Giving everyone the same access is fair. Those in poverty are only much less likely to be qualified in situations where education is commercialized/capitalized. Also, subsidizing is a rather dirty word to use for this case (we're talking about a general pool of money in a tax system, not your money with a serial number on it going to one specific place to be spent), as well as selecting 'the wealthy' as the ones who are to profit, since they most likely pay taxes that easily cover all the expenses an enrolled student would require.

Using taxes in a manner that gives everyone the same benefit is seems like a reasonable thing, especially when compared to the places tax money seems to be spent to much (arms, military, open-loop energy systems, politics) or too little (i.e. too little for roads and bridges...).

The main difference is getting value out of your taxes. Value can be direct or indirect (the impact of education on your family, neighbors, friends etc indirectly impacts you as well, this goes for infrastructure, healthcare etc. as well), but having very little value kind of misses the point of a taxation system in an organised society. Might as well live in a forest by yourself in such cases. (but people tend to migrate to a country with a better system instead)

> Those in poverty are less likely to be qualified to go to university

More than 50% each year have the formal qualifications for university in Germany.

See the table on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiturientenquote_und_Studiena...

Columns are: Year | qualified(West, East, Total) | of those: going to university | students getting a degree

If anything Germany needs to increase the value and prestige of vocational education again (which is, for the most part, also free, plus salary).

> > I want higher taxes if it comes, for example, with free university, like in Germany.

> Is that really fair? Those in poverty are less likely to be qualified to go to university, so you are essentially subsidizing the wealthy with policies like that.

You are right, and that's precisely the reason why rich people must pay much more taxes than the poor if you want to sustain a welfare state.

> Isn't it arguable though that the politicians are choosing to cut social welfare instead of choosing to cut cronyism and political favors? In which case it's actually the left-wing which is abusing the economic crisis, using those in poverty as pawns in a bigger game?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Cutting social welfare is not a left wing position. Neither is avoiding to cut cronyism.

It's not a left wing position, it's what they do.