3 ms·
>Literally everyone. and >Imagine the tax income down the line... are contradictory. A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending l
by colemannugent 8y ago
>Literally everyone.
and
>Imagine the tax income down the line...
are contradictory.
A better argument would be: "Increased education and welfare spending leads to more productivity and the added cost is offset by the increase in taxes due to the productivity gain". Or more simply: "Education and welfare are good investments".
Now we can have a serious conversation about the economic impacts of this kind of investment. But to market it as free is irresponsible. It it not free. At best we get more out than we put in, but by definition we must put in something.
That was the point of my original comment. Everything has a cost. Even an investment with a nearly guaranteed return comes at a cost and has a certain amount of risk associated with it.
- komali2 8y agoIt can be "free" if budgets are rearranged out of the insanity they are in now. Imagine slashing DoD funding in half. I don't think taxes would have to go up a penny to provide free education then. Other than that, yes, I agree with you in using investment terminology.
- colemannugent 8y agoI also agree that current budget allocations are insane. Maybe if we stopped fighting so many wars we could make more progress here at home. Another assumption that you make is that the problem with the US education system is a lack of funding. I don't think this is the case.
- komali2 8y agoI think we can both point to a lot of inefficiencies that need to be fixed, but given that local public schools essentially depend on the property value of the surrounding area to determine quality, I do think funding is an issue. I make the argument that the federal government should funnel shitloads more money to local schools. I think we can have that while also auditing and cleaning up whatever ineffective messes money is being spent on by the doe now.