4 ms·
So instead of me directly paying just for my own education I would have to pay for everyone else's education in the form of taxes? Freeing up what I am currentl
by jjuel 7y ago
So instead of me directly paying just for my own education I would have to pay for everyone else's education in the form of taxes? Freeing up what I am currently paying for student loans would be nice, but if you take more money from me to subsidize ALL public colleges am I really gaining anything? Sure this is a good talking point for her and the progressive left, but realistically it isn't a feasible plan.
- renjimen 7y agoSeems to work well enough in most OECD countries
- lildoggo 7y ago>"She would pay for it with revenue generated by her proposed increase in taxes for America’s most wealthy families and corporations, which the campaign estimates to be $2.75 trillion over 10 years" Unless your household is making over $50 Million year, or you are a billionaire, your taxes wouldn't change for this particular plan.
- jjuel 7y agoWhen have you seen taxes on the wealthy actually work or even pass the House or Senate? Again good in theory, but not good in practice. All that is going to do is get the ultra wealthy and corporations to use more loopholes than they already do. Again it is a great talking point, but not something that is realistic. But it'll get all of the people hampered by tuition and student debt to say "yeah stick it to them". I personally still have loads of debt and would be nice to get rid of. Would be nice to see my son be able to go to a public university for free. However, the logistics of it will make it never happen. In fact it would probably affect public universities, and the quality would decline more than it is now.