A free market education idea

[A18]

Two ideas, actually

Idea one. Instead of having state-run education, private companies could give away vouchers to children whose parents couldn't afford to pay for their education. In return, the child would be legally obligated to pay that company a certain percentage of his/her income until he/she paid off the debt plus a certain amount of profit.

Problems: children can't sign legally binding contracts and probably shouldn't be able to; people shouldn't have to do something their parents "signed them up" for.

My second idea is basically a state-run version of the first idea. The state gives out vouchers, and the child pays a certain percentage of his/her income to the government until the debt is paid off.

This would allow for lower taxes while still providing an education for poor children and promoting self reliance.

[Bono]

Two ideas, actually

Idea one. Instead of having state-run education, private companies could give away vouchers to children whose parents couldn't afford to pay for their education. In return, the child would be legally obligated to pay that company a certain percentage of his/her income until he/she paid off the debt plus a certain amount of profit.

Problems: children can't sign legally binding contracts and probably shouldn't be able to; people shouldn't have to do something their parents "signed them up" for.

My second idea is basically a state-run version of the first idea. The state gives out vouchers, and the child pays a certain percentage of his/her income to the government until the debt is paid off.

This would allow for lower taxes while still providing an education for poor children and promoting self reliance.

It is a bad idea to have the state soing it because if the state will just end up paying for it, there is no incentive to reduce costs, and so prices will only go up, only to increase the burden on taxpayers. It would basically have the same efect Medicare and Medicaid had on health care costs.

[A18]

What do you mean the state will end up paying for it? There is an incentive to reduce costs; that way the child doesn't have to pay as much!

[Bono]

What do you mean the state will end up paying for it? There is an incentive to reduce costs; that way the child doesn't have to pay as much!

It's even worst. That way the state has an incentive to find a way to make education more expensive, so as to recieve more money from his future income.

[Lunar]

Ack!

[A18]

What do you mean the state will end up paying for it? There is an incentive to reduce costs; that way the child doesn't have to pay as much!

It's even worst. That way the state has an incentive to find a way to make education more expensive, so as to recieve more money from his future income.

No, because they have to PAY that money up front. All it gets back is what it gives.

If your friend asked if he could borrow 5 dollars, would you have an incentive to give him 20?

[J-Mann]

Ugh, no!

[A18]

Ack!

Ugh, no!

Thanks for sharing your specific objections. Now what is wrong with it, may I ask?

All people would be doing is paying for their own education instead of paying for everyone else's (like they do now in taxes).

[J-Mann]

Ack!

Ugh, no!

Thanks for sharing your specific objections. Now what is wrong with it, may I ask?

All people would be doing is paying for their own education instead of paying for everyone else's (like they do now in taxes).

Pay it out of their eventual incomes?  That's ridiculous.  You couldn't expect the government or private companies to not increase the amount of the payments as inflation increases.  After a 13 year elementary and secondary education, a child could be sentenced to pay much more than his education was originally worth.

[A18]

You would adjust for inflation, like any loan. I don't see how it would be more than the education was originally worth, though -- it would just be a larger number.

Remember, he gets to keep all the money that he would be paying in taxes under the current system to fund public schools.

[J-Mann]

You would adjust for inflation, like any loan. I don't see how it would be more than the education was originally worth, though -- it would just be a larger number.

Remember, he gets to keep all the money that he would be paying in taxes under the current system to fund public schools.

If you think this is so great, take it to your Congressman and share it with your legislature.  I think it sucks and wouldn't like it, though.  I was more than happy to get out of high school without a debt for 13 years of education.

[A18]

You definitely had a 13 year debt for education. The only difference is that the government didn't tell you what part of your taxes covered it.

[Lunar]

Remember, he gets to keep all the money that he would be paying in taxes under the current system to fund public schools.

Ack! Was my original response and I stand by it.

1) Kids don't really pay money for their school so it's not like highschool graduates will have mass amounts of money to pay off their debts
2) Recent graduates are not making the same money they will in 20 years.   They already have to pay the debt for the car, the house, etc.  Adding another burden could easily turn many potential careers into quagmires.  Your idea ends up as a tax increase on the recent graduates.
3) It skips the progressive income tax completey.  This means more of the poor shoulder the tax burden.
4) Ineffeciency problems Bono mentioned. 
5) What the heck is the point if it amounts to the same in the end?  So it is rhetorically "free market?"

[J-Mann]

You definitely had a 13 year debt for education. The only difference is that the government didn't tell you what part of your taxes covered it.

I had no burden.  My parents did, my neighbors did...everyone in the state who pays taxes funded my education.  I personally had none, or very little through the part-time jobs I had.  This whole scheme is only shifting the entirety of the education burden to the ones getting the education, which you claim will help the poor.  If the kids can get a practically free education now, how is sticking them with a debt for their own vouchers helping them at all?

I don't know how much personal debt we'd be talking here, but I'm sure as hell glad I didn't have a bill to pay back to the government or Coca-Cola or whichever private company got in on the voucher scheme for their own profit.  When I got out of high school, I went right to college, and I'm damn glad that my part-time job paychecks weren't going entirely to pay off my elementary and secondary education bills.  Sure, I have taxes, too, but I'm pitching in a small amount to contribute to everyone's education as opposed to being stuck with the bill for all of mine. 

[A18]

Remember, he gets to keep all the money that he would be paying in taxes under the current system to fund public schools.

Ack! Was my original response and I stand by it.

1) Kids don't really pay money for their school so it's not like highschool graduates will have mass amounts of money to pay off their debts
2) Recent graduates are not making the same money they will in 20 years.   They already have to pay the debt for the car, the house, etc.  Adding another burden could easily turn many potential careers into quagmires.  Your idea ends up as a tax increase on the recent graduates.
3) It skips the progressive income tax completey.  This means more of the poor shoulder the tax burden.
4) Ineffeciency problems Bono mentioned. 
5) What the heck is the point if it amounts to the same in the end?  So it is rhetorically "free market?"

1) they have a lower tax burden; besides, the best way to pay off debt is to invest
2) you could allow them to start at as late as 35
3) only for their own education
4) already debutted his inefficiency claims
5) better education through competition

[Lunar]

Remember, he gets to keep all the money that he would be paying in taxes under the current system to fund public schools.

Ack! Was my original response and I stand by it.

1) Kids don't really pay money for their school so it's not like highschool graduates will have mass amounts of money to pay off their debts
2) Recent graduates are not making the same money they will in 20 years.   They already have to pay the debt for the car, the house, etc.  Adding another burden could easily turn many potential careers into quagmires.  Your idea ends up as a tax increase on the recent graduates.
3) It skips the progressive income tax completey.  This means more of the poor shoulder the tax burden.
4) Ineffeciency problems Bono mentioned. 
5) What the heck is the point if it amounts to the same in the end?  So it is rhetorically "free market?"

1) they have a lower tax burden; besides, the best way to pay off debt is to invest
2) you could allow them to start at as late as 35
3) only for their own education
4) already debutted his inefficiency claims
5) better education through competition

1) You were implying that the kid is saving tons of money and with this money he or she saves, the kid will be able to pay off the debt.  It's only the parents that save money for the period that the kid is in school.

College loans suck as it is.  I'd hate to imagine K-College loans.

2) Better, but still silly.  If my business just started having problems, the last thing I need is to get slammed with a debt I have to pay off. 
3)  Still a big chunk.  I oppose the flat income tax so I oppose your idea (for this and many other reasons).
4)  Not really.  There's still no incentive for the state to reduce costs because everything will be covered.  It's an entirely separate budget from everything else.
5)  So only private schools?  There's a myriad of problems with completely getting rid of the public school system, but that's another debate and probably not one that either side can "win."

I prefer not to organize my posts like this, but sometimes it's just warranted.

[A18]

1. No, just over the course of their life time, as they use the education they got, they'll earn enough - it's an "education pays for itself" philosophy
2. You could say that about any debt
3. Okay
4. What do you mean everything will be covered? The state has no incentive, but the people paying for the education do.

[A18]

I hope all the people saying no to this are libertarians who think it's a big government program.

[Platypus]

we already do it with universities, it is a sucky idea because it means financial freedom for under 30s is almost non-existant in everyone who takes a HECS place at uni.

[Lunar]

1. No, just over the course of their life time, as they use the education they got, they'll earn enough - it's an "education pays for itself" philosophy

They would have gotten that education anyway.  No one is getting richer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And debts are bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should have clarified better.  Flat tax = more of the tax burden on the poor. 

Those who are in the bottom income bracket all of their life (no tax) would get hurt by your added tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean the state gets all of the money back, so there's no incentive to fix things.  Having education interacting with other budgets that they want passed encourages effeciency.

[Platypus]

BTW, the government did just make university places more expensive, starting tomorrow. Whoever made that point-you're right.