Dan Fabulich wrote:
> > Sorry, I thought I had made this clear. The child would
> > pay (in the sense that a company 'pays' it's
> > shareholders).
> This assumedly requires the state to force the child to
> pay? How does that fail to distort incentives in the way
> I described a few e-mails back?
If you're refering to your candy analogy then the answer is simple: the return on the investment in the childs education would be based on the childs wealth. Since better education leads to wealthier people (we would hope) the level of education should improve with anticipation of greater returns. Of course, there comes a point when increasing the amount of money spent on education will not create a significant increase in the childs future earnings, thus the market sets the barrier on what makes a good education.