> Granted, a tiny difference is that apparently in Oregon only people who actually study pay the tax This is actually a very big difference because it complete

> Granted, a tiny difference is that apparently in Oregon only people who actually study pay the tax This is actually a very big difference because it completely changes the incentive structure. With normal taxes the college has no monetary incentive to improve the education they offer. Because the only things that can get them more money are things outside their control such as increasing the tax rate or increasing the taxable population. On the other hand in this scheme if the college has a better offering they can attract better students and better equip them to earn money. Both of which ultimately help them make more money. Furthermore the thing I like best about this idea is that it switches around the risk. In a system where students pay tuition the students put in a big chunk of capital up front hoping that it will increase their future earnings. If it doesn't they bear the loss which isn't necessarily bad but given how big the risk is (at least in the US which is what I'm familiar with) it's not great. In a normal tax system everyone bears the risk which also has some upside but when everyone bears the risk sometimes capital doesn't get distributed that well. In this system the college bears the risk which I like a lot because it makes them really evaluate how they're educating people. One problem I do see with this is that if it's not the only option you might wind up with a selection bias wherein students who don't think they'll have a high income will take the deal while others won't.