3 ms·

The problem with the European model is that it creates an economically regressive system. The less affluent citizens who didn't attend higher education are payi

The problem with the European model is that it creates an economically regressive system. The less affluent citizens who didn't attend higher education are paying for us who did attend. This is usually motivated by the idea that society as a whole benefits from us educated people so much that they should pay for it. I find this idea a bit offensive. I would actually prefer a system financed purely by student loans. It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Some programmes would no longer be sustainable if they were not given free of charge. I think that would probably be a good thing.

krageon 5y ago
Why do you assume folks who don't go to university are less affluent? If anything, that should be the offensive notion. > It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Children cannot make this estimation, which is why we partially subsidise it. It's already a ton of pressure to know wth you're going to be doing later, let's not make that even worse just to satisfy some weird notion that higher education should be hard to reach. It's going to disproportionately impact folks without a social safety net, which is the one thing you wanted to prevent in the first place.
- colonwqbang 5y ago
  I don't have to assume anything, I can just look at the facts which show that people who attended higher education on average earn much more (in my country at least, if you know of a place where the opposite is true please share) You seem to be assuming that higher education is something obviously good, that everyone would want if they knew what was best for them. I don't think this is true. I think student loans (if done right) can be a good thing. They can let anyone from any social setting afford a higher education. But why the people without higher education should foot the bill for it, I have never understood.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > people who attended higher education on average earn much more And thus they pay more taxes, in the extremely progressive taxation systems you have in Europe that should more than pay back the cost of tuition. > I think student loans (if done right) can be a good thing. They can let anyone from any social setting afford a higher education. They really don't, poor people will be more scared of taking on so much debt at a young age and thus more reluctant to apply. It is much better that nobody has to worry about debt from studies, otherwise you wont have an equal playing field. We all know rich kids do better, the closer we can make typical kids experience to a rich kid the better, and that includes not having to pay for college. If you think that poor people pay too much taxes, just make the taxation more progressive. It has nothing to do with student debt. Rather, you could say that student debt shifts money from poor students to rich people (the top of the progressive tax scale), as most students will never reach the top of the tax scale and you could say that the money that pays for the tuition comes from the top of the tax scale (it could come from anywhere, it coming from the working class was just your imagination as well, if it got freed up it could be put anywhere...).
    - _aavaa_ 5y ago
      But pay it back to who? Do didn’t go buy paid taxes to fund the universities get a tax rebate one the university graduates start paying tax?
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        well no, but probably those people are getting services funded by the people who did go and are actually making enough money to fund those services. I mean I know that at my current taxation level I don't actually get much back for what I pay so it must be going somewhere, on the other hand when I was poor I certainly didn't pay as much as I got. That must have come from somewhere.
    - astrange 5y ago
      > And thus they pay more taxes, in the extremely progressive taxation systems you have in Europe that should more than pay back the cost of tuition. It’s the US that has highly progressive tax systems. (well, depending on the state) Europe has more broad-based but very effective taxes like VAT we’d probably be very annoyed if we had them.
hvidgaard 5y ago
> The less affluent citizens who didn't attend higher education are paying for us who did attend. This is usually motivated by the idea that society as a whole benefits from us educated people so much that they should pay for it. I find this idea a bit offensive. The data supports the claim. A higher educated citizen generate more tax and in general use less money in the healthcare system. It's a net surplus to pay for the education, so the "less affluent" citizens are not paying for anything. At least that is what the Danish government claims. > would actually prefer a system financed purely by student loans. It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Some programmes would no longer be sustainable if they were not given free of charge. This is rather simple to correct for. If the unemployment is high for a given education it can be reduced. It is in Denmark.

krageon 5y ago

Why do you assume folks who don't go to university are less affluent? If anything, that should be the offensive notion. > It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Children cannot make this estimation, which is why we partially subsidise it. It's already a ton of pressure to know wth you're going to be doing later, let's not make that even worse just to satisfy some weird notion that higher education should be hard to reach. It's going to disproportionately impact folks without a social safety net, which is the one thing you wanted to prevent in the first place.

colonwqbang 5y ago
I don't have to assume anything, I can just look at the facts which show that people who attended higher education on average earn much more (in my country at least, if you know of a place where the opposite is true please share) You seem to be assuming that higher education is something obviously good, that everyone would want if they knew what was best for them. I don't think this is true. I think student loans (if done right) can be a good thing. They can let anyone from any social setting afford a higher education. But why the people without higher education should foot the bill for it, I have never understood.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > people who attended higher education on average earn much more And thus they pay more taxes, in the extremely progressive taxation systems you have in Europe that should more than pay back the cost of tuition. > I think student loans (if done right) can be a good thing. They can let anyone from any social setting afford a higher education. They really don't, poor people will be more scared of taking on so much debt at a young age and thus more reluctant to apply. It is much better that nobody has to worry about debt from studies, otherwise you wont have an equal playing field. We all know rich kids do better, the closer we can make typical kids experience to a rich kid the better, and that includes not having to pay for college. If you think that poor people pay too much taxes, just make the taxation more progressive. It has nothing to do with student debt. Rather, you could say that student debt shifts money from poor students to rich people (the top of the progressive tax scale), as most students will never reach the top of the tax scale and you could say that the money that pays for the tuition comes from the top of the tax scale (it could come from anywhere, it coming from the working class was just your imagination as well, if it got freed up it could be put anywhere...).
  - _aavaa_ 5y ago
    But pay it back to who? Do didn’t go buy paid taxes to fund the universities get a tax rebate one the university graduates start paying tax?
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      well no, but probably those people are getting services funded by the people who did go and are actually making enough money to fund those services. I mean I know that at my current taxation level I don't actually get much back for what I pay so it must be going somewhere, on the other hand when I was poor I certainly didn't pay as much as I got. That must have come from somewhere.
  - astrange 5y ago
    > And thus they pay more taxes, in the extremely progressive taxation systems you have in Europe that should more than pay back the cost of tuition. It’s the US that has highly progressive tax systems. (well, depending on the state) Europe has more broad-based but very effective taxes like VAT we’d probably be very annoyed if we had them.

hvidgaard 5y ago

> The less affluent citizens who didn't attend higher education are paying for us who did attend. This is usually motivated by the idea that society as a whole benefits from us educated people so much that they should pay for it. I find this idea a bit offensive. The data supports the claim. A higher educated citizen generate more tax and in general use less money in the healthcare system. It's a net surplus to pay for the education, so the "less affluent" citizens are not paying for anything. At least that is what the Danish government claims. > would actually prefer a system financed purely by student loans. It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Some programmes would no longer be sustainable if they were not given free of charge. This is rather simple to correct for. If the unemployment is high for a given education it can be reduced. It is in Denmark.