3 ms·
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 argu
by 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 agoYou 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 agoI 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.