The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.
Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Why "Free College For All" Will Mostly Benefit the Middle Class And Above
Reynolds' Law:
Milton Friedman - Should Higher Education be Subsidized?
ReplyDeleteMilton Friedman points out that subsidizing college education benefits primarily middle-/upper-income people while being a tax on everyone. The assumption is that if everyone "benefits" from X, then society should subsidize X. Liberals have no problem applying this logic to "higher education" and now "health care," but they are loath to apply it to "big oil" or other "greedy capitalist" pursuits.
"The question is, if you want to go to college, who should pay for it? You, or someone who isn't going to go to college?...Is it appropriate to MAKE someone else pay for it?...There is no other governmental program in the country that so clearly takes money from low-income groups and gives it to high-income groups."
David Brooks really comes across as a dope.