Er-- okay...
well, back (kind of) on-topic after that detour...
I support public funding of education through grade 12, but offering too much free stuff to low-income families discourages work,
Oh, it's okay, though-- because the looming twin threats of hunger or exposure are pretty potent motivators, all things considered.
raises costs for higher-income families, and makes some high-earning parents to ask why they bother working.
This, IMO, is the completely rational and evidence-based portion of the argument AGAINST subsidies for "low" income persons. Because there is
some cut-off beyond which families pay full freight, which means that SOMEBODY winds up not being able to "afford" a tuition bill that some calculator or formula says that they can. Right? This is a problem
right now in affording college.
It also encourages low-income people to have more children and high-income people to have fewer.
See statement above regarding starvation and homelessness. Also-- given the proportion of pregnancies which are "unintended" in the US, I don't really think that most people ARE thinking this hard about family planning. Just sayin.
I support full funding of education through
at least grade 12 (and not what currently
passes for K through 12 education, but that is clearly a separate post-- though I suppose not really, now that I think about it... Hmmm... more momentarily on that*) as well.
* okay, the reason why I think maybe this ISN'T an entirely separate issue is that the entire reason for subsidies is that the product being subsidized is a "premium" one not available at a price-point that the consumer
could pay, and that the service is essential to that consumer.
So, for example, a private school that offers something that the public school can't. Or
doesn't. Like-- gifted programming, or programs for autistic teens or classes conducted in ASL or something like that....
or...
higher QUALITY education than a public school provides.Hmm. Well, I'm not a fan of vouchers, but that kind of subsidization
is effectively a voucher system, isn't it?
Hmmmmm.... not sure where I'm going with this line of thinking, but it's interesting to me to think about the natural conclusions of that...
A prodigy needs specialized opportunities, right? So societally, it would be in everyone's best interests to subsidize that special educational setting, I think. If only we knew some way to sort them into "this child NEEDS that environment," as opposed to "this PARENT needs to feel extra-special" and just give very large trophies to the latter and tuition checks to the former, eh?
