Educating children is expensive and the government of some countries pays some of or all of the costs. Do the advantages of the government paying for the costs outweigh the disadvantages?

Subsidy from government on education has been established as an effective national policy in both developed and developing countries. Considering its social and economic impact, that should be continuously conduct in the long run. Firstly, education subsidy is relieving social conflicts laid between rich cities and remote areas, which are normally rooted from uneven education resources. It has been proved that Students in developed cities, with advanced school facility, better teaching staff and after school remedy classes, are more likely to enter renown universities and achieve more competitive salary after graduation than students in finance stricken region with merely fundamental teaching resources. Without subsidy to assist education in poor areas, such phenomena will cause problems like class solidification and then aggravate the conflicts between the poor and the rich. Moreover, education subsidy is working efficiently in achieving macroeconomics goals. By subsidy, education related industries can remain in business and provide more job opportunities, then contribute to maintain natural unemployment rate which is vital for steady economic growth. Also, this subsidy is classified as supply side policy to train and educate skilled labor force and intelligent human capital who will transform manufacture intensive industry dominated countries into countries with technology and science. Although such subsidy can leave governments an unbalanced account and force them to collect more tax for compensation, its potential profits in creating national prosperity are surely outweigh this concern. In conclusion, with advantages in social stabilization and economic achievements, rather than put a halt, the implement of education subsidy should be encouraged.