4 ms·
But isn't that just a re-hash of the age-old, and fairly weak, argument against all taxes? We all pay for things we don't use, and we all use things that other
by glesica 12y ago
But isn't that just a re-hash of the age-old, and fairly weak, argument against all taxes? We all pay for things we don't use, and we all use things that other people pay for. The point of taxes is to make large, long-term investments that the private sector won't make on its own, and university education falls squarely into that niche.
And just to head it off before it starts, no, the private sector won't fund universities, not the kind we need. The private sector will pay for job training, yes, but not real education (the kind that teaches the sorts of literacy necessary for a successful free and democratic society). Look up the difference between specific and general human capital to see why (at least partially) this is the case.
- opendais 12y agoIf you think some kind of tuition requirement, whether it is paying up front or a long term tax of 3% on income, is a bad idea...I'm really lost at what to tell you. 1) There is a cost to go to college, someone has to pay. 2) That cost needs to be borne by those people whose incomes are enhanced by going to college. 3) Simply producing "more college graduates" isn't a net positive when 60% can't find jobs in their field. If you think any of these shouldn't be true, we aren't going to agree on anything and you should stop trying. http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/10/university_of_oregon_state_to.html http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/10/univer... It isn't like I'm saying to cut state funding to the school. I'm saying if you want to raise state funding, the college graduates should pay for it. They utilize the service.