I know this is a trite comment, but no, you still pay through taxes. The state has no money. I too live in a country with tax-financed universities.
If someone says to you "I am giving this to you for free" do you then then argue "it is not free, someone had to pay for it" :-\
And when you give something away, we presume that it is not something you have stolen. But the money spent at the point of consumption (i.e., when studying) is forcibly taken from people. <Insert standard libertarian arguments here>
So of course it's free. You are not paying. And you don't pay it over taxes, society does. Think of it this way: If you didn't go to university, and just learned on your own, then you still pay the same taxes if you reach the same income level. So taking a university does not increase your taxes. Ergo free.
What is society in this sense but a collection of many individuals that pay, through taxes, to a common pool? Perhaps society gains, perhaps it does not. We can never know. The services are still paid for.
> So of course it's free. You are not paying. And you don't pay it over taxes, society does. Think of it this way: If you didn't go to university, and just learned on your own, then you still pay the same taxes if you reach the same income level. So taking a university does not increase your taxes. Ergo free.
If I learned on my own, I would just receive less public services for the amount of money I pay in taxes. It doesn't make it more free that my taxes do not increase. It would just make the amount of services that I do receive more expensive.
But it seems like all you care about is how many taxes you pay, and how much you get back for it. Fair enough, if you're selfish and have no compassion for your fellow countrymen and the next generation that much, we won't be able to sway you.
I'm Danish :-)
> People have laid out how this "free" services, like education or healthcare, can lead to a more productive, fairer society (e.g. less people off work sick, because they go and get treatment sooner, and recover sooner).
I can point you to countless articles, anecdotes and videos showing the exact opposite.
> Or why do you think tech companies offer good health care? Out of the kindness of their heart? No, because having people worry about basic needs and not get medical treatment when they need it is counter-productive.
I don't disagree on your statement about basic needs, and as your own example illustrates, these can be served by the private sector. But the reason most companies in the US offer healthcare to their employees goes back to the time of FDR, when it was illegal for a while to compete on wages but not on benefits (if I remember correctly).
> But it seems like all you care about is how many taxes you pay, and how much you get back for it. Fair enough, if you're selfish and have no compassion for your fellow countrymen and the next generation that much, we won't be able to sway you.
I care about the taxes everyone pays. It seems paradoxical to me to claim, for example, to care about the poor and at the same time make everything expensive through taxation.
And yet...
> I care about the taxes everyone pays. It seems paradoxical to me to claim, for example, to care about the poor and at the same time make everything expensive through taxation.
Yes, because everybody pays the same absolute amount of income tax, and there's no provision for how much somebody earns, how well off they are, deductions for kids. Oh no, wait...
> these can be served by the private sector.
If you're dependent on your employer for health care, that's kind of servitude. Generally, that's frowned upon if you value human rights. Sure, you can always switch companies (until you get older, and then maybe you can't). And see how long your coverage lasts once you get ill. Not to mention all the co-pays.
> But the reason most companies in the US offer healthcare to their employees goes back to the time of FDR, when it was illegal for a while to compete on wages but not on benefits (if I remember correctly).
So then that's not true any more, see the "gig economy".
If you really want to save money, you could just move to the US and take the same gamble as 12% of Americans (used to be ~18% before "Obamacare"), and hope that you, your partner, and your children don't get seriously ill.
It's easy to talk shit and reason about these things if you're well off, and have never experienced these things yourself - being Danish and all.
The vast majority of people who pay(ed) for actually pretty much everything are all dead. Because the reason for our exorbitant productivity in all sectors producing the essentials for live (compared with a base level thousands of years ago) is accumulated knowledge, culture and tools created by people long dead.
So relax, the expenses have long been paid. We are enjoying the inheritance mostly - and network effects of a huge human network in space and in time (that's the larger part). Let us use those network effects - they are not attributable to individuals. Nobody is taking anything away from you since you are not responsible in any way for those network effects. Nobody individually is, we are just darn lucky. People who sit in central network positions even more so, they can control and create A LOT of wealth - by controlling the human network. Which they did not create - just filling positions is not "creating the network". The idea and the culture where all developed by all of us (and the dead), and the state and the laws provide the structure that support it all.
Your productivity is the way it is because yo benefit from your location in this network! If you want to see what you alone can achieve go alone into the forest. Don't take any tools with you, even a hammer is high tech (steel!).
About "network effects": Compare what a million unconnected humans could achieve (a million mud huts? a million basic stone tools?) with the network output.
I gave an interpretation of what people really mean by “education is free”. If you wish to argue that people who say this phrase don’t mean what I say it means then do so. I might be wrong. But don’t get all pedantic on the dictionary definitions of words. We are talking about what people mean when they say something not what it logically ought to mean.
It appears surprising to you that not everyone is precise in what they say. Sometimes people say what they mean and sometimes they mean what they say. But lots of times they don’t. If this is a surprise to you then I implore you to reconsider your understanding of the nature of human communication.
I am aware what people mean when they call a public service free. I meant to remind people that the cost does not disappear, which is not obvious to everyone.
This doesn't mean they don't have costs associated with them as a whole but that for those actually using them they appear to have no personal cost.
Because that looks like an awful lot of money to me.
If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me.
The fact that someone paid for it is not contradictory to it being free.
In a later comment you say "Well, if we can redefine free to mean "I will let someone else pay for it" or "I will pay for it at some later date", then sure..."
"I will let someone else pay for it" is true, and it is not redefining free. It is free and someone else paid for it. Don't construct a world view where they are opposing each other.
And no, you will not pay for it at some later date. That's a loan, and is what we in the US often do for school. You may pay the tuition for other students who come after you, but there are usually ways to opt out of that with no penalty. And even if you do end up paying for others, it is not a reciprocal transaction. You are not paying for others' education because you received a free one. You would still pay for it even if you opted out of university.
Yes, the education is free.
Why am I taking the time to write this out? For two reasons:
1. Often (but not always) people like to make this point because they want to have a discussion of the wider economic system, and often about the pros and cons of that system. Yet you have not really made an effort to have that discussion so it may not have been your motivation.
2. If we go with your notion of what "free" means, then we should be consistent and realize pretty much nothing is for free. A plank fell off my fence. I could have paid someone to fix it, but instead I took a hammer and nails and got the work done for free. "Oh no!" says the listener. "Don't think you got it for free. You paid for it in labor, and in buying the hammer and nails." You respond with "Well no, I found the nails and hammer in the trash - someone was moving out". "Yes, but he paid for it, so still the work you did was not free."
These conversations never happen in real life. No one disputes that I did it for free.[1] So why do we allow ourselved to get sidetracked with the issue of whether health care or education is free - especially when it is not the purpose of the conversation at hand?
Well, OK - some people will question whether my time was worth it vs just paying someone, but that's the extent. And the analogue to "free" education would be "No it wasn't free. You spent 4 years of your life there - you need to consider the opportunity cost"
The difference is that you don't end up paying for your Rolex. But you do pay taxes during your life time and in return you get services provided by the public sector. So how is it free? At the point of consumption someone else will be paying for you, but in the future you can be said to be paying back what you owe. If you never paid any taxes, then yes, you could consider your education free.
And my education is not one of them. I pay for other people's education, and not for mine. I benefit from their education, which is why I pay for it. To me, it is a big distinction from your perspective. And as I alluded to, there are usually ways not to pay those taxes (legally). So my education really was free for me.
Yes, it is a service I get from the public sector. But I do not pay for the service I receive.
>but in the future you can be said to be paying back what you owe.
That's not the reality - it's just a convenient way some people look at it. The reality is I'm paying for others. One key difference which I pointed out is the scenario where I didn't go to university. I would still pay the same amount for others (taxes) if my income is the same. That alone kills the notion that I'm paying what I owe. If I cannot get out of that payment scheme because I opted out of university, it is very clear that I am not paying for my education.
Social Security is the same. People think they pay SS so that they can get benefits when they're old. While there is some grain of truth to it, the reality is that mostly you are paying SS to cover the currently elderly folks' welfare. SS is not a pension plan. And due to the declining population growth, when I get old I likely will have far reduced benefits than the people I am paying for now. It is critical for me to know what I am paying for - SS payments are not for me - I am paying for others.
Frankly you are ignoring the most important part of my comment - the very reason I decided to post the comment.