Like I said that's her choice. At the end of the day you cannot make a tax system that everyone will agree with. Because no doubt this cleaner person you have created wont think it is fair to spend taxes on higher education because they have never seen the benefits. However they will think it is fair that the rich are taxed to provide a health service the cleaner cannot afford. So at the end of the day all we can do is create a fair tax system where everyone sees some sort of benefit, and at the same time helps to improve society and our economy as a whole. I by no means think it's my devine right to have free education (this isn't even about me because I'm scottish and the changes don't effect me). However the whole point of taxes is to tax everyone a fair amount in order to create a more equal society. To provide the poor with a chance to be equal. The best way to do this is to provide free health care and free education. If you have a degree you have a better chance of having a decently paid job. This means we have more people in proffesional jobs with higher income. As a result we will have less people relying on govt handouts to live an equal lifestyle.(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
What if the poor woman wasn't that smart or didn't wish to go to university? What if she is happy enough with her job and likes her work colleagues.
You then come into her life, and order her to pay for what you think you're entitled to! My God!
Just because this person didn't decide to go to uni doesn't mean we shouldn't tax them to provide other people with the chance to go to uni. By that justification we should get rid of all taxes. Because lets face it, what one person is happy about being taxed, another isn't.
EDIT: I'm not suggesting we should pay more taxes anyway. I'm suggesting we makes cuts in other areas.
Uni should not be free! Watch
Last edited by Law123mus; 04-12-2010 at 00:55.
- 04-12-2010 00:39
- 04-12-2010 02:53
1) If everyone would get a car for free, streets would totally clog up and nobody could move
2) If you talk generally about better transportation infrastructure I agree that this would have positive externalities, that’s why governments build highways and super-fast trains etc but the car is not the solution to the problem, it’s the transportation infrastructure
3) Cars have many negative externalities such as emissions, noise, road accidents, inefficient use of resources etc that probably any positive externalities they have are outweighed
4) Cars are a scarce good, education creates knowledge, which is a free good (in economic not in money terms), so they are by far not the same
5) It’s not about what the intention of the economic subject is, it’s about what the economic impact is
On government spending
1) If economic impact > tax revenues then wealth is created aka multiplier effect, so government can create wealth
2) It’s not the machinery it’s capital that creates wealth and the question is how can it be most efficiently allocated, usually it’s the free market, but again in cases where the market fails the government might be a more efficient allocator
3) Well believe it or not there are people that study for other than financial reasons, I cannot imagine that a historian or a person that studies theater is intending to become wealthy
4) I can’t quote any numbers, but to my knowledge there is an undersupply of highly qualified people. Longer studies may be required as the jobs are more demanding.
5) What creates economic wealth in the UK/ western economies, natural resources, industrial production??
On Market failure
1) Given that the economic subjects wants to internalize externalities, she/ he has to restrict access to the good, create false scarcity and achieve a higher price. As such the market doesn’t clear and there is an demand overhang, the market fails
2) You’re right, market doesn’t break down as this would mean no transaction would take place, in this example it does but it’s inefficient so the allocation mechanism of the market fails
3) It’s about the allocation, if the market doesn t achieve an efficient allocation the government has to step in, now whether it will achieve a more efficient allocation than the market is a good question or in other words does the government doesn’t overreact in many cases and tries to beat the market but then in turn fails? Yes probably more often than not, and while you might a different impression after our discussion, I am rather for less than more government, as I think governments are for the most part a huge money wasting machine, but there are exceptions and one of them is the education…but let’s see whether next Thursday the government will fail once moreLast edited by JohnDoldon; 04-12-2010 at 02:54.
(Original post by The_Great_One)
- 04-12-2010 03:11
University should not be free. IF it was it would need very high taxes and why should a cleaner on a low wage pay for your education. The same applies to rich people why should a rich person whos worked his whole life pay for your education. Thats why i'm a capitalist because i believe people should capitalise on things and make their own money instead of spending other peoples money.
Socialism works in Sweden where there's free healthcare and free education INCLUDING HIGHER EDUCATION. Not only for Swedes but for others who go there to learn. You right now can get a FREE HIGHER EDUCATION at Europe's top schools in Sweden including Uppsala and Lund.
You capitalists don't know squat about economics just greed. Look at what your precious system has done to the world in this day and age.