19 ms·

I don't think they mean free, I think they mean paid for by someone else. Calling things free in the context of taxpayers money is propaganda.

morgante 11y ago
That "someone else" would overwhelmingly be private donors who have endowed Harvard with almost 40 billion dollars, not taxpayers.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Sweet, in which case, full steam ahead.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  ... except that, if I understand correctly, neither the donors nor Harvard paid taxes on that $40 billion. So, some of it comes from taxpayers, in the form of taxes that would have been paid if the money had been used for something else.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I think you have the morality exactly inverted here. It's their money, and ought to be theirs to do with as they please. Those who would force them to spend it on something else are the people employing coercion. It's they who are in the wrong, morally.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. You say the government employs coercion? You are correct; it does. For the greatest part, though, it employs it on those who, in the absence of the government, would themselves use coercion on those weaker than themselves. If you're not the strongest, you want a government to protect you from those stronger than yourself. If we want a government at all, someone has to pay for it. (If you don't want a government at all, see the previous paragraph. Or see the horrible examples of places that, right now, don't have one.) Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. But the free rider problem not only starves the government of enough resources to function correctly, it also leads to citizens who are disengaged because they have no skin in the game. Short of those unworkable extremes, what you probably really want is a much smaller government (like the one laid out in the Constitution, perhaps). It may not be funding government that bugs you; it may be funding that elephant of a government. If that's your position, I'm with you. If there's going to be taxation, then, let it be fairly applied. Let there be much fewer loopholes, so that arguments about what the government should fund can be out in the open, in the budget process, rather than arguments about the mind-numbingly complex details of the tax code.
      - duncan_bayne 11y ago
        By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. Compulsory taxation, yes. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. I think the word you're looking for is 'unpopular' ;) It seems we're largely agreed on the proper purpose of Government - to protect citizens from each other, that is, to protect their rights. But don't you see it as wrong for the Government to violate those very rights in order to fund itself? Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. Actually, funding a Government isn't that expensive. If you pare Government back to core functions, you don't need much money. In New Zealand, we (meaning the Libertarianz) estimated it at around $2,500 / working adult / year. That (back at the turn of the 21st century) would get you courts, police, Parliament, defense, embassies and the glue to run it all. Then you need a way of raising the money. Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Maybe a poll tax? Seems reasonable that those paying also do the voting. Could simply solicit donations, or maybe run a lottery. But no: you couldn't run a socialist country that way. Which is sort of the point :)
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Sure. But how many of those who can afford it will send it in voluntarily? I seem to be more cynical than you; my answer is "not enough".
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Thanks for the discussion. I can only assume the downvotes were from people who disagreed with my argument, and chose to express their disagreement that way. I'm seeing so much of that lately that it's starting to put me off HN.
  - morgante 11y ago
    No, the money didn't come from taxpayers. If Harvard didn't give free tuition, it wouldn't increase the federal budget at all. Additionally, charitable giving is incredibly consistent (around 2% of GDP). [0] If people didn't donate to Harvard, they would probably donate elsewhere. I think you really have to stretch it to make this at the cost of taxpayers. [0] https://philanthropy.com/article/The-Stubborn-2-Giving-Rate/154691 https://philanthropy.com/article/The-Stubborn-2-Giving-Rate/...
alasdair_ 11y ago
The money comes from a private endowment.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  In which case, assuming there are no contractual obligations to the contrary, I'd say go for it.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
Current system: you take up a student loan. You go to college. After college, you pay the bank back more than the college cost. Bank pockets the interest, at least 25% of the total. Proposed system: your parents pay taxes that cover less than the college cost (not everyone has kids that go to college). You go to college. Bank gets nothing. After college, your pay more tax than in current system, but you have no student debt, so you total expenses are significantly lower. Which system do you think is better (assuming you're not a bank)?
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Neither. The first is far too expensive, the second involves coercing people to pay for the education of others.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    So, how do you propose we pay for educating the people who are going to run the country tomorrow?
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      I'd suggest a few approaches: - solicit money from rich donors (as seems to be the case here) - adopt policies to drive down the cost of quality education, instead of making it more expensive as has been the case for the past many years - establish charitable scholarships, funded by donations, sponsorships, etc. - establish non-profit mutual societies to lend money to students at cost price There are many options that don't involve holding a gun to people to demand they pay for the education of others.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    The value of one education to future productivity grows with the number of educated people. So the more people you can educate, the more valuable each educated person is. This is because innovation more commonly occurs with collaboration than without. The U.S. has already reaped significant windfalls from all the excellent foreign students attending its universities. Create an environment with a high density of trained thinkers, and innovations result. And there may be no limit to the benefits. If we (as a species) could educate everybody up to the limit of their intelligence and imagination, rather than to the depth of their pockets, even a professional futurist would be hard pressed to predict the consequences. This is one situation where it is very clear how a cartel enforcer can provide an overall benefit to the cartel by enforcing a certain mode of behavior. But the problem with levying taxes for public schooling is that there is much more to education than just the amount of money you spend on schools.

morgante 11y ago

That "someone else" would overwhelmingly be private donors who have endowed Harvard with almost 40 billion dollars, not taxpayers.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Sweet, in which case, full steam ahead.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
... except that, if I understand correctly, neither the donors nor Harvard paid taxes on that $40 billion. So, some of it comes from taxpayers, in the form of taxes that would have been paid if the money had been used for something else.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  I think you have the morality exactly inverted here. It's their money, and ought to be theirs to do with as they please. Those who would force them to spend it on something else are the people employing coercion. It's they who are in the wrong, morally.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. You say the government employs coercion? You are correct; it does. For the greatest part, though, it employs it on those who, in the absence of the government, would themselves use coercion on those weaker than themselves. If you're not the strongest, you want a government to protect you from those stronger than yourself. If we want a government at all, someone has to pay for it. (If you don't want a government at all, see the previous paragraph. Or see the horrible examples of places that, right now, don't have one.) Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. But the free rider problem not only starves the government of enough resources to function correctly, it also leads to citizens who are disengaged because they have no skin in the game. Short of those unworkable extremes, what you probably really want is a much smaller government (like the one laid out in the Constitution, perhaps). It may not be funding government that bugs you; it may be funding that elephant of a government. If that's your position, I'm with you. If there's going to be taxation, then, let it be fairly applied. Let there be much fewer loopholes, so that arguments about what the government should fund can be out in the open, in the budget process, rather than arguments about the mind-numbingly complex details of the tax code.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      By that logic, all taxation is inherently morally wrong. Compulsory taxation, yes. I think that should be enough to tell you that your view is unlikely to be correct. I think the word you're looking for is 'unpopular' ;) It seems we're largely agreed on the proper purpose of Government - to protect citizens from each other, that is, to protect their rights. But don't you see it as wrong for the Government to violate those very rights in order to fund itself? Do you want a government paid for entirely by voluntary contributions? Good luck with getting enough money that way. Actually, funding a Government isn't that expensive. If you pare Government back to core functions, you don't need much money. In New Zealand, we (meaning the Libertarianz) estimated it at around $2,500 / working adult / year. That (back at the turn of the 21st century) would get you courts, police, Parliament, defense, embassies and the glue to run it all. Then you need a way of raising the money. Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Maybe a poll tax? Seems reasonable that those paying also do the voting. Could simply solicit donations, or maybe run a lottery. But no: you couldn't run a socialist country that way. Which is sort of the point :)
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        > Probably, most working people can afford $2,500 per year to keep civilisation running, especially if they're not paying any other taxes. Sure. But how many of those who can afford it will send it in voluntarily? I seem to be more cynical than you; my answer is "not enough".
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Thanks for the discussion. I can only assume the downvotes were from people who disagreed with my argument, and chose to express their disagreement that way. I'm seeing so much of that lately that it's starting to put me off HN.
- morgante 11y ago
  No, the money didn't come from taxpayers. If Harvard didn't give free tuition, it wouldn't increase the federal budget at all. Additionally, charitable giving is incredibly consistent (around 2% of GDP). [0] If people didn't donate to Harvard, they would probably donate elsewhere. I think you really have to stretch it to make this at the cost of taxpayers. [0] https://philanthropy.com/article/The-Stubborn-2-Giving-Rate/154691 https://philanthropy.com/article/The-Stubborn-2-Giving-Rate/...

alasdair_ 11y ago

The money comes from a private endowment.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
In which case, assuming there are no contractual obligations to the contrary, I'd say go for it.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

Current system: you take up a student loan. You go to college. After college, you pay the bank back more than the college cost. Bank pockets the interest, at least 25% of the total. Proposed system: your parents pay taxes that cover less than the college cost (not everyone has kids that go to college). You go to college. Bank gets nothing. After college, your pay more tax than in current system, but you have no student debt, so you total expenses are significantly lower. Which system do you think is better (assuming you're not a bank)?

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Neither. The first is far too expensive, the second involves coercing people to pay for the education of others.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  So, how do you propose we pay for educating the people who are going to run the country tomorrow?
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I'd suggest a few approaches: - solicit money from rich donors (as seems to be the case here) - adopt policies to drive down the cost of quality education, instead of making it more expensive as has been the case for the past many years - establish charitable scholarships, funded by donations, sponsorships, etc. - establish non-profit mutual societies to lend money to students at cost price There are many options that don't involve holding a gun to people to demand they pay for the education of others.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The value of one education to future productivity grows with the number of educated people. So the more people you can educate, the more valuable each educated person is. This is because innovation more commonly occurs with collaboration than without. The U.S. has already reaped significant windfalls from all the excellent foreign students attending its universities. Create an environment with a high density of trained thinkers, and innovations result. And there may be no limit to the benefits. If we (as a species) could educate everybody up to the limit of their intelligence and imagination, rather than to the depth of their pockets, even a professional futurist would be hard pressed to predict the consequences. This is one situation where it is very clear how a cartel enforcer can provide an overall benefit to the cartel by enforcing a certain mode of behavior. But the problem with levying taxes for public schooling is that there is much more to education than just the amount of money you spend on schools.