4 ms·

I'm trying to see both sides, but how is the parent the customer here? I think you're mixing an opinion on high taxation in general (which you might be right a

by mihaic 3y ago

I'm trying to see both sides, but how is the parent the customer here? I think you're mixing an opinion on high taxation in general (which you might be right about), versus how big metropolises enjoy labor that was raised somewhere else.

rowanG077 3y ago
Of course the parent is the customer. Generally the parent is the one who makes sure the child is wel prepared for the future. College is a step in that process.
- mihaic 3y ago
  I agree that the parent is a beneficiary of the education, but my argument is with the fact that "customer" involves one beneficiary. By your logic for instance anyone that's childless shouldn't pay taxes for education, even though they benefit indirectly from an educated population. Isn't the company that's hiring the graduate just as much a beneficiary for instance?
rtkwe 3y ago
One of the biggest functions of primary education beyond preparing the kid for their future is as a free(ish) place to stick your kid during working hours. Look at what happened during COVID when schools were shutdown it caused a lot of problems because suddenly someone had to take care of the kid during the day. The chaos that change caused alone is I think excellent evidence for that. It's also why schools happen so early even though it's clinically proven to be an inferior time to start school for the kid, they have to start that early so the parent(s) can get to their 9-5 job.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Simple. It’s not based on the child’s taxes (or future taxes) because then they could go to a California college, claim residency there immediately, and get California prices. Instead, I have to pay an extra $30k or so for them. Further, they haven’t paid any taxes before college, because they were in high school. So again, the fact that each state gives “local” kids a break has nothing to do with the kids taxes. Kids haven’t paid taxes, and kids moving state doesn’t change fees. What does matter? My taxes, as parent. I pay soooo much taxes and I will continue to do so. As a result my kid is essentially forced to go to a college in state. And he will then FOR SURE move out of state. But I won’t. So. It’s a cost to me. Like we are considering moving back to CA to get the UC discount. I will pay more in taxes but I’ll get a chunk of it back in tuition break.
RhysU 3y ago
The parent is who determines where the child lives during the time when the child's residency is established for in-state tuition purposes. The parent is who votes for elected officials in the state. The parent is who suggests to the child the viability of a subsidized in-state education. "Go to State" is a recommendation from the elders. If the parents poo-poo State the kid won't consider it seriously.

by mihaic 3y ago

rowanG077 3y ago

Of course the parent is the customer. Generally the parent is the one who makes sure the child is wel prepared for the future. College is a step in that process.

mihaic 3y ago
I agree that the parent is a beneficiary of the education, but my argument is with the fact that "customer" involves one beneficiary. By your logic for instance anyone that's childless shouldn't pay taxes for education, even though they benefit indirectly from an educated population. Isn't the company that's hiring the graduate just as much a beneficiary for instance?

rtkwe 3y ago

One of the biggest functions of primary education beyond preparing the kid for their future is as a free(ish) place to stick your kid during working hours. Look at what happened during COVID when schools were shutdown it caused a lot of problems because suddenly someone had to take care of the kid during the day. The chaos that change caused alone is I think excellent evidence for that. It's also why schools happen so early even though it's clinically proven to be an inferior time to start school for the kid, they have to start that early so the parent(s) can get to their 9-5 job.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lowbloodsugar 3y ago

Simple. It’s not based on the child’s taxes (or future taxes) because then they could go to a California college, claim residency there immediately, and get California prices. Instead, I have to pay an extra $30k or so for them. Further, they haven’t paid any taxes before college, because they were in high school. So again, the fact that each state gives “local” kids a break has nothing to do with the kids taxes. Kids haven’t paid taxes, and kids moving state doesn’t change fees. What does matter? My taxes, as parent. I pay soooo much taxes and I will continue to do so. As a result my kid is essentially forced to go to a college in state. And he will then FOR SURE move out of state. But I won’t. So. It’s a cost to me. Like we are considering moving back to CA to get the UC discount. I will pay more in taxes but I’ll get a chunk of it back in tuition break.

RhysU 3y ago

The parent is who determines where the child lives during the time when the child's residency is established for in-state tuition purposes. The parent is who votes for elected officials in the state. The parent is who suggests to the child the viability of a subsidized in-state education. "Go to State" is a recommendation from the elders. If the parents poo-poo State the kid won't consider it seriously.