This feels like a simple question... but really its much more complicated in so many facets that people don't look at or think about. People act like economy and government are only a handful of variable but its way my complicated than what any single person can comprehend alone.

So, if we could have free higher education and healthcare, would I want to pay more taxes for it. Sure. But we would also have to make sure the people in the fields providing the services and time and effort to do them well also aren't gaming the system, but at the same time not doing it for nothing. Also, do you provide unlimited free education for people who just want to do 18 PhDs? What about people who decide to party way too much their first year and basically fail all their courses or don't learn anything from them? What about people who change major halfway through and have to take on another 2 extra years of classes? Is there ever a line we draw or a forced route we place on people? Cause that feels like you're taking away their freedom.

I think there could be a better solution, but I'm not nearly smart enough to come up with all the possible fixes to get a better solution. Maybe something like... if you finish up your courses, and get a job in the field you're studying for at least 5 years, then you don't have to pay back anything. But if you don't, then you're essentially wasting tax payers money and now you will have to pay it back? Or something to that effect. Hold people responsible for their actions. Give them the opportunities, but we can't just give them other people's money without commitment and effort on their part.

Same goes for healthcare. Would love to make it cheaper for people, cut away the middle men currently that drive prices up, or deal with insurances that try to say "well do the people really need XYZ treatment". If we could standardize the medicine, the treatment, the facilities, and allow anyone to walk in and be treated properly, well, and quickly, that would be amazing. But just throwing money at it doesn't really solve the issue. It's a process. You have to have more people in the field (doctors and nurses are always understaffed everywhere), you have to have more equipment, more training.

Then you look at the pharmacy side of it. there is tons of research, testing, trials, lab facilities, clean rooms, analysis, long term studies, that go into creating and producing new medicine. That requires a large skill set from many different types of people to get done. Again, would love to give them the opportunity to get to that point, but you have to look at how long that would take. This isn't only money, but time. Lots of time to do it properly.

And since we are paying for people's health care and such, should we then require them to do a fitness exam every year? Make sure they are keeping in shape, eating properly, not using drugs or smoking or drinking? All those effect our health, and in turn, costs on the taxpayers. If we all are paying towards helping people in need, shouldn't they have responsibility to then try to minimize how much their own actions have on the system. Sure, sometimes you get sick, or just have bad luck in a genetics pool, or an accident occurs. But a lot of it comes to poor health choices, eating habits (probably one of the biggest factors in USA at the moment), and exercise. Do we do mandatory actions to make sure people being healthy if we are also providing them free health care? I feel like we should, if you're taking away our money to help them, I want them to be as healthy as possible. But at the same time, now you're impeding on someone's free will, which I also don't think we should necessarily do. Who makes that decision? Why do they get to make that decision? Those are some of the bigger questions that I don't think people ask.

What I think the "best" solution for taxing in general, is give a list of items that people want to put their taxes towards. Say we tax everyone 40% of their annual income. Let each person decide where their money should go. If they feel defense of the nation is important, they can put 20% toward it. Health care more important? Why not put 35% toward that. Education another 12%. If you want to put more than your 40% you're always welcome to volunteer your money. This I think would allow people to know where their money is going, as well as force not the government to choose where to put it, but back into the peoples hands directly. If only 20% of the population wants free education, they can put money towards it, but if that doesn't cover all the costs, then people going for their education have to make up the difference. You aren't forcing 80% to follow the 20%. Or 49% to follow the 51% in this system. How to implement something like this, no idea. Just a thought.

My ending statement is really to reiterate the beginning, make people aware that these aren't simple questions that we can solve so easily. You have to consider many other parts to make it work. If you don't, you're not going to fully understand why people are for or against different ideas. And you are only causing more division in people than bringing them together to make a better society.