Universal goods vs. state provision

Most people (not all, most) would agree that everyone in the country should have access to basic services - nobody, especially children, should grow up without access to health care and education. And most people think everyone should retire with some kind of income. In some countries housing is provided by the state, for those that need it.

But even if these things are guaranteed by the state, why do they have to be provided by the state?

Why can't individuals choose where to get their guaranteed education, rather than getting it from a state monopoly? i.e. school vouchers

Why do we need to get our health care from a state monopoly? can't we choose which provider we want?

Why can't we be allowed to control investments for our own retirement?

Why should we live in large scale state housing projects rather than staying in private accomodation subsidised by the state?

What I'm saying is that e.g. "universal education" and "universal health care" are different concepts than "state monopoly health care and education".

And for the people who can afford it, why should you pay twice? Why pay for public education, and then pay again for private?

Who here thinks state monopoly provision of services is a good thing?

 

They do have a choice. Most Western democracies operate on a two-tiered system. If you can find housing that is lower in rent than what the state can provide, nobody's holding a gun to your head to stick with what the state provided you.

A lot of people misunderstand that concept when they blanket socialist countries. It's not all run and dominated by state authority, no.

I mean, our healthcare in Canada is provided on a two-tiered system. You can choose to go wherever you want and still get the same state-wide coverage.

You do have the ability to control your investments for your own retirement, that is why the Government allowed RRSPs for. You can invest in trust funds, stocks, mutuals, savings accounts, guaranteed income, etc.

The point is, that the government is required to provide just that - basic services.

 

What I'm talking about of course is different in different countries.

And I'm talking about complete freedom. Sure, if you want to go to private school, you can. But you end up paying twice - once in taxes for a service you don't use, and then again for the private education. Or in the US, you have to pay for social security, you can't opt out and take care of your own savings and investment.

 

So what are you proposing? Only those that can afford private education receive an education? The elderly/poor and disabled fend for themselves? Or in your vision do you see poor uneducated people being equipped to invest in a financial system only a handfull of people appear to understand? And what discretionary income do they have to invest? Many of my friends who invested in 401ks have seen them disappear and my generation is nearing retirement age the only security we now have to look forward to is Social Security.

In order for social safety net programs to work, there has to be a high level of participation in order to fund them and ensure against risk. I think a civilized society appreciates the necessity of providing for it's most vulnerable as a reasonable responsibility not an imposition.

 

I happily pay social security, my Grandparents who have lost most of their retirement, would greatly suffer without it. As a human, I believe it is our responsibility to take care of the generations that cared for us.

 

Because that is what the social contract is. If you want to opt out of government and society with all it's issues, then go live in a forest.

Opting out of a social contract to take care of one another is an option.

 

:hurray:

 

Applause is a bit premature. Don't either of you know what school voucher programs are?

 

That wouldn't work in my country. And you're talking to someone who goes to a faith-based school in a province where faith-based schools receive marginally more funding. Our education in Canada is managed on a provincial level, so a national plan wouldn't work.

 

That wasn't what he said,

AT ALL...

EVERYONE should be guaranteed an education,

and everyone should have a choice between public and private education.

But if a person opts for private schooling, why should they pay taxes for public schools THAT THEY WILL NEVER USE???

That's like going grocery shopping and having the cashier just double your total, because, hey! There are TONS of folks out there that need food.

THAT WE PAID INTO, and at what "rate of return?"

Social Security has NEVER been a good retirement investment, specifically because the returns are SO much lower than anywhere else you could invest your monies.

Lots of peeps figured that out, and that's when we started wanting to handle our own retirement planning ~ why would you pour your hard-earned money into a system that has been verging on bankruptcy for DECADES, and won't pay you even a savings account's rate of interest?

Most folks wouldn't...

Actually, imho, in order for social safety net programs to work, we need to make sure they're helping the folks that truly need it and make sure there is a MINIMUM of waste of monies (i.e., bureaucracy).

idk, Gardener, how you could take "i don't want to pay DOUBLE for something" and turn it into "i don't give a care about the elderly, disabled and/or needy"

Hmmm...

​

 

Yes and the US is managed by state. It makes no difference, the plan could work exactly the same.

 

What the school voucher program does is divert funds from public schools to private institutions which in many cases select whom they wish to enroll. This leads to adverse selection. There is also the issue that when using tax funds to pay for private education there is no public accountability by these institutions. There are no elected boards of education accountable to the voters on budgetary and policy issues at private schools.

There's also the issue of those of us that don't have kids. I never have. I don't mind paying my taxes for free public education for all, but I do have a problem being taxed to support parochial or discriminatory private education of any sort. And vouchers do just that.

All the voucher program is is another tax break for the wealthy. Poor people can't afford to pay taxes and also put out an additional amount to send their kids to school. Vouchers don't pay the entire costs of sending a child to a private school. But under a voucher program those that can afford the extra also receive a tax break.

 

Just some musings

The idea being that a ‘good’ school will attract more vouchers and more money than a ‘bad’ school.

This seems to be about an economic dogma not education.

Is a school that teaches creationism a good school or bad?

Many private schools in the south meant white parents could continue with segregated education was that a good or bad thing?

A school in a rich neighbourhood with affluent parents that are able to support it above the fee or tax level will likely be better provisioned and ‘good’ than a one in a poor neighbourhood with cash strapped parents that have little time or money to help their local school is likely to be less provisioned. Do you close those ‘bad’ schools?

Logistically how do you move pupils around? Say that the ‘best’ school is fifty miles away, does the state pay for the transportation?

What do you do about lag? Say a school is deemed good and so a thousand of the vouchered want to go there, but the school only has places for 50 or a 100? Would the school be forced to take them or would the vouchered actually not have a real choice at all?

*

Who pays for the provider?

Is through insurance then who pays the insurance?

Is it through taxes?

If it isn’t the state providing the service what does the provider get out of it? Is it profit?

If a person is paying for a service out of taxes and the provider is making a profit surely then the taxpayer would be subsidising other people to get rich?

*

So who pays?

Does the state raise taxes then give them back?

Does the government just do nothing?

Anyway most people don’t have the time or expense to make the appropriate investments so they would need a broker to work on their behalf who’d do it for profit.

So if the taxes are raised and given back, the real winner is the broker, who’d get rich.

If the government does nothing where do people get the money to gamble on?

What happens if you don’t provide for yourself or lose everything in a crash?

*

Private? Do you mean the state should directly subsidise private landlords?

*

This would indicate you’re not trying to create the best available service?

If you had the best education available to everyone why would the rich want to bail out of it?

If you had the best available healthcare system why would the rich want to bail out of it?

And you want to produce rich people that can opt out of the general good by seemingly diverting state money into the private hands of private schools, private landlords, private hospital owners, and stock market speculators?

Sorry this doesn’t seem very attractive or prudent; it has the whiff of the deeply flawed ‘free market’ ideology that has wrecked such havoc in the world just recently.

 

What about those of us that have no kids. Should we be exempt from those taxes?

It was not designed to be the sole retirement vehicle for the public. It was designed to protect the most vulnerable after a depression. At the time there was an assumed responsibility by employers to provide for their employees. That concept has totally disappeared. Employers now feel no responsibility for anything.

How's your 401k performing today?

I agree. And I also feel the monies collected for those programs should not be used for other purposes.

I ask how he would propose dealing with those problems. I would imagine he thinks faith based inniatives are the solution.

 

Well stated Balbus.

 

imho, Yes.

Why should you be paying for something that you don't agree with (private school funding) and will never use?

Also, why aren't YOU allowed to CHOOSE where your tax dollars go?
(Presuming that education wouldn't be at the top of your particular list)

i went to private schools, and it cost my parents dearly, but it was something they cared about. They didn't expect everyone else in the world to give a care ~ they did, and they sacrificed for it.

You don't see a problem with that? That it's viewed as a Supplemental Income for most, because no one could live on it?

Why aren't the folks that truly need it, getting ALL of it? (At least enough to actually live on)

Our gov was responsible for investing OUR monies wisely, so that the less fortunate WOULD be well provided for, and they have failed, miserably.

idk ~ Why should a business have to feel responsibility toward it's workers? Why aren't the workers feeling some PERSONAL responsibility ~ towards their jobs, and for themselves?

Is Hip a Christian? Or do you just mean faith in fellow man?

i've read Ayn Rand, and get a whole different take on what she had to say than most folks: (i know, i know ~ What A Shock. )

To me, her philosophy was: Do the best you can for yourself,

understanding that in order to DO the best you can,

you're going to have to BE the best you can be,

and you'll have to give the best you can give,

in order to get the best back for yourself.

You've also got to be willing to face the fact that sometimes, your best just isn't good enough,

and you have to be willing to move on, with no regrets nor grudges,

to the next phase of your life.

Well, just saying...

​

 

I am not a proponent of Rand, neither her fiction or her phylosophies.

I think workers do take personal responsibility for themselves and their jobs. It's only since Reagan that businesses feel above any responsibility to those that helped them build their industries. And they have forgone any responsibility to the consumer that purchases their goods.

 

I do not want to pay for Catholic,Mormon , evangelical ,or any other religion based schools.Those who wish to send their children to those types of schools should pay the costs.Period.

 

Gardner.Right on the money.it's now about separating the middle(working class) from their hard earned bucks upward to the ruling class.looking at the current world situation,the monied class has become extremely efficient at doing so.

 

Well I don't have a problem with funding education for all. I do have a problem with funding certain types of education that promotes very narrow view points. I am a product of public schools. I lucked out I got a few good teachers that taught me to how to think critically for myself. I want that for all kids.

Most of us have always seen it as merely a suplemental, and providing for the most vulnerable. It's only recently that workers have been put into a position that they are all that vulnerable. Because big businesses refuses to accept responsibility.

Why aren't those that deserve it getting all of it or enough to live on? Probably because the wealthy only pay in on certain percentage of their earnings, and people like McCain et al, who don't need it receive it.

I don't know what Hip is except it seems to be clear that Hip is a republican and thinks someone else will look after society's most vulnerable while the wealthy and big business turn a blind eye.

I have no regrets, grudges, a huge inheritance or capital gains to protect.