5 ms·

I think that translates to "why not have the taxpayer pay for college education too?" Which means that the person who doesn't need/get a college education (thin

I think that translates to "why not have the taxpayer pay for college education too?" Which means that the person who doesn't need/get a college education (think your electrician) is now stuck paying for those who choose to get one and is seeing none of the benefits. Better to have the people who get the benefits pay for the privilege.

hobs 5y ago
That argument only makes sense when education is frightenly expensive - reducing this cost makes it on the level of paying for roads you dont use - it helps you even though you dont get a direct benefit because your entire society works.
- gameman144 5y ago
  But education is frighteningly expensive. Reducing the cost makes sense, but subsidizing the cost of something overpriced doesn't do anything to incentivize lowering the actual cost of that thing. Likewise, there are loads of things which help society in general which we still hold individuals accountable for. Law-school and Med-school cost loads, but students take on loans for those; small businesses provide a huge portion of employment, but by-and-large the burden of debt (even small-business-advantaged loans) is taken on by owners and not society-at-large (COVID notwithstanding); having a huge selection of television, music, literature, and other media produced in the US is great for society (and is a huge reason for American soft-power worldwide), but the cost of funding nearly all this work is borne by businesses and not the taxpayer. This isn't to say that certain things shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer. However, saying "This thing is good for all of society, and therefore should be subsidized by the taxpayer" doesn't really necessarily follow.
  - hobs 5y ago
    Becoming a doctor is subsidized by many societies, there's no reason to choose to burden students with exorbitant debt. The burden of these things have exploded in recent years, there's no clear reason why anyone should pay for that immense increase.
    - gameman144 5y ago
      But the whole point is that someone is paying for that increase unless actions are taken to reduce the cost. Like, if laptops started to cost $10,000 each, we could say that people need them and have the government subsidize computers (in which case the taxpayer pays), we could have individuals pay the added cost (the reaction to rising university costs), or we could attempt to push the price of laptops down. In either of the first two cases, someone is paying the exorbitant prices. In my mind, the question is less "Should taxpayers help fund education" and more "Why is the cost of education such a burden to begin with".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pomian 5y ago
Don't forget, the electrician, mechanic, plumber, etc, also gets free education. It's not free to go to college to be an apprentice or master, in North America.

hobs 5y ago

That argument only makes sense when education is frightenly expensive - reducing this cost makes it on the level of paying for roads you dont use - it helps you even though you dont get a direct benefit because your entire society works.

gameman144 5y ago
But education is frighteningly expensive. Reducing the cost makes sense, but subsidizing the cost of something overpriced doesn't do anything to incentivize lowering the actual cost of that thing. Likewise, there are loads of things which help society in general which we still hold individuals accountable for. Law-school and Med-school cost loads, but students take on loans for those; small businesses provide a huge portion of employment, but by-and-large the burden of debt (even small-business-advantaged loans) is taken on by owners and not society-at-large (COVID notwithstanding); having a huge selection of television, music, literature, and other media produced in the US is great for society (and is a huge reason for American soft-power worldwide), but the cost of funding nearly all this work is borne by businesses and not the taxpayer. This isn't to say that certain things shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer. However, saying "This thing is good for all of society, and therefore should be subsidized by the taxpayer" doesn't really necessarily follow.
- hobs 5y ago
  Becoming a doctor is subsidized by many societies, there's no reason to choose to burden students with exorbitant debt. The burden of these things have exploded in recent years, there's no clear reason why anyone should pay for that immense increase.
  - gameman144 5y ago
    But the whole point is that someone is paying for that increase unless actions are taken to reduce the cost. Like, if laptops started to cost $10,000 each, we could say that people need them and have the government subsidize computers (in which case the taxpayer pays), we could have individuals pay the added cost (the reaction to rising university costs), or we could attempt to push the price of laptops down. In either of the first two cases, someone is paying the exorbitant prices. In my mind, the question is less "Should taxpayers help fund education" and more "Why is the cost of education such a burden to begin with".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pomian 5y ago

Don't forget, the electrician, mechanic, plumber, etc, also gets free education. It's not free to go to college to be an apprentice or master, in North America.