6 ms·

Raise the income tax, create a VAT, kill the mortgage-interest tax deduction, add a Financial transaction tax, tax capital gains like normal income, stop subsid

Raise the income tax, create a VAT, kill the mortgage-interest tax deduction, add a Financial transaction tax, tax capital gains like normal income, stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction, add a carbon tax, and lower the threshold for the inheritance tax and raise the percentage.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
All that for a worthless degree in antaractic penguin studies from Shady St Univ. You still graduate unemployed, unskilled, but instead of you paying the debt, someone else does. Also, with no skin in the game, I’m sure college will get even less serious.
- thatfrenchguy 8y ago
  As we had seen from free education in most of Western Europe.
- jeffreybaird 8y ago
  You prefer an under-educated population? The most valuable asset we have in the technology and service based economies is human capital. We need a creative and educated population to continue to compete. I think we should eliminate all for-profit education and preferably make all universities public.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    Under educated population is a disaster, but that problem starts about 12 years before college, in a different all public/free education system. Jamming more people through mediocre and worse college programs to get worthless degrees is a waste of time and money.
    - jeffreybaird 8y ago
      Why do you assume that degrees are "worthless?" How are you defining "worthless?" Based on the research, getting a degree significantly increases your earning potential. But I would argue that even if that wasn't the case and everyone got philosophy, literature, and history degrees, our country would be significantly better positioned globally. And I agree with your statement that the problem starts earlier. Although most of our issues with primary and secondary public education can be traced to poverty and racism. So, I think we should raise taxes to address those as well :D.
      - WillPostForFood 8y ago
        I’m referring to all the unemployed and underemployed college graduates complaining about the debt they are in. Simplify transferring the debt somewhere else isn’t fixing anything, it is just shifting the drain on society. College is highly useful for some people, and not others. We should do more to make sure it is available to those who would benefit, and offer different things for those who prefer or need trade skills.
      - ghufran_syed 8y ago
        Worthless = "no employer willing to pay good money for the skills or knowledge you acquired"
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - claydavisss 8y ago
        Why do you proceed from the assumption that degrees have worth and demand that we prove that statement to be false? In the real world it is the opposite - you assume the degree is worthless until you demonstrate the otherwise
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        You have to be careful with conflating causality. As we turn college more and more into highschool 2.0, we're going to see the correlation with increased earnings start to deteriorate. There's a simple matter that we're greatly increasing the supply of college educated individuals which, in turn, will have a diminishing effect on their demand which will drive earnings down. The only way this will not happen is if there's a proportional (which is to say sharp) increase in the number of available and desirable positions for college educated individuals. This is also ignoring that we've greatly widened the demographic attending colleges. The reduced selectivity means that the average person is not going to be as top-notch as they were at one time, which means that the average expectation of an individual with a college degree will also go down. This will also have an aggregate depressing effect on our earning:education correlation. More important than ever will become median earnings for college graduates. The top graduates are earning vastly more than ever before which will mask the overall problem.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Is it possible to simultaneously have an over-educated population and an under-educated population? I am having a hard time squaring the two prevailing ideas on this issue. One is that we need more/free education because an educated population is best. The other is that we need to import vast amounts of new unskilled labor so we have someone to pick our fruit. I realize you only espoused one of these ideas, but I am curious if someone holds both those positions and would help me understand how both can be true at the same time.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > You prefer an under-educated population Who is undereducated? We managed to create a civilization that went to the moon back when the vast majority of people never went to college. Germany continues to be a leading industrial power while lagging most of Western Europe in college statistics (especially "academic" college like we have in the U.S.)
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    If you define "educated" to be an expensive and worthless-to-the-world degree, then I am totally fine with an "under-educated" population.
- QML 8y ago
  I believe when most people say “make college free”, they’re referring to a “tuition free” education. There is still a housing cost, which is “skin in the game”.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Eh, my ideal would be like Europe's that gives you a stipend as well to cover room and board. Paying for housing is more than a full time job in a lot of places with universities (particularly the good ones), and ideally we'd want students to be focusing on their studies.
    - varjag 8y ago
      In many of those places in Europe, stipend is really a loan you have to pay back. The terms are regulated but still ain't free money.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  Then don't fund Shady St Uni. Put criteria in place for evaluating, and make sure the universities have skin in the game. (Also, not every degree that doesn't immediately result in you making $250,000/year is worthless. And students are pretty motivated already in pursuing degrees that they see jobs in. Even if your education is free, if you put in 4+ years into something that you can't do anything with, you're still not profiting. Students themselves would still have skin in the game even with free education.)
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    Ok. Do that first and I might support it. But the guaranteed loans for everyone system of today has not only inflated costs, it supports a bunch of worthless crappy schools. Go look at the list of universities in the US, and find the bottom 100. They are as offensive and wasteful as a $10,000 toilet seat.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      I agree. But that's not a product of free education.
      - WillPostForFood 8y ago
        It is a product of guaranteed government loans, which makes it “free” for universities to take students.
        romwell 8y ago
        And here you see a difference between free and "free".
- Symbiote 8y ago
  What's wrong with zoology / ornithology today?
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Not sure why this is downvoted. There are plenty of degrees that might be useless for making an employer more money, but provide important work for society.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    You can study whatever you want, wherever you want, without criticism or question if you are willing to pay your own way.
    - Symbiote 8y ago
      Very well, but what is your objection to zoology? Normally, people pick an arts subject when arguing about poor-value degrees. Zoology is a biology course, so there's a general scientific background (research, hypotheses, statistics, modelling etc), and zoology in particular is necessary for understanding the spread of animal pests (e.g. insects eating pests), invasive species, human and animal disease (bird flu?), understanding/recording what is in a particular place (perhaps before construction work, or to guide the planning of that). The report on the lowest- and highest-paying majors ranks zoology fairly highly -- above chemistry and physics: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/ https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/
- sixstringtheory 8y ago
  People will still go for the degrees they go for today, which for the most part are degrees they believe will provide a good return on their investment of _time_. On top of that, unis would need to limit how many people are accepted to a penguin program, because how many qualified teachers can they throw at that? Beyond admissions quotas, I imagine that if gov’t does decide to fully subsidize unis, they too will impose limits per field of study. This is already done in European countries that subsidize uni. Finally, I think with “guaranteed” gov’t loans, unis have already taken a lot of their skin out of the game. They don’t have to worry about that student defaulting on their loan later, the gov’t does. Or even for private loans. If you had a seemingly infinite bank account, would you penny pinch or see how many new toys you could buy?
- kalleboo 8y ago
  > Also, with no skin in the game, I’m sure college will get even less serious. Or on the contrary, when students are no longer paying customers who have to be made happy, grading can get stricter
ConfSibi 8y ago
Making college free is a huge waste of resources. College is largely an exercise in social credentialing and signaling. If we make college free, the people who want to get ahead in society will just go to expensive graduate programs in order to distinguish themselves. Then the discussion will shift to fully funding those programs... Our current system is very fair. Take out a loan if you need to, but make sure your post graduation prospects justify taking a loan out. If they don't, then don't get the loan. One of the major reasons why college is so expensive today is because the availability of loans means Universities are able to continuously hike tuition in support of ever expanding bureaucracies (not in support of the core educational mission) without fear of students not being able to pay, because the loans mean students can always secure funding! Society is basically writing them a blank check... The answer is NOT to give them even more money! College education has become a financial black hole that will only expand if we throw more money at it.
- PascLeRasc 8y ago
  I have some bad news for you: graduate programs are usually fully funded and some PhD students even get a stipend for attending.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    PhD students getting stipends are essentially contract employees. They are doing work, either as associate instructors or research assistants, for that money.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Land, wealth, and other rents taxes.
chrisdhoover 8y ago
Instead, can we have a negative income tax?

WillPostForFood 8y ago

All that for a worthless degree in antaractic penguin studies from Shady St Univ. You still graduate unemployed, unskilled, but instead of you paying the debt, someone else does. Also, with no skin in the game, I’m sure college will get even less serious.

thatfrenchguy 8y ago
As we had seen from free education in most of Western Europe.
jeffreybaird 8y ago
You prefer an under-educated population? The most valuable asset we have in the technology and service based economies is human capital. We need a creative and educated population to continue to compete. I think we should eliminate all for-profit education and preferably make all universities public.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Under educated population is a disaster, but that problem starts about 12 years before college, in a different all public/free education system. Jamming more people through mediocre and worse college programs to get worthless degrees is a waste of time and money.
  - jeffreybaird 8y ago
    Why do you assume that degrees are "worthless?" How are you defining "worthless?" Based on the research, getting a degree significantly increases your earning potential. But I would argue that even if that wasn't the case and everyone got philosophy, literature, and history degrees, our country would be significantly better positioned globally. And I agree with your statement that the problem starts earlier. Although most of our issues with primary and secondary public education can be traced to poverty and racism. So, I think we should raise taxes to address those as well :D.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      I’m referring to all the unemployed and underemployed college graduates complaining about the debt they are in. Simplify transferring the debt somewhere else isn’t fixing anything, it is just shifting the drain on society. College is highly useful for some people, and not others. We should do more to make sure it is available to those who would benefit, and offer different things for those who prefer or need trade skills.
    - ghufran_syed 8y ago
      Worthless = "no employer willing to pay good money for the skills or knowledge you acquired"
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      Why do you proceed from the assumption that degrees have worth and demand that we prove that statement to be false? In the real world it is the opposite - you assume the degree is worthless until you demonstrate the otherwise
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      You have to be careful with conflating causality. As we turn college more and more into highschool 2.0, we're going to see the correlation with increased earnings start to deteriorate. There's a simple matter that we're greatly increasing the supply of college educated individuals which, in turn, will have a diminishing effect on their demand which will drive earnings down. The only way this will not happen is if there's a proportional (which is to say sharp) increase in the number of available and desirable positions for college educated individuals. This is also ignoring that we've greatly widened the demographic attending colleges. The reduced selectivity means that the average person is not going to be as top-notch as they were at one time, which means that the average expectation of an individual with a college degree will also go down. This will also have an aggregate depressing effect on our earning:education correlation. More important than ever will become median earnings for college graduates. The top graduates are earning vastly more than ever before which will mask the overall problem.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Is it possible to simultaneously have an over-educated population and an under-educated population? I am having a hard time squaring the two prevailing ideas on this issue. One is that we need more/free education because an educated population is best. The other is that we need to import vast amounts of new unskilled labor so we have someone to pick our fruit. I realize you only espoused one of these ideas, but I am curious if someone holds both those positions and would help me understand how both can be true at the same time.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 8y ago
  > You prefer an under-educated population Who is undereducated? We managed to create a civilization that went to the moon back when the vast majority of people never went to college. Germany continues to be a leading industrial power while lagging most of Western Europe in college statistics (especially "academic" college like we have in the U.S.)
- claydavisss 8y ago
  If you define "educated" to be an expensive and worthless-to-the-world degree, then I am totally fine with an "under-educated" population.
QML 8y ago
I believe when most people say “make college free”, they’re referring to a “tuition free” education. There is still a housing cost, which is “skin in the game”.
- monocasa 8y ago
  Eh, my ideal would be like Europe's that gives you a stipend as well to cover room and board. Paying for housing is more than a full time job in a lot of places with universities (particularly the good ones), and ideally we'd want students to be focusing on their studies.
  - varjag 8y ago
    In many of those places in Europe, stipend is really a loan you have to pay back. The terms are regulated but still ain't free money.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
Then don't fund Shady St Uni. Put criteria in place for evaluating, and make sure the universities have skin in the game. (Also, not every degree that doesn't immediately result in you making $250,000/year is worthless. And students are pretty motivated already in pursuing degrees that they see jobs in. Even if your education is free, if you put in 4+ years into something that you can't do anything with, you're still not profiting. Students themselves would still have skin in the game even with free education.)
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Ok. Do that first and I might support it. But the guaranteed loans for everyone system of today has not only inflated costs, it supports a bunch of worthless crappy schools. Go look at the list of universities in the US, and find the bottom 100. They are as offensive and wasteful as a $10,000 toilet seat.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    I agree. But that's not a product of free education.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      It is a product of guaranteed government loans, which makes it “free” for universities to take students.
      - romwell 8y ago
        And here you see a difference between free and "free".
Symbiote 8y ago
What's wrong with zoology / ornithology today?
- monocasa 8y ago
  Not sure why this is downvoted. There are plenty of degrees that might be useless for making an employer more money, but provide important work for society.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  You can study whatever you want, wherever you want, without criticism or question if you are willing to pay your own way.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    Very well, but what is your objection to zoology? Normally, people pick an arts subject when arguing about poor-value degrees. Zoology is a biology course, so there's a general scientific background (research, hypotheses, statistics, modelling etc), and zoology in particular is necessary for understanding the spread of animal pests (e.g. insects eating pests), invasive species, human and animal disease (bird flu?), understanding/recording what is in a particular place (perhaps before construction work, or to guide the planning of that). The report on the lowest- and highest-paying majors ranks zoology fairly highly -- above chemistry and physics: https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/ https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/
sixstringtheory 8y ago
People will still go for the degrees they go for today, which for the most part are degrees they believe will provide a good return on their investment of _time_. On top of that, unis would need to limit how many people are accepted to a penguin program, because how many qualified teachers can they throw at that? Beyond admissions quotas, I imagine that if gov’t does decide to fully subsidize unis, they too will impose limits per field of study. This is already done in European countries that subsidize uni. Finally, I think with “guaranteed” gov’t loans, unis have already taken a lot of their skin out of the game. They don’t have to worry about that student defaulting on their loan later, the gov’t does. Or even for private loans. If you had a seemingly infinite bank account, would you penny pinch or see how many new toys you could buy?
kalleboo 8y ago
> Also, with no skin in the game, I’m sure college will get even less serious. Or on the contrary, when students are no longer paying customers who have to be made happy, grading can get stricter

ConfSibi 8y ago

Making college free is a huge waste of resources. College is largely an exercise in social credentialing and signaling. If we make college free, the people who want to get ahead in society will just go to expensive graduate programs in order to distinguish themselves. Then the discussion will shift to fully funding those programs... Our current system is very fair. Take out a loan if you need to, but make sure your post graduation prospects justify taking a loan out. If they don't, then don't get the loan. One of the major reasons why college is so expensive today is because the availability of loans means Universities are able to continuously hike tuition in support of ever expanding bureaucracies (not in support of the core educational mission) without fear of students not being able to pay, because the loans mean students can always secure funding! Society is basically writing them a blank check... The answer is NOT to give them even more money! College education has become a financial black hole that will only expand if we throw more money at it.

PascLeRasc 8y ago
I have some bad news for you: graduate programs are usually fully funded and some PhD students even get a stipend for attending.
- ams6110 8y ago
  PhD students getting stipends are essentially contract employees. They are doing work, either as associate instructors or research assistants, for that money.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Land, wealth, and other rents taxes.

chrisdhoover 8y ago

Instead, can we have a negative income tax?