States with High Taxes vs. States with Low Taxes

I am just trying to find a way out man. This thread is stressful.

BUT NOT TOO MUCH OTHERWISE IT'S LIBERAL COMMUNIST SOCIALIST NAZISM

TAXES FOR EVERYONE! Now let's have some coffee! I think I saw a teabag lying around here somewhere...and maybe I have some lovely salty carrots to go with it.

Why not? I believe private schools are a better alternative in every way. The only reason they cost so much right now is because no one would pay for a private school, no matter the quality, when there is "free" school.

Well they're forced to do that now so...

Except the government has the money right now. Public schools aren't bad because the government has no money for it, it's because the government would rather spend that money on useless wars.

What? Seriously, what? If there are only private schools then the price of tuition will go down because they'll be competing with other private schools for your money. That's how capitalism works. The alternative to another private school is a different brand (probably not the right word) of private schooling.

If parents are being forced to send their children to private schools there needs to be some serious re-budgeting done to put more money in improving public schools. In Canada we have good public education even the prime minister sends his daughter to a public school. We have no need for private schools here, and in New Brunswick they are for the most part illegal.

Exactly, it should exists as an ALTERNATIVE, not the only option. One of our best (and most elitist) school is the Nacional Buenos Aires, a public school; but the infrastructure is not exactly good, and usually there are teacher's strikes. I went to a private school, and it's not like I'm a genius right now because my private education was SOOOO good, it's just different.

Sometimes there's not perfect competition.

High taxes promotes a state that has good infrastructure, healthcare and education. If you have lower taxes it will promote private owned schools, hospitals and prisons which may lead to larger gaps between social classes and lower public health.

Private schools are an alternative now and they only get the richest or most privileged of families because it cost so much do to the government monopoly. If there were no public schools, then private schools would be cheaper and more accessible.

What do you mean?

Probably our schools are way behind yours, but almost everyone from lower middle-class and onwards go to private schools.

I've learned in economy and management classes that sometimes good ol' competition doesn't make the prices go down. Naturally I learned it in Spanish, so I can't exactly explain it well, but it has to do with theory of games, Nash, and management decisiones. For example, Pepsi and Coca Cola, both of them dominate the market; they both are "rivals", but they only compete at marketing and publicity because they know that a "price war" would be useless.

Edit: we also have to consider that in this case we are talking about education. Unless we are talking about major educational centers like Harvard/Yale would be, a highschool would have a regional market.

Private schools are much more elite here. I don't know anyone who goes to a private school, unless you count Catholic schools.[/quote]

I'm not sure I follow. If Pepsi is ¢10 cheaper than Coca Cola than I'll buy the Pepsi. Unless they've reached the bare minimum of what they can sell it at and still make a profit, then I don't think your example works. If they have, however, then it's a win-win for the consumer since the prices are already at the lowest they can possibly be with the current technology.

Alright then? I have 3 high schools in my school district that are all fairly close to me. That would be 3 different choices for a private school. Also, it would be in every private school's plan to become as prestigious and well known as Harvard or Yale, so they could attract more students.

I admit that I didn't explain very well. The thing is that Pepsi is not going to be $10 cheaper, but then I would have to explain Nash and it would be a disaster. And there's also the loyalty to the brand in the ecuation. (Btw, the example is real)

Would you really travel very far to a school, every day, just because it's a little more "pretigious"? I mean, the main reason why I chose my second highschool was because it was 4 streets away from my house.

I don't suppose you have an English language link? This sounds interesting.

I had the option to go to my local community college, which is about 15 minutes away from my house, for absolutely 100% free. I chose to go a more prestigious, better college about an hour away from my house where I would pay over $22,000 a year in tuition and room and board (before scholarships). I'm willing to pay more for a better quality education. And, if I didn't think it would be better for me socially, I would drive there as well. My brother drove to the same school when he went there.

I could search, but it will take me some time. Here's the guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr. In this case the theory of games is applied to business.

But I meant highschool Of course you will make a "long travel" (and by that I meant like 2 hours or more) for college, specially since you Americans have all those nice campus and stuff.

Now if you excuse me good sir, my dinner is waiting.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

I don't really think a high school education is any of much less importance than a college education.

A classy exit if ever there was one. Well played, sir. Well played.

I don't believe Education is directly related to how much money the system gets. It's also about how the system is organized.

Maybe it's just more of a cultural thing, here what really matters is what university you graduated (and how well you did) rather than what highschool, and also more of a personal thing; unless is a REALLY good school, I wouldn't bother going very far.

It's the same way here, but I believe in a privatized system the other schools you go to would be important as well.

The biggest problem I have with getting rid of funding for public schools, or severely cutting the funding of public schools and going exclusively to private schools, is there is no reason anybody should have to pay a privately owned company to get a decent education. The government, unlike a privately owned company, cares more if kids get a better education, because it directly effects how many children will become productive members of society and get higher paying and more important jobs (such as in technology and banking and the like.), whereas a private school is just there to make a profit.

While I prefer public schooling, I must object to this. The private schools have an interest in educating their students to important and prestigious jobs because it will make the school more prestigious. Without the reputation of its students, a private school will not be successful. A private school is just as dependent on its students and their success as the students are dependent on the school for their education.
The administration of a private school may even be more concerned with the success of their students than their public counterpart, because their jobs are on the line.(much more than in a public school) A private school has to rely on its reputation much more than a public one, because it has to draw students from the public in order to make a profit.

There's also the fact that most teachers and principals of private school aren't complete and utter assholes, but mostly decent human beings who wants to help you...

I can assure you, there are utter assholes too in the private sector. Oh boy there are...