3 ms·

> Indeed, it will make degree inflation even worse. I grew up and went to university in a country where you only paid a nominal tuition (~$500, and when it got

by TomVDB 7y ago

> Indeed, it will make degree inflation even worse. I grew up and went to university in a country where you only paid a nominal tuition (~$500, and when it got raised to $550 students went on the streets to protest the injustice.) If you wanted to go to college, you could. People studied what they were passionate about. And companies didn't mind hiring a language major, because a university degree was seen as sufficient proof that somebody was smart enough to learn complex material quickly. And there was no grade inflation. Because there's the thing: when students don't have to pay an insane amount of tuition, the professors don't have any pressure to not fail a bad student because so much money is at stake. Failing grades for bad students were the norm. This was true from elementary school all the way to university. When I see my daughter graduating with an average score of 92% while hardly breaking a sweat, I'm obviously proud of her, but I also can't shake the feeling that she was never tested. But it has to be like this because GPA is so important for college admission. > Middle and upper income people will still account for most college attendance, so in the end it’ll be a big handout to the middle and upper middle class. Oh, there's a very easy solution to that: a tax system that's even more progressive.

rayiner 7y ago
I mean degree inflation, not grade inflation. More people having degrees hurts those who can’t get a degree even with free college because of other factors. (The US already has some of the highest college attendance rates in the world.) As to the tax system—ours is already more progressive than those of countries that have friee college: https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-not-the-solution-to-inequality https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-.... The problem is that we’re unwilling to tax the middle and upper middle class, which is actually the biggest tax base. AOC’s millionaire’s tax would raise $17 billion a year, even assuming no change in behavior: http://www.aei.org/publication/how-much-revenue-would-the-70-percent-tax-rate-on-millionaires-raise-it-depends http://www.aei.org/publication/how-much-revenue-would-the-70.... A European style VAT could raise a trillion. There is a fundamental political problem in the US, in that nobody will agree to raise taxes on the middle class. The left demands not only a welfare state, but that the rich and corporations pay for it. It’s a package deal. The right won’t agree to raise taxes on the rich and corporations—and they’ve kind of got a point. Our tax burden on capital is already roughly comparable to say Germany, if a bit lower: https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2017/382 https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2.... Where our tax burden is really low is in middle class taxes: social insurance and consumption. (There is a reason folks like AOC point to how great the welfare state is in say Sweden, but point to US taxes in the 1940s and 1950s, when war-torn Europe was no competition for the US. Or mention Sweden’s top marginal rate, without mentioning that it kicks in at an income level a mid career teacher or police officer might make in the US.) So to raise taxes without making ourselves uncompetitive with Europe from the perspective of capital, the only avenue to raise real revenue is higher taxes in the middle class. Since that’s a political non-starter, we have the status quo that we have.
- TomVDB 7y ago
  I don't agree that you should restrict the number of people who are capable of attending college just because it overwhelms the market, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that this is the right thing to do. Even then, the way to implement that restriction should not be done the way it is done now: a system that either requires rich parents or saddles new graduates with a lot of debt. I don't see how anyone can make the case that money should determine which kid can go to college or not. As for progressive taxes: the article makes the case that higher progressive taxes result in the rich finding loopholes to avoid them, and that the whole society should contribute to the welfare state. That's fine: I'm not an expert on the subject and I'm very much willing to consider whatever option works best. The low level details are not nearly as important as the end result: one that gives young people to chance to study start their professional life without a debt millstone around their neck. But I have no illusions that this will happen in my lifetime.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    You missed the core point of the AEI article. $17 billion is the most AOC’s tax could possibly raise, assuming no changes in behavior (including tax avoidance). That’s nothing in America—we spend $7 trillion in government spending each year. If we wanted to be able to afford a similar welfare state to Germany or France, we’d have to raise taxes by $2 trillion. That’s the total income of the top 1% (and $600 billion more than the income they have left after the taxes they already pay).
    - TomVDB 7y ago
      I think you're missing my point that I don't particularly care how it's done. I just care that graduating students can start their life with zero debt, just like they can in many other countries.

by TomVDB 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

I mean degree inflation, not grade inflation. More people having degrees hurts those who can’t get a degree even with free college because of other factors. (The US already has some of the highest college attendance rates in the world.) As to the tax system—ours is already more progressive than those of countries that have friee college: https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-not-the-solution-to-inequality https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-.... The problem is that we’re unwilling to tax the middle and upper middle class, which is actually the biggest tax base. AOC’s millionaire’s tax would raise $17 billion a year, even assuming no change in behavior: http://www.aei.org/publication/how-much-revenue-would-the-70-percent-tax-rate-on-millionaires-raise-it-depends http://www.aei.org/publication/how-much-revenue-would-the-70.... A European style VAT could raise a trillion. There is a fundamental political problem in the US, in that nobody will agree to raise taxes on the middle class. The left demands not only a welfare state, but that the rich and corporations pay for it. It’s a package deal. The right won’t agree to raise taxes on the rich and corporations—and they’ve kind of got a point. Our tax burden on capital is already roughly comparable to say Germany, if a bit lower: https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2017/382 https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2.... Where our tax burden is really low is in middle class taxes: social insurance and consumption. (There is a reason folks like AOC point to how great the welfare state is in say Sweden, but point to US taxes in the 1940s and 1950s, when war-torn Europe was no competition for the US. Or mention Sweden’s top marginal rate, without mentioning that it kicks in at an income level a mid career teacher or police officer might make in the US.) So to raise taxes without making ourselves uncompetitive with Europe from the perspective of capital, the only avenue to raise real revenue is higher taxes in the middle class. Since that’s a political non-starter, we have the status quo that we have.

TomVDB 7y ago
I don't agree that you should restrict the number of people who are capable of attending college just because it overwhelms the market, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that this is the right thing to do. Even then, the way to implement that restriction should not be done the way it is done now: a system that either requires rich parents or saddles new graduates with a lot of debt. I don't see how anyone can make the case that money should determine which kid can go to college or not. As for progressive taxes: the article makes the case that higher progressive taxes result in the rich finding loopholes to avoid them, and that the whole society should contribute to the welfare state. That's fine: I'm not an expert on the subject and I'm very much willing to consider whatever option works best. The low level details are not nearly as important as the end result: one that gives young people to chance to study start their professional life without a debt millstone around their neck. But I have no illusions that this will happen in my lifetime.
- rayiner 7y ago
  You missed the core point of the AEI article. $17 billion is the most AOC’s tax could possibly raise, assuming no changes in behavior (including tax avoidance). That’s nothing in America—we spend $7 trillion in government spending each year. If we wanted to be able to afford a similar welfare state to Germany or France, we’d have to raise taxes by $2 trillion. That’s the total income of the top 1% (and $600 billion more than the income they have left after the taxes they already pay).
  - TomVDB 7y ago
    I think you're missing my point that I don't particularly care how it's done. I just care that graduating students can start their life with zero debt, just like they can in many other countries.