Cute generic talking point, but devoid of reality in this context. Fortunately many Americans without the straight jacket of anti-gubmint ideology, do not view taxation of the wealthy to the rates in the 1960's as immoral theft. They know that free college is possible and are even increasingly aware of it in other countries throughout the world. They know we are at least as rich as these countries. They figure the details can be worked out once we remove the obstructionists. Why not say Scalability!!! or homogeneous.
I think we should be running those programs as part of high school. If we were going to offer free tuition, I would want the program to be loans that resulted in forgiveness based on grades.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ Bernie Sanders has a plan to pay for every spending program he has introduced to date. Plan Payment Rebuild America Act: Sen. Sanders has proposed a $1 trillion plan to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put 13 million Americans to work. Paid for by making corporations pay taxes on all of the “profits” they have shifted to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens, which the Congressional Research Services estimates may currently create losses that approach $100 billion annually, and other loopholes. College for All: Sen. Sanders has proposed making public colleges and universities tuition-free and substantially reducing student debt, in a plan that would cost about $75 billion a year. Paid for by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators that would generate about $300 billion in revenue. Expand and Extend Social Security: Sen. Sanders has proposed expanding Social Security and extending the solvency of this program until 2065. Paid for by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000 so that the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as working people. Youth Jobs Program: Sen. Sanders has proposed a $5.5 billion youth jobs program to create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans. Paid for by ending the carried interest loophole that allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay a lower tax rate than nurses and truck drivers. Paid Family and Medical Leave: Sen. Sanders has proposed at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to all workers. Paid for by a payroll tax that would total $1.61 a week for the typical American worker. According to Sen. Gillibrand’s office, this would be “a self-sufficient program that would not add to the federal budget.” Protect Pensions: Sen. Sanders has introduced a plan to prevent cuts to the pensions of over 1.5 million Americans. Paid for by closing two tax loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid taxes on money they inherit and expensive artwork they collect. Renewable Energy and Clean Jobs Transition : Sen. Sanders has a plan to invest in clean, sustainable energy sources powered by the sun, wind and Earth’s heat. He also has a plan to provide comprehensive benefits to workers as they transition to making the solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries of tomorrow. Paid for by stopping taxpayer-funded giveaways to oil, gas and coal companies. Sen. Sanders has introduced a plan to expand health care coverage to every American. Paid for by a 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers, a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work, limiting tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax, and savings from health tax expenditures.
And on their tombstones, following their tragic early demise, will be the words 'they figured the details could be worked out....'.
1982 NYT article about California ending free tuition. CALIFORNIA WEIGHS END OF FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION By ROBERT LINDSEY, Special to the New York Times Published: December 28, 1982 LOS ANGELES, Dec. 27— California's public system of higher education, long the envy of many other states, is edging toward acceptance of something even Ronald Reagan, as Governor, could not force upon it: tuition. The California Postsecondary Education Commission recommended earlier this month that the state abandon one of the cornerstones of its college and university system, a pledge that the state will pay instructional expenses for all residents. http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-weighs-end-of-free-college-education.html
To do this you would need two types of high school and then separate students based on their performance before high school. Like I said before, it won't work with our culture. Parents would go nuts if based on 8th grade performance their kid was put in the non-university path and encouraged/trained for a vocational career. It would improve performance among younger students though.
No I don't. I think spending on wars when necessary is justified. I also think when there is no enemy (like another superpower) then spending the same money in other areas is just as productive. Also, your position is based on the fact the money spent was justified because we WON the cold war. What if we would have lost? A waste of money then? That strenghtens my position in that educating a healthy population there is no risk of losing. It's a win win. Free(heavily subsidized) education means more students which means more educators and schools. That workforce and infrastructure creates many many careers in all industries and all levels of careers. This creates a bigger/stronger middle-class which then puts more demand on our service industries which creates more jobs for our youth. That's real trickle down economy. Also someone explain to me what's the point of having public schooling (free) from k-12 but we can't continue it (for some) another 2-4 years? What kind of logic is that?
The payment method I find dubious is that we can generate 1 trillion dollars by cutting corporate loopholes from the tax code. The rest is reasonable enough to not just dismiss out of hand.
As an expat living and working abroad, a few reactions to this: 1. The U.S. is one of the very few countries that has a policy of taxing overseas income. I would understand this (somewhat) if I were working in Iraq with American gunships circling overhead to watch my back. Everywhere else? Not so much. 2. When you make money abroad, you need to pay taxes where the money is made. What the U.S. aims to collect is the delta between local tax rate and U.S. tax rate. The narrative invoking "the Cayman Islands" is far too simplistic and intellectually dishonest. If I were Apple and paid taxes on stuff I sold in the U.S., what's the theory behind me having to pay taxes on the stuff I sold in the EU on which I paid EU taxes? Is it going to be part of the tired old argument that Apple wouldn't be able to sell in the EU if our dozen aircraft carriers didn't have its back or something? 3. The "revenues lost" argument is always a good one. It's like Hollywood saying "we lost a bijillion dollars from all the pirated movies that people would otherwise have watched in theaters and on DVDs". Actually, no, people wouldn't. They would find something else to do. Because they don't have bijillion dollars to pay for movie tickets and DVD purchases. This whole "close the loopholes" argument is on the other extreme but just as brain-dead as trickle-down economy.
You're welcome <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OCjC9BjPgoc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There should be no need for that. Anybody who graduates high school can take a university or vocational school regardless of high school grades. We will continue to pay for anybody's education as long as he/she can maintain a GPA standard. Like I said, there are plenty of late bloomers and and they should not be too penalized for the mistakes they did while they were adolescents.
Agreed. That whole thought logic doesn't make any sense. It reverts back to how liberal polices always ends up hurting the middle class. Students who tend to do well usually have parents who care. Those parents also have good paying jobs who can pay for college. So now we give free education to the well off while the poor continue to suffer? We need to focus at the roots; A war on poverty, and God forbid, just learning to accept we will always have a lower class and make it work best.
Then you aren't getting the problem I am pointing out. There IS indeed a risk. A couple of them, actually. One being how to pay for it. The other being that if you flood the market with lots of more educated workers, the value of such goes down, driving wages DOWN. Not opposed to this in theory, but this is turning the supply demand equation upside down (see above). If you create more supply ahead of demand, their is a glut of supply, and prices come tumbling down. In this case, prices would be wages. Consider all the telecomm workers during the telecomm bust. Way more educated, highly trained people than there were jobs. Wages dropped, and tens of thousands of them were unemployed, some of them for years.
I don't understand your argument. It sounds like you are saying we need to focus on the poor but the typical argument about focusing on the poor is that it hurts the middle class. For example: If we have a program that offers scholarships to children from a family of 4 who earn under $25K (US federal poverty line) what happens to families who are earning slightly more than that but still aren't what would be considered rich? Considering how much college cost for a family earning $35K putting a child through college will be a very large burden yet because they happen to be a little more successful they won't benefit. The typical argument goes they are being punished for their success. It might more sense for them to earn less so they don't have to take on the burden of paying for college tuition.
It was in response to Bobby suggesting we put different life paths in regards to schooling at an early age. I dont want to get in the nuances of what qualifies for poverty, because quite frankly, 35k for a single person is tough. I am stating the parents who truly put an effort into ensuring their child has a good education (from the start of grade school) is usually doing well for themselves.... way beyond the 35k. Long before we start handing out free college to anyone in masses, college costs must be radically dropped and expectations must be set.
After the age of 18th, you are free from public schools. I don't know how high school is today, but during my time it was crap and a waste of time. I think the nation should consider changing the last two years of public school (11 & 12). Compress the current school curriculum to PreK (everyone gets prek) to 10th. Change 11-12th to vocational schools of the student choice. Those that do not want to do vocational schools, can opt out and go straight to basic college (free for the 1st two years). They can continue to a full college (with government funds) if they can maintain a high level of performance. Those that change their mind later after vocational schools and want to attend college needs to start at basic college (free for the 1st year) and also need to maintain a high level of performance to continue on government funds. Move the funding of 11-12th grades to help fund these vocational and basic college classes. Additional funding is still needed but not as drastic as an all-out free college for everyone willing.
Since those of us who own homes and pay property taxes have to pay them long after our kids have graduated and gone on to college (we have one college graduate and one who's still going, to be clear), why should it matter? It makes a difference because of the increase in property taxes that would be required to pay for extending public schools to include, say, 2 years of "junior college" or vocational training (like becoming an electrician, for example). Personally, I think it could be managed if the state would step up and take back control of college tuition and fees. Texas used to pay for 80-85% of what it costs to run colleges and universities in this state. In order to "cut taxes," they deregulated college tuition. Now the state covers closer to 20-25%. Who makes up the difference? The Texas taxpayer, of course, who attempts to pay for their kid(s) to attend a public college or university. Result? Far less money for retirement for those parents who pay the entire expense, or debt the parents have to deal with so their kids won't be saddled with it, or the young people themselves taking on a large debt to get that degree or vocational training. Does the current system make sense? Not in my humble opinion.
