People losing their family homes and farms is what should happen in a meritocratic society. Intergenerational wealth transfer is by its very nature antithetical to meritocracy.
The irony is that for many people laboring under a very unmeritocratic society, its the one sliver of wealth which keeps them afloat. Ergo they can be relied upon to support it.
> If we set it too low, people lose family homes/farms, if we set it too high the rabble-rousers bitch. There's no value that works.
This is true of any issue; there always are people who disagree and yet somehow, through the democratic political process, we've been passing laws and establishing policy for 239 years. Politics sucks, but it works. Even Iran and the U.S. can find agreement.
> I'm not sacrificing my children to the public school system. Sorry.
I think this is perfectly valid and responsible. It's not your kids fault, and they'll be better prepared to contribute to the community with a better education.
But if you don't support the public schools otherwise (e.g., through taxes and political support), you are sacrificing your kids. They will live in a world filled with many more uneducated, unskilled people. These people will vote, will be your kids co-workers (or employees or talent pool), will be your kids' customers, etc. And your kids will lose the benefits of all the brilliant things that could have been done with all that wasted talent.
There is no minimum that satisfies both. What's a house cost in San Francisco or LA now anyway?
If we set it too low, people lose family homes/farms, if we set it too high the rabble-rousers bitch. There's no value that works.
>Keeping necessities in life equal access. As soon as the elite can segregate them-self from public systems like schools
I'm not sacrificing my children to the public school system. Sorry.