Why some Libertarian like this ruling?
Posted by Ostrich_Farmer@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 59 comments
This ruling allocates a $463.5 million voucher program for private schools. My concern is, why should we support a policy that keeps the government as a middleman in managing school tuition? Ideally, you shouldn’t be paying taxes to fund any schools at all. As I understand it, this ruling means you’ll still pay taxes for education, but if your child attends a private school, a portion of that money can be redirected there. Let parents pay directly for the school they want their kids to go to and not pay taxes going to public schools.
LostActionFigure@reddit
Can we assume a scenario where public education is destroyed, all that is left are private school options. What in your mind happens next? I see this argument floated constantly on this subreddit but see no prediction for what that situation looks 5 to 10 years down the road.
Let’s steel man this argument and talk about what this hypothetical turns into.
No-Razzmatazz-1644@reddit
First, it’s not a ruling.
Second, it’s legislation that goes in the right direction. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Robbie122@reddit
But they’re private schools, why should they get any funding at all? Their business model should cover this and if you can’t afford to send your kids there then they need to go to public.
Giving tax money to businesses like this is crony capitalism
p_t_gardener@reddit
School choice introduces competition in school funding. It makes it more of a market where, though it is regrettably taxpayer money, parents can choose better teachers. From a market sense, that should improve ALL teachers, including public schools.
Robbie122@reddit
In practice though those private schools get more money because they’re more expensive (as well as other reasons) than standard public schools. Creating a disparity in education where wealthy people get a better education, which makes sense, but if that’s backed by the tax payer they can absolutely get fucked.
It’s the same as any other business, if you can’t operate on a business model where the prices you charge keeps your business operating then you either fail or become a public institution anyone cane partake in.
obsquire@reddit
It's the exact opposite: the rich already have access to the private schools. Now the non-rich can have access, using government funds. You got the sign in the equation wrong.
erdricksarmor@reddit
When the government is involved, there's usually no perfect solution.
The problem with the status quo is it makes public schools effectively a monopoly. People have to pay taxes to support public schools even if their children never attend one. Then they have to pay again to send them to a private school. That isn't fair.
I also have reservations about subsidizing private entities with tax money, but most schools are nonprofit, so that alleviates that issue somewhat.
Robbie122@reddit
It’s also not fair to be born poor and get a shit education. Making sure everyone gets a good education is a net good thing for society. Thats kind of the point of being rich, if you have money its gives you options for the more expensive school. If you don’t want to pay extra then you of course have the public option which is covered in your taxes.
Just because they’re non-profit doesn’t mean they’re not lining their pockets with tax payer money. These people will get paid 4x the salary of public schools, and can spend the money on whatever they want for the school and since it’s private unless you hold a stake in it have no say in how they can use it.
obsquire@reddit
Have you seen the state teachers' salaries? They're way higher than for private teachers and rival tenured professors at private schools.
erdricksarmor@reddit
Isn't that an argument in favor of school choice? It allows poor kids to escape their shitty public schools and go to a charter or private school. Public schools will have to compete if they want to keep that revenue coming.
That's not necessarily the case, at least in my experience. My mother was a teacher at a private school and was paid far less than any of the public school teachers were. That school made every dollar go as far as possible.
2aoutfitter@reddit
The parents who pay the taxes are the ones that should make the decision on which school gets the money for their children.
I’d prefer your model, so long as parents could opt out of paying any tax that goes to fund schools, but that’s not happening any time soon.
Robbie122@reddit
Sure if it’s public, but no private institutions should be getting tax dollars. If you can’t run your business without then you need to be public.
obsquire@reddit
Why?
Let's apply this elsewhere. Private gun-maker provides guns to government: bad! Private computer-maker provides computer makers to government: bad! Private food-producer provides food to government: bad! Consistently applying your argument, the state should be run as a parallel economy, producing all the government's needs in-house.
And at what level of government? Must each town, being separate, produce all its goods used separately from those of another town? Or must this be done separately at the county or state level? Your approach suggests that everything should be done at the most central level of government. Yikes!
jcutta@reddit
Ok, then they can get the $800 (on average they pay a year as a percentage of property tax) to use towards their private education and cover the rest themselves.
obsquire@reddit
Yet those going to the government school get $20k? Bias much?
WKAngmar@reddit
That how it’s done in some states where private charter schools dont get state $
LigerSanta@reddit
I can’t wait to see the cost of private schools’ tuition to skyrocket, because they can count on government funds in addition to what people can pay. It’ll be similar to what happened to college tuition.
obsquire@reddit
If the total government support is fixed, then the fixed pie follows, so money is transferred from government schools to private schools. If the set of private schools is fixed, then you're right. But if new private schools take up the slack, it's not obvious that this is a long term problem, but more transitory.
throwawayo12345@reddit
Is this why food is expensive? EBT?
obsquire@reddit
It's actually giving the parents the right to choose how to spend their government-provided education dollars. Whereas previously those dollars had to go to a government school, now they can either go to that government school, or some other school.
Where is it written on high that "their business model should cover this" and that private school is only for the rich? Poppycock!
Content_Structure118@reddit
Some private schools are church schools that don't charge much at all and need funding for school textbooks and computers.
Fun fact: The Federal govt and many states provide funding for that child to their assigned public school system, whether they attend private school or not.
In Iowa, the federal money still goes to the public school, but now the state allows their funding to follow the child; out can only be used for private school or homeschooling co-ops.
Robbie122@reddit
Not sure what schools you’re talking about but almost every private school that was also a religious institution were very nice and expensive schools. I also feel like tax exempt religious institutions should absolutely not get any tax payer money. It blows my mind how it’s not considered unconstitutional, the government should make no law respecting a religious institution…
Content_Structure118@reddit
I live in a more rural area where the schools are small (<60) and poor. It's better for the money to follow the child in our case. Why should 20k go to a school system that's not even teaching the child?
emmyjag@reddit
These programs are neither. These vouchers almost exclusively go to already rich people to fund the private schools they're already attending. These programs largely do not help low income people, either because the vouchers don't cover the full tuition and the poor kids can't afford the rest, the school doesn't offer transportation and the kids can't bus there, or the private schools selectively deny entrance to kids with special needs
hkusp45css@reddit
Who said the goal was to help low income people? Does the market lack a mechanism to serve the poor or those with special needs? Are there ZERO private schools in the US for the poor or for those with special needs? Do you think there might be MORE of those schools if people could direct funding to filling that need?
The goal should be to get the taxes paid into education to go to the places educating the children of the person(s) paying the taxes.
Why should parents have to pay taxes to a school they aren't utilizing, when they are instead utilizing another school (that they *also* pay for) and getting zero benefit from their taxes?
Lightsouttokyo@reddit
Why should you have to pay taxes for roads you’ll never drive on, Parks you’ll never visit or stadiums you’ll never watch a game in? /s
Paying taxes for public schooling is for the betterment of society.
That said, the current system is broken however giving money to people who can already afford private education isn’t the answer
jbux187@reddit
Why does someone’s ability to afford an education have anything to do with this? Yes we all pay taxes for things we don’t use. It’s not ideal, but this at least allows some of those tax dollars to go to schools that the parents choose. Like you said, the system is broken. This is a step closer to the ideal, which will likely never happen.
Lightsouttokyo@reddit
The people predominantly using these voucher systems are asking for the government to give them money so they can pay for private schools
These people neither need the money nor the voucher system voucher systems lead to much less stratification across the board in terms of societal education levels
If they want private schooling then pay for it If they want to “use their tax money” send them to public
jbux187@reddit
Another way to say this is that the people predominantly using these voucher systems are asking for their own income to be used to fund schools that they choose to send their children to. Almost as if it’s a pseudo free market and they get to choose how to spend all of their own income. It’s about freedom of choice. I don’t get to choose how much the government takes in taxes, but if I can choose where a small portion of my tax dollars go, why wouldn’t we think that’s a better solution. The best solution is that the government doesn’t take any taxes, but that’s not our reality.
Lightsouttokyo@reddit
You already get to make those decision decisions when you vote for your representatives, senators, presidents, etc. Unfortunately, that is the system
But asking for money back from the government so you can pay for or help pay for your kids private schooling is not a good ask nor is it effective. It’s only effective at helping keeping affluent children smarter than children who don’t have equal access to funding for quality education
jbux187@reddit
I don’t believe the voucher system makes anything worse for less affluent students. I would argue that public schools would have smaller class sizes which benefit all students. I would also argue that private schools with more funding will allow them to provide more scholarships for students. I would also argue that students who may not have been able to afford private schooling may actually be able to afford it now. The dollars don’t change anything for the wealthy or the poor, but for families like mine in the middle class, it makes private education a possibility.
hkusp45css@reddit
So, these people are still paying taxes, they are just having them sent to the place their children are actually getting the service.
But, you're correct, of course. Nobody should be paying for anything they don't use. Taxes are theft.
WKAngmar@reddit
Without getting super dark, what is the markets mechanism for serving the poor with special needs?
hkusp45css@reddit
Low cost services that are decidedly more bare bones than premium ones.
The poor in this country have access to the market.
Samuel_Fjord-Land@reddit
Solid argument, let's focus on direction and momentum instead of fairydust.
BogBabe@reddit
This is the answer.
If we have a choice between A. parents bearing the responsibility for their own children's education vs B. taxpayer funding, we would choose A.
But if the choice is between A. taxpayer funding along with government dictating what school your child attends, vs B. taxpayer funding but privatizing at least the choice of school, we prefer B.
Right now in NC, the second set of options is at play, and the NC House just chose option B.
If the first set of options is ever available, libertarians would of course choose A.
obsquire@reddit
That's not on offer. Americans are hell bent on state-provided education. The question this bill answers is how to do that education, not whether. The bill is a massively pro-libertarian, subject to the current reality that you reject.
EasyCZ75@reddit
School choice bad now?
Viend@reddit
Gotta be honest I’m not well read on the libertarian perspective on school choice. We all agree student loans are bad because they just enable colleges to exploit tuition costs, how is school choice a good thing if it’s effectively the same thing? As a dad myself, my kid goes to a small private school, and this kind of thing seems like it would just allow my school to increase tuition costs because the government is gonna go in and start funding it.
FairlyOddParent734@reddit
That’s what I’m saying?
Wouldn’t nationalized school choice just increase the tuition of private schools, just like how student loans meant public universities could explode their tuition prices way past what their state granted funding is?
I guess you can argue there are less/no “unoptimal” outcomes from a generalized high school education vs a major specific college education though.
in_ya_Butt@reddit
A take from the other perspective: For me that sounds horrible that parents should pay for their childrens education. Educating is for the good of the whole society. Not for the rich only, but even the rich profit from skilled labor. It is a win win for everyone to educate everyone. Btw i am from germany.
p_t_gardener@reddit
Any place where we can make things more like a competitive market we improve the quality or price of the good or service provided. Giving parents a choice paves the way for better education and lower prices. Conceivably, funding for education could be reduced after competing schools advise that they can do it better for less.
Barskor1@reddit
Acreditation is a scam for schools IRC it forces schools to buy the copyrighted text books that just go through a thesaurus style revision every time a copyright expires adding nothing of value and likely just making the subject harder to learn.
Has math really changed in the last 50 years or grammar etcetera? No
jangohutch@reddit
Sometimes it takes seeing how good choice is before you realize you are sending your kid to a demented mafia union run propaganda factory which produces useful idiots.
any choice is denting the armor of the insane monopoly on affordable education. The teacher’s union is against good education thats not them.. that should tell you all you need to know about them
goobersmooch@reddit
IF I'm paying into an education system through federal, state, and local taxes...
IF I have kids consuming from that education system...
IF the public schools are anything less than amazing...
THEN I'd like the choice of how and where my kid consumes at least a portion of the dollars associated with that system
My kids allocation won't cover a private school bill, but it'll offset it. I'll pay the rest.
FrancoisTruser@reddit
Trolling? realistically, taxes will still be paid for a really long future. With that in mind, best alternative is that government let us decide which school we judge best instead of letting zip code decide. Education voucher allows that.
Never let best gets in the way of good.
49Flyer@reddit
Libertarian ideological litmus tests often result in the perfect being the enemy of the good; the more pragmatic among us acklowledge that this is a huge step in the right direction even if it isn't the ideal setup.
heiney_luvr@reddit
I'll take anything that moves us to more freedom.
Unlucky-Pomegranate3@reddit
2aoutfitter@reddit
That’s like saying, “Why would libertarians support lowering the income tax rate? Isn’t the libertarian position that we shouldn’t pay taxes at all?”
Anxious-Educator617@reddit
Thank you, common sense doesn’t apply or just constant bitching from some libertarians
erdricksarmor@reddit
The public will never support the full privatization of education, so this is likely the next best thing. It ends the government monopoly on education and allows for competition from private and charter schools.
The only reservation I have is that it is effectively a subsidy of private businesses, why I'm generally against. I fear that private schools may gradually raise their tuition a commensurate amount with whatever money the government is giving them.
FrankNitty_Enforcer@reddit
It would be considered their fiduciary duty to do so, so you can bet on it
erdricksarmor@reddit
The only thing that alleviates that concern is that the vast majority of private schools are nonprofit, so they don't have shareholders to please.
hkusp45css@reddit
I work for a non-profit, we still have a fiduciary duty to make as much money as we responsibly can, so we can provide expanded services to the community we serve.
Being a non-profit doesn't eliminate the need to drum up as much cash as is practical.
FishyDescent@reddit
Those scholarships will be going to private educators, who are incentivized to provide better services at a lower cost. The bill also allows families more freedom of choice when selecting the best educational options available to their children.
peren005@reddit
Sure sounds a whole lot like student loans and what good that’s done.
peren005@reddit
Sure sounds a whole lot like student loans and what good that’s done.
seobrien@reddit
Besides, the representative of people spoke up and made it clear what people want, which is choice, overruling an individual's attempt to stop it.