Assuming that there is public interest in insuring that all persons receive a minimum amount of education. Given that many indigent families would spend little or no resources on their children's education if they are to finance the cost of education themselves. There are two ways proposed for the government to help those families. Providing lump sum money payments to families in amounts sufficient to purchase the minimal requirements per child. Providing a non-transferable voucher to each child in a family entitling him/her to receive the minimum educational benefits free of charge. (一)Which of the two methods of public support of education would be more effective in insuring the minimum requirement of education? (二)Which of the two methods would generate a larger increase in the family's welfare? 在高胜铭的经典题型里的，我是2008年的版本，在第4-202页 他写case1：在二者具有相同补贴金额下，实物补贴与所得补贴有相同的效果， 二者具有相同效用水准。 case2：当所得补贴的最适抉策选择在与实物补贴之预算线非重合阶段时， 实物补贴对鼓励接受教育的激励效果将较大，但对消费者而言， 所得补贴的效用水准较高，反而较受家庭的青睐 但我觉得奇怪的是，既然教育券不能转移，当然就是拗折的预算线，应该就像case 2画的，均衡点在拗折点；所得补贴可以购买别的东西，那就是原本的预算线平行 外移，会通过拗折点的无异曲线，均衡点的效用就会比较高才对 怎麽会有case1的二个相重叠呢？我真的不懂他case2写的"非重合阶段"是指什麽耶 请高手指教了... --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.169.165.73 ※ 编辑: chris1 来自: 118.160.20.139 (08/03 18:27) ※ 编辑: chris1 来自: 118.160.20.139 (08/03 18:28)