The fallacy you're falling for is that you think that a person's tax bill is going to change depending on what the government spends money on. If the government doesn't spend on education then a hairdresser doesn't get to pay less tax; that money is saved to used to cut taxes for the wealthy, or to give giant corporations a break, or to buy even fancier bombs from billion dollar arms companies. Ordinary people aren't affected.
Given the choice between giving corporations an amnesty on reshoring the billions in cash they have in offshore accounts or paying for kids to go to college for free, I think the better option is education.
No, I never said that, I said there are better ways to spend the money. In 2015 in East Palo Alto, they had to close an elementary school for two weeks because they had no heat. How much do you think those kids benefit from a promise of free college versus a safe, clean, heated, well staffed elementary school?
Given the choice between giving corporations an amnesty on reshoring the billions in cash they have in offshore accounts or paying for kids to go to college for free, I think the better option is education.
Talk about fallacies, there is a false dilemma wrapped in a straw man for you, but let's go with it. No one is offering that choice, but if they were, you should probably be for it because the reshored money could be used for education, though hopefully spent wisely, not on free college. With an amnesty, at least the govt. gets some money to spend. It doesn't help pay for free college to do nothing.
You are basically advocating the most regressive tax in history. That money would be vastly better served by sending it to inner city elementary schools than dangling in front of a huge group of people who will never be able to use it.