the money and bring about the resources and services used through the public sector. It seems to me a lot of people forget that, when they hail state funded services.
sykh 8y ago
When someone says tuition is free or that healthcare is free what they mean is that using these services doesn’t cost out of pocket expenses and doesn’t lead to debt. In this sense those services are free.
- patricius 8y ago
  Well, if we can redefine free to mean "I will let someone else pay for it" or "I will pay for it at some later date", then sure...
  - senorjazz 8y ago
    Why are you being facetious? You know very well what they mean and what is meant by "free education". If someone says to you "I am giving this to you for free" do you then then argue "it is not free, someone had to pay for it" :-\
    - patricius 8y ago
      Because when someone writes "the state pays your tuition", it hides the fact that people pay your tuition. Or, depending on your view, you yourself will pay for your tuition through taxes. A lot of people forget, when making a statement like that, what is called free is not in fact free. And when you give something away, we presume that it is not something you have stolen. But the money spent at the point of consumption (i.e., when studying) is forcibly taken from people. <Insert standard libertarian arguments here>
      - Systemic33 8y ago
        It's a cost on society, not on the individual pupil, just like how the education is a gain to the society at large, while the individual effort of the individual may seem negligble. So of course it's free. You are not paying. And you don't pay it over taxes, society does. Think of it this way: If you didn't go to university, and just learned on your own, then you still pay the same taxes if you reach the same income level. So taking a university does not increase your taxes. Ergo free.
plesn 8y ago
free doesn't imply that the service/product has no costs, only that your transaction has no costs. Google is also free but it has costs (mostly paid by ads which are then included in products costs).
eesmith 8y ago
If the state has no money, then what do you consider the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund? Because that looks like an awful lot of money to me.
BeetleB 8y ago
You and others may thing you are being pedantic, but you are not. You are simply wrong. If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The fact that someone paid for it is not contradictory to it being free. In a later comment you say "Well, if we can redefine free to mean "I will let someone else pay for it" or "I will pay for it at some later date", then sure..." "I will let someone else pay for it" is true, and it is not redefining free. It is free and someone else paid for it. Don't construct a world view where they are opposing each other. And no, you will not pay for it at some later date. That's a loan, and is what we in the US often do for school. You may pay the tuition for other students who come after you, but there are usually ways to opt out of that with no penalty. And even if you do end up paying for others, it is not a reciprocal transaction. You are not paying for others' education because you received a free one. You would still pay for it even if you opted out of university. Yes, the education is free. Why am I taking the time to write this out? For two reasons: 1. Often (but not always) people like to make this point because they want to have a discussion of the wider economic system, and often about the pros and cons of that system. Yet you have not really made an effort to have that discussion so it may not have been your motivation. 2. If we go with your notion of what "free" means, then we should be consistent and realize pretty much nothing is for free. A plank fell off my fence. I could have paid someone to fix it, but instead I took a hammer and nails and got the work done for free. "Oh no!" says the listener. "Don't think you got it for free. You paid for it in labor, and in buying the hammer and nails." You respond with "Well no, I found the nails and hammer in the trash - someone was moving out". "Yes, but he paid for it, so still the work you did was not free." These conversations never happen in real life. No one disputes that I did it for free.[1] So why do we allow ourselved to get sidetracked with the issue of whether health care or education is free - especially when it is not the purpose of the conversation at hand? Well, OK - some people will question whether my time was worth it vs just paying someone, but that's the extent. And the analogue to "free" education would be "No it wasn't free. You spent 4 years of your life there - you need to consider the opportunity cost"
- patricius 8y ago
  > If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The difference is that you don't end up paying for your Rolex. But you do pay taxes during your life time and in return you get services provided by the public sector. So how is it free? At the point of consumption someone else will be paying for you, but in the future you can be said to be paying back what you owe. If you never paid any taxes, then yes, you could consider your education free.

TheForumTroll 8y ago

There is quite a big difference between students alone paying 100 % (or more like 500 % in the US) and every citizen in a country sharing the price between them. Not only is it cheaper overall per capita but you also get much better tuition when schools don't go where they make the most money but concentrate on teaching and research. Look at how research in the US is today. Research what might make big money and when you get the chance run with it and start a company. That is a surefire way of running the school into the ground - or at least the quality of it.

patricius 8y ago
Of course there is a difference. You let others pay for your choices (studying). But it doesn't make it free.
- c12 8y ago
  Things like state funded healthcare are free at the point of care and education is free at the point of consumption. This doesn't mean they don't have costs associated with them as a whole but that for those actually using them they appear to have no personal cost.
  - patricius 8y ago
    Yes, and that is the great deceit of taxation and political resource allocation. Somebody still has to earn the money and bring about the resources and services used through the public sector. It seems to me a lot of people forget that, when they hail state funded services.

sykh 8y ago

When someone says tuition is free or that healthcare is free what they mean is that using these services doesn’t cost out of pocket expenses and doesn’t lead to debt. In this sense those services are free.

patricius 8y ago
Well, if we can redefine free to mean "I will let someone else pay for it" or "I will pay for it at some later date", then sure...
- senorjazz 8y ago
  Why are you being facetious? You know very well what they mean and what is meant by "free education". If someone says to you "I am giving this to you for free" do you then then argue "it is not free, someone had to pay for it" :-\
  - patricius 8y ago
    Because when someone writes "the state pays your tuition", it hides the fact that people pay your tuition. Or, depending on your view, you yourself will pay for your tuition through taxes. A lot of people forget, when making a statement like that, what is called free is not in fact free. And when you give something away, we presume that it is not something you have stolen. But the money spent at the point of consumption (i.e., when studying) is forcibly taken from people. <Insert standard libertarian arguments here>
    - Systemic33 8y ago
      It's a cost on society, not on the individual pupil, just like how the education is a gain to the society at large, while the individual effort of the individual may seem negligble. So of course it's free. You are not paying. And you don't pay it over taxes, society does. Think of it this way: If you didn't go to university, and just learned on your own, then you still pay the same taxes if you reach the same income level. So taking a university does not increase your taxes. Ergo free.

plesn 8y ago

free doesn't imply that the service/product has no costs, only that your transaction has no costs. Google is also free but it has costs (mostly paid by ads which are then included in products costs).

eesmith 8y ago

If the state has no money, then what do you consider the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund? Because that looks like an awful lot of money to me.

BeetleB 8y ago

You and others may thing you are being pedantic, but you are not. You are simply wrong. If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The fact that someone paid for it is not contradictory to it being free. In a later comment you say "Well, if we can redefine free to mean "I will let someone else pay for it" or "I will pay for it at some later date", then sure..." "I will let someone else pay for it" is true, and it is not redefining free. It is free and someone else paid for it. Don't construct a world view where they are opposing each other. And no, you will not pay for it at some later date. That's a loan, and is what we in the US often do for school. You may pay the tuition for other students who come after you, but there are usually ways to opt out of that with no penalty. And even if you do end up paying for others, it is not a reciprocal transaction. You are not paying for others' education because you received a free one. You would still pay for it even if you opted out of university. Yes, the education is free. Why am I taking the time to write this out? For two reasons: 1. Often (but not always) people like to make this point because they want to have a discussion of the wider economic system, and often about the pros and cons of that system. Yet you have not really made an effort to have that discussion so it may not have been your motivation. 2. If we go with your notion of what "free" means, then we should be consistent and realize pretty much nothing is for free. A plank fell off my fence. I could have paid someone to fix it, but instead I took a hammer and nails and got the work done for free. "Oh no!" says the listener. "Don't think you got it for free. You paid for it in labor, and in buying the hammer and nails." You respond with "Well no, I found the nails and hammer in the trash - someone was moving out". "Yes, but he paid for it, so still the work you did was not free." These conversations never happen in real life. No one disputes that I did it for free.[1] So why do we allow ourselved to get sidetracked with the issue of whether health care or education is free - especially when it is not the purpose of the conversation at hand? Well, OK - some people will question whether my time was worth it vs just paying someone, but that's the extent. And the analogue to "free" education would be "No it wasn't free. You spent 4 years of your life there - you need to consider the opportunity cost"

patricius 8y ago
> If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The difference is that you don't end up paying for your Rolex. But you do pay taxes during your life time and in return you get services provided by the public sector. So how is it free? At the point of consumption someone else will be paying for you, but in the future you can be said to be paying back what you owe. If you never paid any taxes, then yes, you could consider your education free.