I need your opinion /biz/ The older I get, the more annoyed

File: 1450765180523.jpg (88KB, 480x371px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 480x371px

>>1710595
>uses public goods
>complains when other people use public goods

>>1710611
Please explain? I don't have a problem paying for public services where it benefits everyone that pays into it.

>>1710634
>where it benefits everyone that pays into it
there you go.

When governments subsidize basic things like education and make them more accessible/less of a burden for those with little income (even if it's just to save money) society as a whole benefits because by having better access to education you can increase your productivity as a citizen in the future.

In other words, it benefits everyone that pays into it, but not in the short run. If you've gone to public school and then managed to get a decent enough education, then went to a public university where you gained the qualifications to get yourself a better paying job, you're going to pay more in taxes in order for that to go full circle; subsidizing someone else's education so they can in turn get the same opportunities.

At the end of the day, you don't choose where your money (in specific) goes, and you don't know that. You don't know whether the taxes YOU paid went into free lunches for kids, (which, by the way, have been linked with better performance in school) or if they went into the construction and maintenance of the roads you use, do you now?

>>1710642
Isn't that full circle thing a bit too idealistic though? I mean, if we're going to assume that because I can't pinpoint where and how much exactly of the taxes I pay go to programs like those; why is it ok to say it goes full circle and it'll come back around to me in some form later if we can't pinpoint that either.

And still, I don't think that applies in Health Care. I just don't think free lunch programs should be a thing. I don't have a problem with public schooling. I have a problem with the additional budget to cover the free lunch program. As well as automatic state provided health care. I don't think they are essential. I understand that kids that perform better when they aren't hungry. But why isn't that on the parent to provide food to their child? Unless you're saying that free lunches improve performance over students whose parents provide their lunch? But I don't think that's what you meant.

Maybe I'm just too ignorant to some long term game plan. I just don't think the state would suffer from eliminating 'non-essential' (imo) programs like those.

>>1710686
So you'd rather make life just a little worse for kids who are already disadvantaged and let them starve just so you can save a few bucks on taxes? And look at how little of the budget it comes to.

Here's what you need to accept. The lunch and breakfast programs shouldn't be a thing, I agree. Parents should take care of their kids needs, I agree. But, guess what. They sometimes don't. So, what should we do about that? The kids didn't ask to be in that situation, it's not their fault. And, for that, you want to punish them?

BAKA, meng. I have a hard time believing that you actually think this.

>>1710686
>idealistic
That all depends on implementation and the approach taken.

>pinpointing issue
that's economics main problem with public goods-they're impossible to quantify in traditional means. (Not that you have agreement across the board about pricing things either). Just because things aren't quantifiable doesn't mean they don't exist, and that you can't see their influence. Look at literacy rate changes since public schooling became a necessity, and look at the rate of progress that's been had since then. Now, correlation doesn't imply causation, but I think it's safe to say that in this case, it more or less does.

>doesn't apply to healthcare
I disagree tbqh. The whole efficiency argument is valid within reason, but if you're in a system of insurances, the only difference is that you're allowing private profit at your expense.
>inb4 marxist, it's true.

PC is an assumption that is inherently flawed and thoroughly unrealistic.

If you ever got cancer, wouldn't you appreciate the opportunity to be treated for it, seeing as you gave money in taxes over the years? If you think of your taxes as insurance premiums, why are you fundamentally ideologically opposed to it?

>why isn't that on the parent to provide food for the child?

What you should always remember is that these issues are dealt with at a macro, not an individual level. In other words, if there is strong correlation between divorce rates and financial distress in parenting, providing free lunches helps alleviate a MAJORITY of the cases. Of course you'll have the stingy cunt who doesn't wanna feed her kids every now and then, but on a societal level, it does people a lot of good, which in turn benefits you in the ways I've stated.

>improve over students whose parents provide their lunch?
I'd have to dig up my econometrics text book, which mind you, is a hassle.

>non-essential
that's subjective, right? But food, shelter and healthcare are all essentials to fulfill your potential imo.

>>1710634
Some taxes are used to build roads, right? Should people who don't own cars get a rebate on that?

Look, it's an imperfect system, but it's the best broad-stroke system we have short of individually auditing every last sonofabitch to discover what they "deserve".

>>1710595
>Absolutely American

>>1710712
I get that, but it's not making things worse. It's being neutral. I understand that we don't want starving kids, and some parents are extremely irresponsible. But it draws in more implications the more you think about it. What do those kids eat when they're not in school? We'd like to think they don't starve at home, mainly because we have multiple programs like food stamps to ensure that doesn't happen either. And the list goes on and on to cover mass irresponsibility. It's not a solution. It's a band-aid that just seems to be bleeding money. I know it's not a friendly opinion, but I also know that it wont change.

>>1710715
Even though it goes against nearly everything I wrote in the OP, I agree with nearly everything you said. The only real point I feel like I could maybe make, is that in the cancer scenario; do those taxes really cover anything? Are those that become terminally ill (or at least extremely ill) just fall into massive debt to cover it? That may be the fault of the current insurance system. Not that terminal patients have medical debt in the forefront of their minds, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.

Like I said to the other anon I responded to, it just seems like we have so many programs in place to carry the irresponsible. And it is working. It just honestly seems like there has to be a better way. I don't think anyone has or possibly will have an answer, and that is frustrating.

But I honestly do appreciate the conversation on it, and allowing me to rant without dismissing it as such.

>>1710755
I'm glad you do OP! It's always nice to have decent discussions that aren't fundamentally based in memeing or shitposting.

>do those that become terminally ill fall into massive debt to cover it?

Of course they do, they have no choices, they still need to get treatment. Insurance companies can easily deny your application for treatment- they're for profit after all. Always read the fine print, that's how they are able to do it. Government isn't,so the fundamental incentive isn't there to maneuver humanistic legislation.When there's a will, there's inevitably a way.


>there has to be a better way
if only we were a better species, haha.

File: 4ca.png (146KB, 562x504px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 562x504px

>>1710686
>a child is born into a shitty situation
>fuck them, I got mine.
When you gonna pay back that public education you got, bud?

>>1710811
see
>>1710755

no need for that man