From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 21:34:59 MST
Chris Hibbert wrote:
> Damien Broderick wrote:
>>Chris Hibbert wrote:
>>>people want an education (for themselves or their children) enough to work
>>>overtime to get it, they value what they get and manage it wisely. If
>>>education is a gift or a right, many will squander it and not realize until
>>>they finally are on their own that their choices make a difference.
>>You bet. People must stop paying differentially for the education of their
>>children, especially via inherited wealth. Those sorry offspring at Harvard
>>and Yale and Oxford and Melbourne University who have prime-rib education,
>>attractive clothes, sexy cars and excellent housing heaped upon them
>>without suffering will come to no good, mark my words.
> Hmmm. Okay, it may look like that's what I was talking about, but there does
> seem to be a difference between having your relatives give you an education as
> a gift (or a right) and the government doing so.
> I think I talked, in the same message, about being prepared to subsidize the
> educations of my nieces and nephews. I don't see why the sarcasm is called for.
There may be sarcasm but I think there is also a valid point.
People value their education because they value it. Not because
their parents slaved for it or because they did while attempting
to simultaneously obtain it. We need educated people a bit too
much imho to insist everyone "earn it" in sweat if their parents
or some other party doesn't show up to volunteer to pay for it.
I don't generally like taxation. But a tax that enabled all
who are able and willing to go to college to do so would be one
that I could at least see some good in.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST