4 ms·

No, to be more accurate, it shifted the cost onto many other people. And that's an important distinction, because when you divide a large number by a large numb

No, to be more accurate, it shifted the cost onto many other people. And that's an important distinction, because when you divide a large number by a large number, you get a small number. Think of it with this simplified example, using numbers that are easier to grok. Let's say I've got a school where tuition costs $1,000. Alice cannot afford that on her own. But there are 1,000 people in her country, so if taxes paid for that tuition, each person only needs to pay $1 extra in taxes for Alice to get a quality education. Of course, it's not just Alice going to college, but it's also not every person in the country. In fact, at any given time, most taxpaying people in a country are not attending university, since university is usually only 4-6 years and most people live to age 78 or higher. So to adjust the example to account for that, let's just assume every member of this society of 1,000 people attended or will attend university (an overestimate for sure). Using the ages as a guideline for proportions, if 60% are above age 18, and at most 8% are currently in college (6 years at college / 78 years of life), then we can easily see how much each taxpayer must pay for everyone to get an education: (80 people * $1,000) / 600 taxpayers = $133-ish. So you tell me which is a better society: one in which everyone gets a good education for about $130, or one in which some people can't afford a good education because it costs about 7.5x as much money?

notch656a 4y ago
>>The debt didn't go away, your country just shifted the cost onto someone else other than the person currently studying. >No, ... I rest my defense.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  Your defense is "I, notch656a, know that I misrepresented the facts, and I'm okay with that"?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    No it's that it's pointless for me to respond to someone who responds to an objective truthful fact with a 'no' along with a bunch of handwaving about providing an education for $130.
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      ...If you read past the first two letters, you'd see that I explained why what you said is not an "objective, truthful fact", but a misrepresentation of the actual facts. Or you can read a single word, ignore the rest, and tell yourself you're superior without actually knowing what I said shrug Also, thank you for reminding me that mathematics is "handwaving". It's good to remember that math is useless and doesn't actually show anything real. We may as well not teach it at all in schools, since it's all just "handwaving".
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      Here, if you prefer specific, actual numbers rather than an example of the concept, I will do your homework for you. There are 144.3 million taxpayers in the US, and 329.5 million people. Using the still-accurate numbers of 8% of the population being in college at any given time, and the average college tuition in the US of $8,000/year, we can do the same calculation: (0.08 * 329,500,000 people * $8,000/yr) / (144,300,000 taxpayers) = $1461.40. In other words, by subsidizing higher education with taxes, every person in the country could attend college for about 1/5 the cost, as opposed to "only people who can afford at least $8,000/year can attend college, and it costs them 5x as much as it otherwise would." Those are real numbers. Does that make it feel less "hand-waving" to you?
      - notch656a 4y ago
        So I go to college. The real cost is $8000/year. That's $32,000 in cost for 4 year degree. Then I pay $1461.40 in taxes a year for 40 years (we'll control inflation at 0%, otherwise both my income and tuition rises) while I'm working, assuming I retire at ~62 which is fairly typical. I just paid $58,440 for $32000 of college. This is a good deal why? I was better off when no one was helping me.
        IceMetalPunk 4y ago
        Because while you're getting the benefit, you're not the only one benefiting. The benefit applies to you as well as to everyone else. So your calculation should be "I paid $58,440 in taxes, but I saved $32,000 on tuition for myself, so I actually only paid $26,440 to help everyone else in the country get the same $32,000 education that I did." Why do you live in a society, where you depend on other people, if you're not willing to help those who depend on you?

notch656a 4y ago

>>The debt didn't go away, your country just shifted the cost onto someone else other than the person currently studying. >No, ... I rest my defense.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
Your defense is "I, notch656a, know that I misrepresented the facts, and I'm okay with that"?
- notch656a 4y ago
  No it's that it's pointless for me to respond to someone who responds to an objective truthful fact with a 'no' along with a bunch of handwaving about providing an education for $130.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
    ...If you read past the first two letters, you'd see that I explained why what you said is not an "objective, truthful fact", but a misrepresentation of the actual facts. Or you can read a single word, ignore the rest, and tell yourself you're superior without actually knowing what I said shrug Also, thank you for reminding me that mathematics is "handwaving". It's good to remember that math is useless and doesn't actually show anything real. We may as well not teach it at all in schools, since it's all just "handwaving".
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
    Here, if you prefer specific, actual numbers rather than an example of the concept, I will do your homework for you. There are 144.3 million taxpayers in the US, and 329.5 million people. Using the still-accurate numbers of 8% of the population being in college at any given time, and the average college tuition in the US of $8,000/year, we can do the same calculation: (0.08 * 329,500,000 people * $8,000/yr) / (144,300,000 taxpayers) = $1461.40. In other words, by subsidizing higher education with taxes, every person in the country could attend college for about 1/5 the cost, as opposed to "only people who can afford at least $8,000/year can attend college, and it costs them 5x as much as it otherwise would." Those are real numbers. Does that make it feel less "hand-waving" to you?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      So I go to college. The real cost is $8000/year. That's $32,000 in cost for 4 year degree. Then I pay $1461.40 in taxes a year for 40 years (we'll control inflation at 0%, otherwise both my income and tuition rises) while I'm working, assuming I retire at ~62 which is fairly typical. I just paid $58,440 for $32000 of college. This is a good deal why? I was better off when no one was helping me.
      - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
        Because while you're getting the benefit, you're not the only one benefiting. The benefit applies to you as well as to everyone else. So your calculation should be "I paid $58,440 in taxes, but I saved $32,000 on tuition for myself, so I actually only paid $26,440 to help everyone else in the country get the same $32,000 education that I did." Why do you live in a society, where you depend on other people, if you're not willing to help those who depend on you?