4 ms·

This is the only option left, in the last 40 years we've decided as a society that funding higher education through taxes is bad.

dfxm12 5y ago
This assumes that the government actually reflects the will of the people. A majority of people seems to want at least some type of reform on this matter [0], but our elected officials aren't following though with it. Some have made promises that they haven't kept, but most politicians seem to not care about the will of the people. 0 - https://theharrispoll.com/student-debt-reform/ https://theharrispoll.com/student-debt-reform/
- rayiner 5y ago
  “Do you support X” questions don’t mean anything without the “what will you pay?” question. European countries tax middle class people to subsidize the 25-30% of relatively privileged people who get a university degree. That’s actually quite regressive. The Anglo (US, UK, and AUS) system of government loans with income-based repayment is superior.
  - minikites 5y ago
    Why are those the only two options? Is taxing wealthy people impossible?
    - rhino369 5y ago
      You could. But you can only tax them so much. And the truly rich are able to avoid taxes by moving capital around. There are a lot of progressive spending proposals and they all can't be paid by just taxing the wealthy. Using that money to pay for benefits that mostly go to privileged people is not the best use of dollars. College graduates make more money on average, by a lot, 30 thousand dollars. Our current system address those who have loans but don't actually get high income. They barely have to pay their loans--and often don't pay anything. A person making 35k, with an average of 3.5% a year income growth won't pay a single cent under the PAYE program if they have a family of four.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        As was explained to me after the most recent insider leaks of income and tax information, a mere $70M wealth is enough to avoid taxes altogether. One "invests" one's wealth, and then lives off of revolving loans against those investments. Such a structure allows one to declare a $0 income every year for the rest of one's life. So, any particular change to our current system of taxation might be flawed. However, in general, we must change our current system of taxation. https://www.newsweek.com/warren-buffett-who-advocates-higher-taxes-defends-paying-least-among-americas-richest-1598830 https://www.newsweek.com/warren-buffett-who-advocates-higher...
    - rayiner 5y ago
      The question is whether it’s practicable, and if it is, we should ask why other developed countries rely on heavy middle class taxes instead. The fact of the matter is that if you define “wealthy” as the top 1% (as Biden implicitly does by refusing to raise taxes on folks making up to $400,000), then there just isn’t enough money there to pay for a robust welfare state without raising middle class and upper middle class taxes. Doubling the tax rate on the top 1% (which isn’t in the cards) would raise $650 billion annually. That won’t even come close to closing the current budget deficit, and won’t pay for even a third of Medicare for all. It would pay for the Biden infrastructure plan, plus maybe free college, but none of the other things in the progressive wish list. Even if we take as drastic a step as doubling the tax rate on the top 1%, it would still be highly inequitable to distribute that money for free college before hitting priorities like universal healthcare, improved unemployment insurance, etc.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    I wouldn't call government-backed loans "superior". They fuel tuition inflation and thereby contribute to the rising costs of education even for those who want to pay out of pocket. Leaving education loans solely to the private sector (with regulations against predatory marketing and usury) would ensure the money is spent efficiently. It wouldn't be possible to get a large loan for a degree with dim economic prospects. Colleges would need to look at their cost structures and charge students according to the actual market value of the degree. The European model at least has costs under control. The people who get university degrees presumably also contribute more to the tax base, once they start working, than people without degrees. So it's less regressive than it seems.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      That suggests the solution is cost control of education, it even more funding.
rayiner 5y ago
The US spends enormous amounts of tax dollars on higher education. The problem is that it spends twice as much per student (adjusted for purchasing power) than the OECD average, so that only covers about half of total spending.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  So the U.S. spends tons of money but is terrible at using that money efficiently?
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Film at 11.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Same is true for healthcare, K-12 education, and infrastructure. The US spends more dollars per person—excluding military expenditures-than Canada, but Canada somehow manages fit universal healthcare into that same budget. It’s best to think of the US public sector as comparable to that of a semi-functioning developed country, such as Italy, rather than one of the competent ones, like Germany or Sweden.
    - minikites 5y ago
      >It’s best to think of the US public sector as comparable to that of a semi-functioning developed country It's been deliberately sabotaged to be this way. We can easily make different choices.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        Who sabotaged it this way? What are those choices? The people in states with large government spending, like NY, NJ or CA, would sure like to know how to avoid waste.
- minikites 5y ago
  Your framing is disingenuous. The amount we spend is declining, which creates an increase in price: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-de... >States provide roughly 53 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools. Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. >These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. We spend so much because we refuse to fund things directly. By shifting costs onto students, prices go up for everyone. Then aid to students has to be increased, creating this cycle. If we fund higher educational institutions directly, we can reduce costs for everyone. >Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. The idea of relentlessly "trimming the fat" has eliminated all slack capacity in our society and economy, to our detriment. Ask anyone who incompletely copied the lean Toyota model and didn't allow for a stockpile or excess capacity where it was prudent to do so. We're delaying infrastructure projects that will only get more expensive to fix. We can't keep pushing these problems into the future and hoping we'll stumble upon a magic solution later. We're at the point where we need to make drastic changes because we've been collectively refusing to make incremental changes. We are an incredibly wealthy society. We can afford education and healthcare (very similar causes, very similar solutions) for everyone in the USA and we merely need to make the choices to do so.
jacob2484 5y ago
Sorry I don't want my friend's taxes, who has a small business doing blue collar work and didn't go to college, to fund (useless) degrees in majors with little to no job prospects.
- minikites 5y ago
  Do you also agree that your blue-collar friend shouldn't receive anything from society when their job is outsourced or made useless by technology? I disagree, but at least that would be consistent. If you believe everyone should fend for themselves, why do we even have a society instead of being lone hunter-gatherers?

dfxm12 5y ago

This assumes that the government actually reflects the will of the people. A majority of people seems to want at least some type of reform on this matter [0], but our elected officials aren't following though with it. Some have made promises that they haven't kept, but most politicians seem to not care about the will of the people. 0 - https://theharrispoll.com/student-debt-reform/ https://theharrispoll.com/student-debt-reform/

rayiner 5y ago
“Do you support X” questions don’t mean anything without the “what will you pay?” question. European countries tax middle class people to subsidize the 25-30% of relatively privileged people who get a university degree. That’s actually quite regressive. The Anglo (US, UK, and AUS) system of government loans with income-based repayment is superior.
- minikites 5y ago
  Why are those the only two options? Is taxing wealthy people impossible?
  - rhino369 5y ago
    You could. But you can only tax them so much. And the truly rich are able to avoid taxes by moving capital around. There are a lot of progressive spending proposals and they all can't be paid by just taxing the wealthy. Using that money to pay for benefits that mostly go to privileged people is not the best use of dollars. College graduates make more money on average, by a lot, 30 thousand dollars. Our current system address those who have loans but don't actually get high income. They barely have to pay their loans--and often don't pay anything. A person making 35k, with an average of 3.5% a year income growth won't pay a single cent under the PAYE program if they have a family of four.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      As was explained to me after the most recent insider leaks of income and tax information, a mere $70M wealth is enough to avoid taxes altogether. One "invests" one's wealth, and then lives off of revolving loans against those investments. Such a structure allows one to declare a $0 income every year for the rest of one's life. So, any particular change to our current system of taxation might be flawed. However, in general, we must change our current system of taxation. https://www.newsweek.com/warren-buffett-who-advocates-higher-taxes-defends-paying-least-among-americas-richest-1598830 https://www.newsweek.com/warren-buffett-who-advocates-higher...
  - rayiner 5y ago
    The question is whether it’s practicable, and if it is, we should ask why other developed countries rely on heavy middle class taxes instead. The fact of the matter is that if you define “wealthy” as the top 1% (as Biden implicitly does by refusing to raise taxes on folks making up to $400,000), then there just isn’t enough money there to pay for a robust welfare state without raising middle class and upper middle class taxes. Doubling the tax rate on the top 1% (which isn’t in the cards) would raise $650 billion annually. That won’t even come close to closing the current budget deficit, and won’t pay for even a third of Medicare for all. It would pay for the Biden infrastructure plan, plus maybe free college, but none of the other things in the progressive wish list. Even if we take as drastic a step as doubling the tax rate on the top 1%, it would still be highly inequitable to distribute that money for free college before hitting priorities like universal healthcare, improved unemployment insurance, etc.
- triceratops 5y ago
  I wouldn't call government-backed loans "superior". They fuel tuition inflation and thereby contribute to the rising costs of education even for those who want to pay out of pocket. Leaving education loans solely to the private sector (with regulations against predatory marketing and usury) would ensure the money is spent efficiently. It wouldn't be possible to get a large loan for a degree with dim economic prospects. Colleges would need to look at their cost structures and charge students according to the actual market value of the degree. The European model at least has costs under control. The people who get university degrees presumably also contribute more to the tax base, once they start working, than people without degrees. So it's less regressive than it seems.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    That suggests the solution is cost control of education, it even more funding.

rayiner 5y ago

The US spends enormous amounts of tax dollars on higher education. The problem is that it spends twice as much per student (adjusted for purchasing power) than the OECD average, so that only covers about half of total spending.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
So the U.S. spends tons of money but is terrible at using that money efficiently?
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Film at 11.
- rayiner 5y ago
  Same is true for healthcare, K-12 education, and infrastructure. The US spends more dollars per person—excluding military expenditures-than Canada, but Canada somehow manages fit universal healthcare into that same budget. It’s best to think of the US public sector as comparable to that of a semi-functioning developed country, such as Italy, rather than one of the competent ones, like Germany or Sweden.
  - minikites 5y ago
    >It’s best to think of the US public sector as comparable to that of a semi-functioning developed country It's been deliberately sabotaged to be this way. We can easily make different choices.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      Who sabotaged it this way? What are those choices? The people in states with large government spending, like NY, NJ or CA, would sure like to know how to avoid waste.
minikites 5y ago
Your framing is disingenuous. The amount we spend is declining, which creates an increase in price: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-de... >States provide roughly 53 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools. Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. >These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. We spend so much because we refuse to fund things directly. By shifting costs onto students, prices go up for everyone. Then aid to students has to be increased, creating this cycle. If we fund higher educational institutions directly, we can reduce costs for everyone. >Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. The idea of relentlessly "trimming the fat" has eliminated all slack capacity in our society and economy, to our detriment. Ask anyone who incompletely copied the lean Toyota model and didn't allow for a stockpile or excess capacity where it was prudent to do so. We're delaying infrastructure projects that will only get more expensive to fix. We can't keep pushing these problems into the future and hoping we'll stumble upon a magic solution later. We're at the point where we need to make drastic changes because we've been collectively refusing to make incremental changes. We are an incredibly wealthy society. We can afford education and healthcare (very similar causes, very similar solutions) for everyone in the USA and we merely need to make the choices to do so.

jacob2484 5y ago

Sorry I don't want my friend's taxes, who has a small business doing blue collar work and didn't go to college, to fund (useless) degrees in majors with little to no job prospects.

minikites 5y ago
Do you also agree that your blue-collar friend shouldn't receive anything from society when their job is outsourced or made useless by technology? I disagree, but at least that would be consistent. If you believe everyone should fend for themselves, why do we even have a society instead of being lone hunter-gatherers?