5 ms·

Here's the problem. I have no formal education and I pay the same rate of tax as a degree holder. Even under this system, I am subsidizing someone who has had c

Here's the problem. I have no formal education and I pay the same rate of tax as a degree holder. Even under this system, I am subsidizing someone who has had considerably more privilege than myself.

pnutjam 4y ago
It's to your benefit to have educated people around you.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  All of the ways I benefit, I pay for. From the educated doctor who treats my illness to the educated engineer who designed my car. I don't find that I benefit enough to want to pay twice. Really the degree holders benefit from having me around. I've been a taxpayer since 13, worked full time since 15, consumed essentially only the government services that I was forced to at gunpoint and even then I left school before I was legally allowed to. Why don't you all chip in for my mortgage?
  - pnutjam 4y ago
    Hey, good news. We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      > We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. Is that you chipping in or you just taking less of what I have produced? I'm still far and away a net taxpayer. > There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society. Have any examples I don't already pay for?
      - pnutjam 4y ago
        Classic "I got mine" libertarian thinking. You know the old saying, death and taxes. Your taxes are set, you're getting money back. Things you don't pay for, just a small list: 1. better dating pool, for you and your kids (assuming you like brains) - this is not to say each person went to college, but they are influenced by people around them who did. 2. Better job candidates 3. Less narrow minded people, but it sounds like that might be a negative. Things you get without paying for it, or paying a small fraction - clean environment - Neighbors who can have an intellectual conversation - food that won't make you sick - Parks, roads, airports - First responders --- last comment alert --- not wasting anymore time on this
lovich 4y ago
Subsidizing others in a society is kind of a feature and not a bug
- willcipriano 4y ago
  Subsidizing the poor, sure. Subsidizing the upper middle class? Not so much.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Is college solely the domain of the upper middle class? Additionally we subsidize people of all wealth classes for things which have a social good that most people don’t seem to have a problem with. For example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      > Is college solely the domain of the upper middle class? Pretty much. At least the sort of degrees that leave you 100k+ in debt with no way to repay it. Poor kids don't have the luxury of making mistakes like that. > for example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone. Only if you ignore opportunity costs. Those same dollars could've resolved food insecurity for a family for a few years instead they are sitting on a rich guys roof so he can brag about it in a condescending manner at dinner parties.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Pretty much. At least the sort of degrees that leave you 100k+ in debt with no way to repay it. Poor kids don't have the luxury of making mistakes like that. How do you figure? Poor kids qualify for federally subsidized student loans. I suspect the whole debate is a bit skewed because it tends to ignore admissions. You can't go to an expensive college if you can't get admitted to an expensive college. Your family background and wealth tends to be a big factor in whether kids can get admitted to college, for many reasons. It seems to be assumed that poor kids are just more "prudent" and other kids are recklessly throwing money away. More likely is just that poor kids get admitted to more expensive schools at a lower rate. The whole point of student loans is that they're taken by people who can't afford to pay for college upfront. If poor kids are passing up the opportunity to go to great schools for purely financial reasons, why would we even celebrate that, instead of mourning their lost opportunities? I suspect the reality, however, is that poor kids aren't getting well prepped for college admissions, for well-known social reasons. That's not fair either, but I think it's cynical to try to play poor people and middle class people against each other just because middle class kids understandably want upward mobility — which poor kids want too, but simply have less access to such opportunities. It's always weird when people mention the average lifetime earnings of college graduates, because you have to ask yourself why the so-called "prudent" poor kids who don't go to college are passing that up. It just feels to me like people want to shut down all upward mobility, and punish the ambitious middle class kids for even trying. What's the alternative to taking on big student loan debt, besides "staying in your place" and letting rich kids who can pay for expensive things upfront have all the best opportunities? The other thing is that ambitious middle class parents and teachers are pushing their kids to go to college, indeed the best college possible, even if the kids aren't really ready for it or know what they want to do with their life yet. Everyone is telling the kids they have to go to college, that they can't get a job without a degree, etc. The pressure on kids from adults is massive. It's practically propaganda or brainwashing. There's nothing these adults love more than to brag about their kids, who end up as pawns in the social one-upmanship game of the adults.

Here's the problem. I have no formal education and I pay the same rate of tax as a degree holder. Even under this system, I am subsidizing someone who has had considerably more privilege than myself.

pnutjam 4y ago

It's to your benefit to have educated people around you.

willcipriano 4y ago
All of the ways I benefit, I pay for. From the educated doctor who treats my illness to the educated engineer who designed my car. I don't find that I benefit enough to want to pay twice. Really the degree holders benefit from having me around. I've been a taxpayer since 13, worked full time since 15, consumed essentially only the government services that I was forced to at gunpoint and even then I left school before I was legally allowed to. Why don't you all chip in for my mortgage?
- pnutjam 4y ago
  Hey, good news. We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > We all do chip in for you mortgage via tax deductions. Is that you chipping in or you just taking less of what I have produced? I'm still far and away a net taxpayer. > There are a ton of other ways you benefit from an educated and informed society. Have any examples I don't already pay for?
    - pnutjam 4y ago
      Classic "I got mine" libertarian thinking. You know the old saying, death and taxes. Your taxes are set, you're getting money back. Things you don't pay for, just a small list: 1. better dating pool, for you and your kids (assuming you like brains) - this is not to say each person went to college, but they are influenced by people around them who did. 2. Better job candidates 3. Less narrow minded people, but it sounds like that might be a negative. Things you get without paying for it, or paying a small fraction - clean environment - Neighbors who can have an intellectual conversation - food that won't make you sick - Parks, roads, airports - First responders --- last comment alert --- not wasting anymore time on this

lovich 4y ago

Subsidizing others in a society is kind of a feature and not a bug

willcipriano 4y ago
Subsidizing the poor, sure. Subsidizing the upper middle class? Not so much.
- lovich 4y ago
  Is college solely the domain of the upper middle class? Additionally we subsidize people of all wealth classes for things which have a social good that most people don’t seem to have a problem with. For example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    > Is college solely the domain of the upper middle class? Pretty much. At least the sort of degrees that leave you 100k+ in debt with no way to repay it. Poor kids don't have the luxury of making mistakes like that. > for example subsidies for solar panels mostly go to the wealthy+upper middle class, but it still benefits everyone. Only if you ignore opportunity costs. Those same dollars could've resolved food insecurity for a family for a few years instead they are sitting on a rich guys roof so he can brag about it in a condescending manner at dinner parties.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Pretty much. At least the sort of degrees that leave you 100k+ in debt with no way to repay it. Poor kids don't have the luxury of making mistakes like that. How do you figure? Poor kids qualify for federally subsidized student loans. I suspect the whole debate is a bit skewed because it tends to ignore admissions. You can't go to an expensive college if you can't get admitted to an expensive college. Your family background and wealth tends to be a big factor in whether kids can get admitted to college, for many reasons. It seems to be assumed that poor kids are just more "prudent" and other kids are recklessly throwing money away. More likely is just that poor kids get admitted to more expensive schools at a lower rate. The whole point of student loans is that they're taken by people who can't afford to pay for college upfront. If poor kids are passing up the opportunity to go to great schools for purely financial reasons, why would we even celebrate that, instead of mourning their lost opportunities? I suspect the reality, however, is that poor kids aren't getting well prepped for college admissions, for well-known social reasons. That's not fair either, but I think it's cynical to try to play poor people and middle class people against each other just because middle class kids understandably want upward mobility — which poor kids want too, but simply have less access to such opportunities. It's always weird when people mention the average lifetime earnings of college graduates, because you have to ask yourself why the so-called "prudent" poor kids who don't go to college are passing that up. It just feels to me like people want to shut down all upward mobility, and punish the ambitious middle class kids for even trying. What's the alternative to taking on big student loan debt, besides "staying in your place" and letting rich kids who can pay for expensive things upfront have all the best opportunities? The other thing is that ambitious middle class parents and teachers are pushing their kids to go to college, indeed the best college possible, even if the kids aren't really ready for it or know what they want to do with their life yet. Everyone is telling the kids they have to go to college, that they can't get a job without a degree, etc. The pressure on kids from adults is massive. It's practically propaganda or brainwashing. There's nothing these adults love more than to brag about their kids, who end up as pawns in the social one-upmanship game of the adults.