RedDenver
Active member
I am disagreeing that parents benefit more than the person being educated. However much you think parents benefit from their child being educated, the parent of a person with no kids benefited equally. Your argument basically rests on the idea that education benefits extend from one generation to the next without looking back at the previous generation.One of us isn’t following but I’m not sure which. Of course everyone who was educated by that tax money benefited. I thought that so obvious it doesn’t need to be stated. But I said in the first sentence of my post “not everyone benefits from roads and schools equally.” I’m not sure why this is a contentious point for anyone. Are you denying that parents benefit more from it than non parents? Without it they would all be in charge of their kids’ education - either paying for it or finding the time to do it themselves. Also, people who have kids are costing the government more $ because it’s more people to education.
Let me add, although originally I didn’t think it was necessary - I think it’s obvious that society benefits from everyone getting an education. That’s my point. Not everyone gets a deadly disease but I think society would benefit if anyone who does can afford to get help.
Also, you assume that parents will pay for or do their kids' education themselves, but if you look back in history you'll see that only the rich were educated - and that a parent can only educate their children if they themselves are already educated.
Yes, it's obvious that society benefits from everyone getting educated. I don't think we're much in disagreement, but I see these arguments that people without kids or whose kids have grown shouldn't have to pay for the next generation to get educated, and it's such nonsense that I can't let it pass.