🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <H.ea.fXAeaheZBto@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>In <1992Nov8.061043.6264@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
>														Morrison) writes:
>
>>Yes, it would be nice to know how much an education really costs. 
>>Currently we pay a low, subsidized tuition but after graduation
>>the taxes I'll  pay will outstrip the value of our education and health system.
>
>	If the education you're getting is so valueless, how are you going
>to get a job that is taxed so high?
>

where do I say it is valueless? It is subsidized, and the government tries
to make people feel that getting a university degree is "a privilege, you
should be happy with even getting into a university", when in fact
the taxes you pay exceed the subsidies.

>>So yes, I'll take higher up-front tuition fees if that means my
>>tax rate goes down to about 15 to 25% when I am working.
>
>	 I guess this means you're only in favour of education for the 
>rich?

I can see you like making up things.

I'm in favor of people who use a service, should pay for that service.
So it follows that the rich should pay higher taxes for police services,
since they are bigger target. I am not in favor of denying services to the
poor, because doing that would create social tension and violence.
If that is what you are trying to imply, sorry, you are out of luck.

I am in favor of finding the overall minimum cost solution to problems, 
calculated with a long term view, and that people who use those services 
and resources, should pay for them. It's very simple. The problem is that
governments use short term economic calculations, and ignore opportunity
costs of their spending, and they ignore market economy mechanisms
(and even centrist, left wing economists are beginning to recognize that
the free market minimizes cost and waist the fastest. The economist
Hayek proved this decades ago, when interventionist Keynesian economics
was the fashion).

Givein these free market, non short term concepts, cutting education
would cost more because it would lead to lower productivity, and social
violence (even more costly) as people with no future rioted, or became
dependent on society.

Likewise, eliminating all subsidies to transit and motorists alike is more
efficient because inefficiency would be quickly eliminated by the free
market acting as it should.

unfortunately, people and politicians are too stupid to pay attention
to the economic research that shows how effective the free market is.
It's the same knee-jerk, coasting no autopilot response most people
give to anything that's good for them.


>
>
>-- 
> John Henders      " Only _my_ words are relevant to the issue " 
>  T.K.O.O.C.            <1992May11.073237.14684@rotag.mi.org>
>                kevin@rotag.mi.org(Kevin "I'm not a net cop" Darcy)
>


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________