(06-01-2022 03:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 02:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2022 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m still not following how this is a wealth transfer from poor people to middle and upper middle class individuals. A wealth transfer implies there is a net lose from one class to another.

You’re right that a wealthy person attending an in-state private school instead of a private school receives a larger discount, but that isn’t a wealth transfer. The rich individual is still paying more taxes than the poor person, and may still be paying more for the public education they’re funding via taxes than the poor person if there are tuition breaks for low income students.

And you’re right that a larger percent of one’s income might go to a state university for a poor person as compared to a wealthy person, but the taxes that are paid are different and the taxes are still a large source of funding for state institutions (though diminishing).

I can see an argument being made that this is getting close to being a wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, but it still seems like a wealth transfer the opposite way.

The rich kids attend cheaply, subsidized by the regressive taxes collected from everybody, including the poor.

This, other than you're actually making a 'Republican' argument where IDK, something like 90% of income taxes are paid by the very wealthy and almost none by the poor and middle class... but the left still claims they aren't paying their 'fair share'.

Agree with OO that the rich get a big break that they don't need nor even have to ask for, meanwhile the poor have to come, hat in hand and ask for help.... from a fund that is collected from 'everyone'.

If you'd rather call it a 'tax break for the wealthy' as opposed to a wealth transfer, that's fine. Technically there can't BE a wealth transfer 'from' the poor since they have no wealth... by definition... but this is a practical discussion, not a pedantic one.

Oh, and since most poor people rent while most wealthy people own, the poor don't usually pay much in the way of property taxes which are the primary source of k-12 funding... while the PSF that funds UT et al as I recall is mostly backed by state owned oil and gas (and timber) reserves.... most of which was purchased or maintained etc by the general fund, which as you note, the poor pay 'a lot' in to. An interesting aside.... Wonder what will happen to the value of the PSF when O&G becomes obsolete and we plant more trees than we can use?? Just another reason to drill now and pump and sell all you can

I was thinking more of sales taxes and property taxes, since Texas has no income tax.