why do people agree to pay taxes?

[B.A.S.]

how about i'll buy my own insurance against that instead of them shoving it down my throat.

You must be young. You really want a system this way? You're telling me you're going to purchase insurance your ENTIRE life (in a financially increasing step-wise fashion as you age counter to your income) planning for your own golden years someday? You're going to save each paycheck now so you can afford your bills as an old person who can no longer physically work (or at a very limited capacity) because you'd rather pay for your own by yourself instead of into a somewhat collective system that will help you and all involved?

In America, it is a human right to live. If it's your right, everyone must be entitled to it, not just the ones who can afford it. Having insurance OPTIONS is perfectly fine (a scalable by affordability/cosmetic/choice), but not the basics.

Not everyone can buy their own insurance, so therefore someone has to pay for it for those that cannot buy their own, unless you want to get murdered by a bunch of hopeless poor people.

Bolded for emphasis.

[Erdogan]

So who creates the resources used for the public schools? Could it be the parents? If so, how could they not be able to afford the school without the state?

"Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."

(Étienne de La Boétie)

[Nicolas Dorier]

Private schools CAN compete with price

How so ? private schools can't force people to pay and then say "it is free, education is priceless !". Only public school can do that.
The fact that private schools are costly is just because they can't compete on cheap price with the public school system.
A second reason is regulatory walls (or loan backed by government for 'the approved ones') that keep outsiders from competing with established players.

Without public school system, the poor would still demand education and, as a consequences, the supply will always come.
The supply does not have to come from the rich, poors have brains, hands, and ambitions if you let them work and earn their living.

Public education lacks support in the form of teacher's wages.

Very interesting to see that public teacher's are paid less than private one, while the public school receive MORE money than private sector per students.
Source : http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/155515613/how-much-does-the-government-spend-to-send-a-kid-to-school
In my country, the number are the same. My private school cost me 5000€ per year... And it was a school that did not competed on cheap price.

A capitalistic approach (the US) to education results in an education gap that favors those with money gaining access to knowledge over those who cannot afford it

Saying at a time where virtually every book on earth can be read for free. (tip: and it is not thanks to the help of the public sector)

I don't think you understand the nature of education. Education cannot be price intrinsically

Education has a price. If government spend budget X for Y children, then it cost X/Y per children. Competition drive the ratio X/Y down.
When one says "something has no price", he forgets that a human somewhere lost precious hours of his limited time on earth to pay the price.
"Having no price" put no limit on how much people will be sacrificed to keep a dysfunctional system working.
If you are glad to be that person, good for you. I won't be.

[Erdogan]

The reasons why private schools are costly, are that 1) those who attend, have to pay for two schools, the public plus the private, and 2) the state has crowded out, or monopolized, the non-premium school.

[desertfox470]

Just had a quick idea on education. Someone was talking about free school, but what about commission school (lack of a better name). Possibly private school, maybe public, but for all earnings in the future, a percent of it goes to that school for a lifetime. Something like 10%. School is free (and better quality) and has a lifetime income flow from graduates (assuming the graduates actually go and get jobs). So the 10% is taken from the after tax income, so if you have about 50% income tax thats 5% of your total income, which isn't bad considering you got free quality education. Also keep in mind that private schools are sometimes upwards of 20k per year, thats 240k over 12 years, plus university which brings it to probably 300k rounded, and so that would be about 10% of 3 million dollars of income over lifetime, and I would say that with a GOOD job, only possible through a private education and a good university, that would probably be a lifetime income enough to cover the 10%.
What do you guys think?

That is a good idea, but you have to take in the unemployed those hurt or disabled, and those who simply refuse to pay after a while.

[B.A.S.]

So who creates the resources used for the public schools? Could it be the parents? If so, how could they not be able to afford the school without the state?

"Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."

(Étienne de La Boétie)

Taxpayers do. Even though parents actually fund the public schools, sans a State "to tell them to do it," would they on their own build/run the schools and educate without the hand of the State? My initial thoughts are no. Especially if 'going to school to become educated' is "worthless" in society (the State is indifferent to those who are educated).

[B.A.S.]

Private schools CAN compete with price
How so ? private schools can't force people to pay and then say "it is free, education is priceless !". Only public school can do that.
The fact that private schools are costly is just because they can't compete on cheap price with the public school system.
A second reason is regulatory walls (or loan backed by government for 'the approved ones') that keep outsiders from competing with established players.

Private schools can charge whatever they want. That is why they are expensive. The operating costs of a private school are identical to a public school of the same size and activities. Given these constants, the differences in price are made up by salaries, social parameters (exclusivity, religious teaching, special treatments, etc.) and socioeconomic demographics of the families that attend. Taxpayers pay for public schools to exist. The Gov't doesn't dole out extra cash making public schools able to exist better than private schools. The difference between public and private education is that generally private education is for profit. Public schools will always exist given the Gov't mandates compulsory education to a minimum grade level.

Without public school system, the poor would still demand education and, as a consequences, the supply will always come.
The supply does not have to come from the rich, poors have brains, hands, and ambitions if you let them work and earn their living.

This is very true, however; it is not in the ruling party's interest to let the poor do this. Many argue that the poor are not worthy of having an education because they are poor (and why should they be supported if they can't themselves). This is a deep fundamental question in all societies. Education is treated this way in the US. It is a means to separate people. Many complain that the regular average joe who is hardworking can't afford a public school college education valued at ~$30K, yet they have a nice new Prius in their driveway. I am not arguing one way or another, but if you give people options instead of telling them what to do (on some things like education), history shows people are very short-term driven with poor ability to see the benefit in things outside of "what every else has." There will always be poor(er) people than others. Does this mean they don't deserve certain things?

Public education lacks support in the form of teacher's wages.
Very interesting to see that public teacher's are paid less than private one, while the public school receive MORE money than private sector per students.
Source : http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/155515613/how-much-does-the-government-spend-to-send-a-kid-to-school
In my country, the number are the same. My private school cost me 5000€ per year... And it was a school that did not competed on cheap price.

Of course, funding from the Gov't for education (the US) is done mostly by headcount. The public sector of education has far more students than the private ones. It's like the difference between running a company like Google and running a small mom and pop grocery store. The public sector of education is so large, it makes it easy for money to be utilized poorly. The Gov't funds education by throwing money at it with no target or outcome desired. It just does it. The Gov't does this because: IMO, Americans don't really care about becoming smarter or educated. It is all profit driven. More education = more money. That's it.

A capitalistic approach (the US) to education results in an education gap that favors those with money gaining access to knowledge over those who cannot afford it
Saying at a time where virtually every book on earth can be read for free. (tip: and it is not thanks to the help of the public sector)

You can now see the model changing for higher education (college). It is because of the public sector. States are no longer funding public colleges at the level they used to. This has strained colleges and in turn, they extend that strain onto incoming students in the form of higher tuition. It is to the point where a public college costs nearly as much as a private one. This is why people are pushing to put things online for free. Learning should not bankrupt people. It should be widely accessible, low cost and supported (if a country wants to remain competitive and adaptive with a bright people).

Education has a price. If government spend budget X for Y children, then it cost X/Y per children. Competition drive the ratio X/Y down.When one says "something has no price", he forgets that a human somewhere lost precious hours of his limited time on earth to pay the price. "Having no price" put no limit on how much people will be sacrificed to keep a dysfunctional system working. If you are glad to be that person, good for you. I won't be.

The illusion you're buying into is that somehow if you can vote with your dollar, your child will get "a better education" at a private school if everything were not mandatory. The value people place on education for the learning sake is broken. If I told you that paying for college would not get you a higher paying job (on average) in the future would you go? All things constant, if education were optional and that learning was not important to make money, would you still pay for it?

People in America go to college for the wrong reasons. You go to learn. To think. To develop thoughts about the World. Public school (K - 12th grade) teaches kids the basics of existing in a society (basic maths, personal finance, how to read, write). This NEEDS to be compulsory. These skills are a basic requirement of living in a society. See history for millions of examples of why this is important.

[B.A.S.]

The reasons why private schools are costly, are that 1) those who attend, have to pay for two schools, the public plus the private, and 2) the state has crowded out, or monopolized, the non-premium school.

Imagine a State like you are saying. There is no low-cost public education. No 'monopoly." Education costs are variable to market factors only. What about individuals who can't afford this education? Imagine if bettering yourself through learning were sold in the same fashion cars are. You want a good education-- it costs $40K, but you can get an poor education down the street for $2K, but you don't get the necessary skills to even make it worth going and it's not recognized as being valuable anyway.

Education is not a business, however; sadly it is going that way. It will end up just like health care in the US. You want care? Fine, save and pay for everything. You want an education? Fine, save and pay for everything.

You will find out quickly how 'monopolized' everything really is if you keep a capitalistic approach to your entire life.

[Erdogan]

So who creates the resources used for the public schools? Could it be the parents? If so, how could they not be able to afford the school without the state?

"Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, "Long live the King!" The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."

(Étienne de La Boétie)

Taxpayers do. Even though parents actually fund the public schools, sans a State "to tell them to do it," would they on their own build/run the schools and educate without the hand of the State? My initial thoughts are no. Especially if 'going to school to become educated' is "worthless" in society (the State is indifferent to those who are educated).

If you open your eyes to the world, and look to "emerging" (was emerging) economies, like Argentina, where people have far less resources than here, you will see that families considers education so important that they are willing to allocate half the family income to get just one pupil through school.

Another view: I think it is important to get my children education, in fact I think it is important to offer education to all children, including to those of parents who believe otherwise, and almost everyone around here think the same. How can possibly such a society have no schools? Remember, without the state, more resources are available, and the schools are less expensive for the same quality.

[Erdogan]

[...]
Private schools can charge whatever they want.

No way. In the free market, a school can only make an offer.

[Nicolas Dorier]

It is to the point where a public college costs nearly as much as a private one. This is why people are pushing to put things online for free. Learning should not bankrupt people. It should be widely accessible, low cost and supported (if a country wants to remain competitive and adaptive with a bright people).

This is called free market. When people don't have the "free school" but still demands it, then alternatives appear, this is what the free market is like.
Online courses are not created by the government but by entrepreneurs, as you rightly said, they are allowed to do it because there is no cost effective way of going to public college.
Any subsidies or action by the government to either promote or regulate such online courses will stifle competition in the favor to those that have the best political network, not the best product.
Online courses did not have to wait for government help, the demand is enough for sustainable service.

Private college in the US is also not really "private" at all from an economic perspective.
When the money is mostly funded by students loan backed by the government, and not by real demand, the result is that :
1. the tax payer will pay any default. http://mises.org/library/case-against-student-aid
2. Colleges that are not approved, will block any odd of a student of receiving the loan.
3. Skills in high demand will be funded equally than skills without demands, allowing massive misallocation of intellectual resources, which result in unemployement.

This means that the current private school system is entirely funded by public resources, but also protected from competition.
In short, the biggest laundry machine of politicians.

Very interesting to see that education in the US cost 50K per year, while my country is 5K. Cost of living being equivalent.
When you start to investigate why it is the case, you understand that competition walls / elasticity of prices / government aids are the main reason why it cost so much.

This NEEDS to be compulsory. These skills are a basic requirement of living in a society.

Agree that these skills are basic requirement for living in society. But there is no need to be compulsory, since, if it is needed, people will demand to get it anyway, by definition.

[Silverspoon]

... it is needed, people will demand to get it anyway, by definition.

Lolno.  No more than kids will demand to be fed spinach or dentist visits.
And what would the whining of poor people do about free education anyhow?  They can demand free education or free crack, how exactly do you see them getting either?

[Nicolas Dorier]

Lolno.  No more than kids will demand to be fed spinach or dentist visits.
And what would the whining of poor people do about free education anyhow?  They can demand free education or free crack, how exactly do you see them getting either?

This is the root of the statist philosophy.
That people are dumb and irresponsible and that we need higher people to protect them, which are not subject to these problems.
It gives you a moral duty to force them doing what you deem morally good, without thinking about their own code of value that you consider as inferior and mistaken.

But if they choose to buy crack : where can they get crack without money ?

By violence ?
However, violence is way more costly than peaceful collaboration.
In other word, if your goal is to get crack, then it is best to get it by collaboration than violence.
By collaboration, the guy that wants crack is effectively creating value for the society. (from the subjective theory of value, this person is contributing to wealth by doing both : buying crack AND selling labor)
If the best way of collaborating with his environment is by getting knowledge, then he will demand education.

Then you would point out : Why is there gang cartels who are driven by violence, not by collaboration ?
For one reason, the fact that crack is illegal make it impossible for them to collaborate with the rest of society without being enforced.
The second reason, is that they don't get access to court,
The third reason is local geographical monopoly permitted by corruption. See For a New Liberty of Murray Rothbard page 137 for the details http://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf

[B.A.S.]

Lolno.  No more than kids will demand to be fed spinach or dentist visits. And what would the whining of poor people do about free education anyhow?  They can demand free education or free crack, how exactly do you see them getting either?

This is the root of the statist philosophy.
That people are dumb and irresponsible and that we need higher people to protect them, which are not subject to these problems.
It gives you a moral duty to force them doing what you deem morally good, without thinking about their own code of value that you consider as inferior and mistaken.

But if they choose to buy crack : where can they get crack without money ?

By violence ?
However, violence is way more costly than peaceful collaboration.
In other word, if your goal is to get crack, then it is best to get it by collaboration than violence.
By collaboration, the guy that wants crack is effectively creating value for the society. (from the subjective theory of value, this person is contributing to wealth by doing both : buying crack AND selling labor)
If the best way of collaborating with his environment is by getting knowledge, then he will demand education.

Then you would point out : Why is there gang cartels who are driven by violence, not by collaboration ?
For one reason, the fact that crack is illegal make it impossible for them to collaborate with the rest of society without being enforced.
The second reason, is that they don't get access to court,
The third reason is local geographical monopoly permitted by corruption. See For a New Liberty of Murray Rothbard page 137 for the details http://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf

You make a very excellent point here. It is often easy (for me at least) to get caught in the circular Statist conundrum from time to time. I must be more mindful of this and remind myself that an invisible hand (not too invisible these days) is not totally required for a healthy, productive society.

I was privately educated in my younger schooling and went on to receive graduate training at a public University. It made not a lick of difference between the two sectors, but then again, I am a self motivated individual and not a passive learner. I conciously chose all of it, despite the fact that it was compulsory and later optional. I have seen both sides and the only thing I am able to conclude positively (all political garbage aside) is that education is the root of self-improvement, self-reliability and success in this World. You by all means don't need to pay $50K for it or even go to school, but the point being to continuously learn and improve your working/theoretical knowledge. I have personally seen the benefits and I just wish more individuals would understand how powerful it can be and additive in their lives.

[Erdogan]

Services through the state is a negative sum game. (Seriously - it is due to the calculation problem, see http://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited)

[Nicolas Dorier]

You by all means don't need to pay $50K for it or even go to school, but the point being to continuously learn and improve your working/theoretical knowledge. I have personally seen the benefits and I just wish more individuals would understand how powerful it can be and additive in their lives.

As a self taught developer I understand. I also learned by myself by taking my own choices.
I've been to private school only to get the degree required for getting visa easily in other countries. (and checking the box for big business HR people)
We were not compelled to learn, we did it because it is the less painful way to get what we want, and because we like it.

Some would say that we understand the value of education because we have been compelled to go to school before. I don't agree with that.

Our current environment (in developed country) put considerable pressure on physical labor in favor of intellectual labor, due to increased automation and outsourcing.
This means that it becomes easier and easier to sell knowledge, which will drive demand on education, be it compelled or not would make no difference on the demand.

[Silverspoon]

Lolno.  No more than kids will demand to be fed spinach or dentist visits.
And what would the whining of poor people do about free education anyhow?  They can demand free education or free crack, how exactly do you see them getting either?

This is the root of the statist philosophy.
That people are dumb and irresponsible and that we need higher people to protect them, which are not subject to these problems.
It gives you a moral duty to force them doing what you deem morally good, without thinking about their own code of value that you consider as inferior and mistaken.

That's the root of libertardian philosophy--thinking that you are somehow smart enough to decide for yourself.  Looking at you poor rubes getting [repeatedly] assraped in securities section tells me that you're not yet smart enough to be trusted with lunch money, forget setting up a cohesive society.

"Statist" lol.  You mean the ENTIRE WORLD?  For the entire recorded history of mankind?  Because the entire surface of this planet is divvied up amongst nation states, and not a scrap of libertardian land exists.  Why is that, would you guess?  Weak?  Unable to compete with your statist betters?  

But if they choose to buy crack : where can they get crack without money ?

By violence ?
However, violence is way more costly than peaceful collaboration.
In other word, if your goal is to get crack, then it is best to get it by collaboration than violence.

No.  Much easier to sell crack to your kids & *then* rob them, rape them, and shoot them in the face.  You clearly don't get out much.
 

Then you would point out : Why is there gang cartels who are driven by violence, not by collaboration ?

Only if I wanted to listen to you regurgitate yet another rancid chunk of leftover liber pap you've been fed on stormfront some other reactionary crackpot website like mises.org or zerohedge.  No thanks.

[Nicolas Dorier]

That's the root of libertardian philosophy--thinking that you are somehow smart enough to decide for yourself.  

It sure is. But we are not against delegating our decision if it is by one's free will.

forget setting up a cohesive society.

Cohesive by force does not make it desirable. Cohesion is also not the goal of libertarians, maximizing choices of individuals is.

"Statist" lol.  You mean the ENTIRE WORLD?  For the entire recorded history of mankind?

Libertarian are not against social hierarchy which arise naturally in any human society, just against compulsion.
A country having a king may be libertarian, a clan having a chief may be libertarian.
Murray Rothbard gives example of such http://mises.org/sites/default/files/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto_3.pdf, from page 275 in "The Courts".
Also, one does not have to live in a libertarian country to live as a libertarian. More importantly, it reflects how you do business, acts with others and how you control your wealth.
A libertarian don't have to revolt to practice, just making business with his own rules while mitigating what force can get out of him.

Looking at you poor rubes getting [repeatedly] assraped in securities section tells me that you're not yet smart enough to be trusted with lunch money

Not sure I understand what you mean, so let me re frame in a simple analogy.
Imagine a child sees a candle, and you tell him to not touch it, but he still want to touch it when you don't look.
The libertarian will not scold him, and let the child hurts his finger.
The statist will scold and punish him.

So yes, if someone want to take a bad decision for himself, the libertarian will let him explore the reality by himself.
If the reality hurts him, he would just have learned something and will be careful in the future, without needing uncle sam behind him.
If the reality does not hurt him, you would have learned something new.

As Buddha said "No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.".

The analogy of the child and the candle is obviously bad for the child.
But when Bureaucrats miles away takes abitrary decisions, the consequences are impossible to see.
How can you defend that the bureaucrat knows better whether his citizen will get hurt if he acts on his free will ?

No.  Much easier to sell crack to your kids & *then* rob them, rape them, and shoot them in the face.  You clearly don't get out much.
Only if I wanted to listen to you regurgitate yet another rancid chunk of leftover liber pap you've been fed on stormfront some other reactionary crackpot website like mises.org or zerohedge.  No thanks

Such great argument, I am speechless indeed.

[Monetizer]

It is generally to serve the masses. You may not get the full use of your money but others do, Is this fair? Maybe not but it helps your country you live in. It reminds me of a story of a farmer who's whole property got destroyed, when people came they gave him money for it all and he said he did not want to take charity they replied have you been paying your taxes all your life? If so this money is already yours, you've been paying for it all your life.

[toptekk]

the only reason this works is because the citizens are unorganized and unarmed.
if people gather in groups of tens of people to protect each other against the government there is no way they could throw anyone in jail.

That's how the US started . your right, the fools here in the US keep letting the congress screw us over and  not be held  account able for there actions.



but that's how it has been Thu out history one group takes over then later on they get greedy and forget why it was done to start with .