6 ms·

But if they do make more, does it not make sense for the university grad to pay that cost after they have graduated?

by jiggy2011 12y ago

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
Well they do, but indirectly, via higher income taxes (because higher pay). The Dutch school system uses what you're suggesting actually; the government offers scholarships to all students, which is effectively a (low-interest) loan; if you finish your education, that loan or part thereof (depending on whether you took an extra loan, it's complicated) is forfeited, i.e. you don't have to pay it back. The remainder can be paid off in monthly terms, but the amount you have to pay off is determined based on how much money you earn. If you are unable to get a good enough job to pay back that loan, it's forfeited after 15 or 25 years (I think it used to be 15 and they upped it recently). It's kinda complicated though, and they had some heavy cuts in the system a while ago due to the economy - which IMHO is a huge shame, since a lot of students won't choose a higher education now, causing university studies to only be in reach of the rich once again.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  But could that not also be extended to any other programme which benefits the more wealthy disproportionately? If you have two people who earn the same amount of money and one receives a service (university education) and the other does not. Does it make sense to split the costs of that service if the one who received it can afford to pay on their own?
  - maemilius 12y ago
    When put on small terms, like this, subsidized education always starts to look bad. Scaling it up makes it seem much more fair. As an American, I understand the concept of doing it yourself and not paying for things that don't benefit you. That said, I also understand that paying extra taxes to get more kids in better schools has more benefit to society than letting me keep that money. Personally, I'd be happy to subsidize it in that way. The overall cost to me is low and the overall benefit to society is quite high. It seems to me that most of the resistance comes from this "I had to do it, so you should too" mindset and it's really not beneficial to anyone. As Retic mentioned, this isn't a zero-sum game and thinking about it like it is doesn't help anyone. A better use of your example would be to point out that both of those people may have been able to pay for a third person that couldn't have afforded it otherwise. The fact that one of them could have is irrelevant.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      But if you allow the tuition payments to be deferred, as is the case in the UK then the question of who can "afford" tuition changes from being predicated on their economic position before they go to university to their expected economic position after university. If student loan repayments are capped at X% of income and you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university. The same math applies regardless of how much money you have before you start university.
      - alphydan 12y ago
        >> you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university I was unaware that the role of university was to take your salary from X to X+Delta. What if you are a better citizen, a nurse (earning less than a secretary, but contributing more), a street artist? What if you earned more as a construction worker, but instead studied science and work part time as a scientist and part time doing community work? The salary and taxes are not the only measure of your contribution to society and of the positive effect of university.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        In that case , if these professions are valuable why not simply pay them more? If someone with a science degree only does science part time then that money should be diverted to people who intend to do science full time because there is a much better ROI.
      - pedrosorio 12y ago
        And in that case, for the average 18 year old, the choice of attending University becomes a gamble (if you're poor) or business as usual (if your parents have money).
        jiggy2011 12y ago
Retric 12y ago
This get's into some really complex cost benefit analysis. They directly pay more in taxes with that extra earnings. However, something like smoking has negative externalities so a specific tax on smoking is justifiable. But, education has positive externalities so subsidizing it is justified. Consider, a doctor might make more money but the value of the lives they save is greater than their income. So, it's really a question of how much should the state subsidize education. Anyway, the direct costs of education might be paid for by the state. But, the opportunity costs are paid for by the students who could be working and getting paid vs going to school. So, even at 100% tuition reimbursement students still cover a significant fraction of the cost of a collage degree.
- shkkmo 12y ago
  Actually, calculations on the social cost of smoking are complicated. We pay more for their healthcare initially, but they die younger so we pay their social security for less time. Depending on how you calculate it, smoking can be seen to be cost neutral, or even to save the country money. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoki...
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Ignores the value of a healthy productive member of society. What was that essay about burning Hobos for fuel?
    - zhte415 12y ago
      Do you have a reference to your reference?
  - Retric 12y ago
    I have seen that argument but it ignores second hand smoke. As well as adverse health effects reducing productivity in the working population. Not to mention "Smoking cigarettes is probably the No. 1 cause of adverse outcomes for babies" http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-smoking-during-pregnancy-affects-you-and-your-baby_1405720.bc http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-smoking-during-pregnancy-aff...
zmmmmm 12y ago
You could turn that around; if they contribute more to society through their own sacrifice (years studying and learning, probably on low income), shouldn't they be rewarded for that? Does it not make sense for society to contribute something to the tremendous benefit they get from this person's sacrifice?

But if they do make more, does it not make sense for the university grad to pay that cost after they have graduated?

Well they do, but indirectly, via higher income taxes (because higher pay). The Dutch school system uses what you're suggesting actually; the government offers scholarships to all students, which is effectively a (low-interest) loan; if you finish your education, that loan or part thereof (depending on whether you took an extra loan, it's complicated) is forfeited, i.e. you don't have to pay it back. The remainder can be paid off in monthly terms, but the amount you have to pay off is determined based on how much money you earn. If you are unable to get a good enough job to pay back that loan, it's forfeited after 15 or 25 years (I think it used to be 15 and they upped it recently). It's kinda complicated though, and they had some heavy cuts in the system a while ago due to the economy - which IMHO is a huge shame, since a lot of students won't choose a higher education now, causing university studies to only be in reach of the rich once again.

jiggy2011 12y ago
But could that not also be extended to any other programme which benefits the more wealthy disproportionately? If you have two people who earn the same amount of money and one receives a service (university education) and the other does not. Does it make sense to split the costs of that service if the one who received it can afford to pay on their own?
- maemilius 12y ago
  When put on small terms, like this, subsidized education always starts to look bad. Scaling it up makes it seem much more fair. As an American, I understand the concept of doing it yourself and not paying for things that don't benefit you. That said, I also understand that paying extra taxes to get more kids in better schools has more benefit to society than letting me keep that money. Personally, I'd be happy to subsidize it in that way. The overall cost to me is low and the overall benefit to society is quite high. It seems to me that most of the resistance comes from this "I had to do it, so you should too" mindset and it's really not beneficial to anyone. As Retic mentioned, this isn't a zero-sum game and thinking about it like it is doesn't help anyone. A better use of your example would be to point out that both of those people may have been able to pay for a third person that couldn't have afforded it otherwise. The fact that one of them could have is irrelevant.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    But if you allow the tuition payments to be deferred, as is the case in the UK then the question of who can "afford" tuition changes from being predicated on their economic position before they go to university to their expected economic position after university. If student loan repayments are capped at X% of income and you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university. The same math applies regardless of how much money you have before you start university.
    - alphydan 12y ago
      >> you do not believe that getting a university degree will raise your earnings by at least X% then it probably is not in your best interest to attend university I was unaware that the role of university was to take your salary from X to X+Delta. What if you are a better citizen, a nurse (earning less than a secretary, but contributing more), a street artist? What if you earned more as a construction worker, but instead studied science and work part time as a scientist and part time doing community work? The salary and taxes are not the only measure of your contribution to society and of the positive effect of university.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        In that case , if these professions are valuable why not simply pay them more? If someone with a science degree only does science part time then that money should be diverted to people who intend to do science full time because there is a much better ROI.
    - pedrosorio 12y ago
      And in that case, for the average 18 year old, the choice of attending University becomes a gamble (if you're poor) or business as usual (if your parents have money).
      - jiggy2011 12y ago

Retric 12y ago

This get's into some really complex cost benefit analysis. They directly pay more in taxes with that extra earnings. However, something like smoking has negative externalities so a specific tax on smoking is justifiable. But, education has positive externalities so subsidizing it is justified. Consider, a doctor might make more money but the value of the lives they save is greater than their income. So, it's really a question of how much should the state subsidize education. Anyway, the direct costs of education might be paid for by the state. But, the opportunity costs are paid for by the students who could be working and getting paid vs going to school. So, even at 100% tuition reimbursement students still cover a significant fraction of the cost of a collage degree.

shkkmo 12y ago
Actually, calculations on the social cost of smoking are complicated. We pay more for their healthcare initially, but they die younger so we pay their social security for less time. Depending on how you calculate it, smoking can be seen to be cost neutral, or even to save the country money. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoki...
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Ignores the value of a healthy productive member of society. What was that essay about burning Hobos for fuel?
  - zhte415 12y ago
    Do you have a reference to your reference?
- Retric 12y ago
  I have seen that argument but it ignores second hand smoke. As well as adverse health effects reducing productivity in the working population. Not to mention "Smoking cigarettes is probably the No. 1 cause of adverse outcomes for babies" http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-smoking-during-pregnancy-affects-you-and-your-baby_1405720.bc http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-smoking-during-pregnancy-aff...

zmmmmm 12y ago

You could turn that around; if they contribute more to society through their own sacrifice (years studying and learning, probably on low income), shouldn't they be rewarded for that? Does it not make sense for society to contribute something to the tremendous benefit they get from this person's sacrifice?