Children receiving better care grow up earning more, paying more in taxes, committing fewer crimes, and needing less help from government. That these and many other benefits of investment in care cannot be captured by private parties is what underlies the powerful case for public investment. Yet many voters resist such investment in the belief that the necessary taxes would require painful sacrifices. This belief, however, rests on a simple cognitive illusion. Since the wealthy already have what anyone might reasonably need, their ostensible concern is whether higher taxes would make it more difficult to buy life's special extras. But because such things are inherently in short supply, the ability to purchase them depends almost exclusively on relative bidding power, which is completely unaffected by top tax rates.

Incentives that lead sellers to introduce quality improvements and cost-saving innovations in competitive markets also ensure that no opportunity to cheat consumers remains unexploited. That difficulty underlies many American laws. But many people lack the income necessary to pay for legal interventions against unjust treatment, preventing them from meeting basic needs, like protection against financial fraud and abusive relationships. Growing income inequality has made this justice gap worse by reducing public funds available for legal aid in real terms, while also making it more difficult for low-income people to make ends meet. Simple policy changes could ease both problems without sacrifices from anyone. Those who could afford tax increases necessary to pay for more social services, including competent legal representation for everyone, resist this step because they believe that it would make it harder to buy the special things they want. But that belief is incorrect because the supply of special things is limited. The ability to bid successfully for them is unaffected by higher taxes, which do not affect relative purchasing power.