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? 在高勝銘的經典題型裡的，我是2008年的版本，在第4-202頁 他寫case1：在二者具有相同補貼金額下，實物補貼與所得補貼有相同的效果， 二者具有相同效用水準。 case2：當所得補貼的最適抉策選擇在與實物補貼之預算線非重合階段時， 實物補貼對鼓勵接受教育的激勵效果將較大，但對消費者而言， 所得補貼的效用水準較高，反而較受家庭的青睞 但我覺得奇怪的是，既然教育券不能轉移，當然就是拗折的預算線，應該就像case 2畫的，均衡點在拗折點；所得補貼可以購買別的東西，那就是原本的預算線平行 外移，會通過拗折點的無異曲線，均衡點的效用就會比較高才對 怎麼會有case1的二個相重疊呢？我真的不懂他case2寫的"非重合階段"是指什麼耶 請高手指教了... --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.169.165.73 ※ 編輯: chris1 來自: 118.160.20.139 (08/03 18:27) ※ 編輯: chris1 來自: 118.160.20.139 (08/03 18:28)