4 ms·

This means people that don't go to the university and usually as a result has less income pays for people that goes, seems quite regressive

by Rucadi 3y ago

LeafItAlone 3y ago
It is a model that is pre-existing though. My parents paid property taxes that funded local schools that I didn’t go to. I pay property tax for my local schools, but I don’t have children.
5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
tax rates should be based on income and you're paying for a service that's free to all. it's a principle. whether or not you use it doesn't matter, that would be selfish.
einpoklum 3y ago
1. There are more taxes other than income tax. Corporate income tax for one. Estate taxes, financial speculation tax, VAT - each world state and its own system. 2. Even regarding income tax - in most world states, tax is not flat, and most workers pay little income tax anyway (sometimes even 0, if there's a threshold for non-zero tax rate, or tax credits for various social situations etc.) So not regressive. Also, like other commenters mention - if you don't attend university, your children, or other relatives and friends, might be. Plus, we all need the higher education system to function, for modern society to function, so it makes sense that we contribute to it through some mechanism.
moooo99 3y ago
Tax rates are based on income. The less you earn, the less taxes you pay. So in that sense, you could argue you don't pay for the higher education you never received. But beyond that, there is a deeply flawed logic behind indicating the tax would be "regressive" just because you personally don't benefit from it. So long the taxes are reasonably efficiently allocated (by macroeconomic standards, not by business standards) and increase a societies overall well-being, the vast majority of people benefit from it, either directly or by proxy. There are debates to be had which kind of "services" benefit from this scheme of financing the most, but being from a country where higher education is publicly funded and having benefited from this accessibility of higher-ed as well, I can see the merits of this scheme in the context of higher-education.
zmgsabst 3y ago
You personally benefit when that generation pays your retirement: You’re investing in society, with an expected payout in the future (via retirement benefits). What’s crazy to me is we have a whole generation who failed to pay for maintaining the machine — but who expect to be paid out anyway.
bregma 3y ago
Sure, they have to pay for those who get an education. In return, they get doctors to help them when they are sick or injured, lawyers to aid them when they are wronged or do wrong, engineers to make sure buildings do not fall on them, and myriad other benefits. Seems like a worthwhile investment.

This means people that don't go to the university and usually as a result has less income pays for people that goes, seems quite regressive

by Rucadi 3y ago

This means people that don't go to the university and usually as a result has less income pays for people that goes, seems quite regressive

LeafItAlone 3y ago

It is a model that is pre-existing though. My parents paid property taxes that funded local schools that I didn’t go to. I pay property tax for my local schools, but I don’t have children.

5350-uiop-1130 3y ago

tax rates should be based on income and you're paying for a service that's free to all. it's a principle. whether or not you use it doesn't matter, that would be selfish.

einpoklum 3y ago

1. There are more taxes other than income tax. Corporate income tax for one. Estate taxes, financial speculation tax, VAT - each world state and its own system. 2. Even regarding income tax - in most world states, tax is not flat, and most workers pay little income tax anyway (sometimes even 0, if there's a threshold for non-zero tax rate, or tax credits for various social situations etc.) So not regressive. Also, like other commenters mention - if you don't attend university, your children, or other relatives and friends, might be. Plus, we all need the higher education system to function, for modern society to function, so it makes sense that we contribute to it through some mechanism.

moooo99 3y ago

Tax rates are based on income. The less you earn, the less taxes you pay. So in that sense, you could argue you don't pay for the higher education you never received. But beyond that, there is a deeply flawed logic behind indicating the tax would be "regressive" just because you personally don't benefit from it. So long the taxes are reasonably efficiently allocated (by macroeconomic standards, not by business standards) and increase a societies overall well-being, the vast majority of people benefit from it, either directly or by proxy. There are debates to be had which kind of "services" benefit from this scheme of financing the most, but being from a country where higher education is publicly funded and having benefited from this accessibility of higher-ed as well, I can see the merits of this scheme in the context of higher-education.

zmgsabst 3y ago

You personally benefit when that generation pays your retirement: You’re investing in society, with an expected payout in the future (via retirement benefits). What’s crazy to me is we have a whole generation who failed to pay for maintaining the machine — but who expect to be paid out anyway.

bregma 3y ago

Sure, they have to pay for those who get an education. In return, they get doctors to help them when they are sick or injured, lawyers to aid them when they are wronged or do wrong, engineers to make sure buildings do not fall on them, and myriad other benefits. Seems like a worthwhile investment.