# Free tuition



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Is anyone in favor of it? there's this huge 'strike', which is in fact a boycott where I reside and the big student unions are spear-heading it, what they oppose is the government plan to unfreeze tuition hikes over a 5 year period, in effect doubling the tuition costs over a 10 year period(accounting for previous hikes), while I am somewhat sympathetic for their stand against the government(there are countless other expenses that could be done instead), their stated mission on their website is free tuition, which I don't support, considering the already dirt-cheap tuition offered here, but I'm curious if people here are in favor of such a goal, or not. Thank you.


----------



## hellucid (Nov 10, 2011)

Considering I was part of the '08 - '09 class era, I have strong feelings tied to the subject of schooling and education costs. Please read on, as I will offer a brief foundation regarding my beliefs towards free tuition.

The cost of school is outrageous. At the private school level, we open discussion alongside twenty year old kid's with upwards of 100k+ in student debt. With young adults so swept up in the buzz during high school, and constant pressure from all angles emphasizing the importance of a college, the irrational nature of this decision becomes acceptable. Signing off on these astronomical sized loans becomes backdrop to the glamour. That is how these institutions are predominantly marketed off to the public.

I believe the idealization we hold to money and success clouds youths' judgement. And is a great marketing tool. And these institutions have no problem wielding this notion. The irony is most prudent parents would scoff at the idea of such grandiose investments, but we're led to believe this investment is different, with simple idioms 'college grads make more!' What are we left with? Kids shuffling one by one, to their nearest university. Some are lucky, aware of their strengths and weaknesses, others are led astray by the temptation of money, some wholeheartedly study in areas they enjoy. So, is it really worth it?

Sure, our society makes it seem so fucking unquestionable, but take a look at the most 'successful' and 'famous' people! Many of which didn't have to attend college. College boils down to status, and with the absolute gluttony of college graduates these days, the evidence all around us.

I think college should be free, at least CC. It will reduce the saturated mass of student led to believe education will pay off. With access to free tuition comes a serious consideration. Do I take free school or pay 40k/year for this private university? The parlay to attend university will be seen as a much riskier, unsafe decision, and could be the single most important thing we can do for the middle class at this point.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

I've heard that the main reason tuition is going up is that universities are needing to provide more services to at-risk students who, in previous generations, wouldn't be attending university in the first place. I personally voted for a tuition cap in my state years ago, but that was because I thought it would force the state government to up its spending. Instead, the state government is planning on cutting my university's budget by 15% - and still not letting it loose from the tuition cap. Obama's plan to institute a tuition cap on universities that receive federal aid is one of the few decisions he's made that I don't agree with. Somebody needs to explain to him why rent control is a worse idea than rent subsidies. 

I do think that a college education, just like home-ownership, are parts of the American dream. As such, then perhaps they should be subsidized. I think part of the reason for the increase in college students is the horrible economy - people can't find jobs, so they're investing their time in getting a better education. However, there are some labor shortages in skilled labor. Maybe we could offer minors in skilled labor to people going for humanities majors? 

We are already subsidizing education in the form of subsidized loans and scholarships. Free community college might be a good alternative/next step - if we can afford it. It might cut down on loan defaults, make that sector of the economy more stable.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

There's no such thing as "free" tuition. Someone is going to end up paying for it. The question is, why shouldn't that person be the student? After all, the student is seeing the direct benefit of that education. Presumably they're getting a degree to increase their marketability, so if they are making a business decision, why should someone else subsidize the cost while they reap the benefits?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

timeless said:


> There's no such thing as "free" tuition. Someone is going to end up paying for it. The question is, why shouldn't that person be the student? After all, the student is seeing the direct benefit of that education. Presumably they're getting a degree to increase their marketability, so if they are making a business decision, why should someone else subsidize the cost while they reap the benefits?


Because better education makes better citizens.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> Because better education makes better citizens.


I don't think the government should be in the business of social engineering.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

timeless said:


> I don't think the government should be in the business of social engineering.


I'm a republican, not a liberal. Government _is_ the business of social engineering.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

crazyeddie said:


> I'm a republican, not a liberal. Government _is_ the business of social engineering.


I'm always wary of when the government robs Peter to pay Paul under the theory that this somehow benefits the greater good. That's why I'm a libertarian above all else.


----------



## CoopV (Nov 6, 2011)

I dont think it should be free but there should be a lot more assistance and students should be able to file bankruptcy on loans just like any other kind of loan. My state (FL) has a scholarship program that rewards students with certain grades with a fully paid undergrad. I think more states should do that.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

timeless said:


> There's no such thing as "free" tuition. Someone is going to end up paying for it. The question is, why shouldn't that person be the student? After all, the student is seeing the direct benefit of that education. Presumably they're getting a degree to increase their marketability, so if they are making a business decision, why should someone else subsidize the cost while they reap the benefits?


My thoughts exactly, the protesting students here are so idiotic at times, their higher education is financed up to a whooping 80% from the public, and now that the government wants to raise fees(which I'm against in this particular case), the big student 'unions' whose goal is free tuition, blocked a major bridge in Montreal, in other words imposing costs on the very people who they want to subsidize their education(or lack thereof) to an even greater extent, what a gigantic pile of idiocy.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Berea College charges no tuition. Students work at various jobs on campus, instead of paying tuition. When they graduate from college, they are debt free.
Check it out: Berea College


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

walking tourist said:


> Berea College charges no tuition. Students work at various jobs on campus, instead of paying tuition. When they graduate from college, they are debt free.
> Check it out: Berea College


More importantly, the collectivity is debt-free as well.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

I believe that subsidizing Universities devalues them, but I'd rather they be devalued than have swarms of undereducated people. 



timeless said:


> I'm always wary of when the government robs Peter to pay Paul under the theory that this somehow benefits the greater good. That's why I'm a libertarian above all else.


Of all the silly reasons to steal, stealing to educate others is probably the least evil.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

Nomen Nescio said:


> I believe that subsidizing Universities devalues them


In the UK, I believe not subsidising the unis would devalue them. Currently, UK unis get around 1/3 of their funding from student fees, 1/3 from government bodies and 1/3 from other sources like research grants. Even with the student loan scheme here, raising fees to cover 50 - 100% of the total cost of running a uni would put poorer students off from going to uni. Then add to that that the student loan scheme probably wouldn't cover private institutions, so you'd have some unis wanting their fees up front or making students take out regular loans to cover their tuition that would damage their credit rating. We'd end up with an elitist system where you can only go to the top unis if you are from a rich family.

In a perfect world, I'd have no funding of tuition fees from government bodies, but in reality I can't see it working.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

timeless said:


> I'm always wary of when the government robs Peter to pay Paul under the theory that this somehow benefits the greater good. That's why I'm a libertarian above all else.


A citizen is not the same as a subject. A citizen is a person who helps _create_ the republic, and the government is the servant of the citizen in this task. A subject is the 'child' of the government. As a citizen, you have duties to the commonwealth. The government, at least in theory, is merely our agent in the task of carrying out our duties of citizenship. Under a legitimate government, taxes are not robbery, but merely you paying your membership dues. Of course, there is the question of whether there is such a thing as a legitimate government.

Is it robbery to be required to pay child support?

I believe you have the right to unilaterally renounce your citizenship. However, if you do so, the relationship between you and the rest of the republic will revert to the State of Nature, which is the state of War of All Against All. And you will be considerably outnumbered and outgunned. 

I said that education makes better citizens. By this, I did not mean that education makes better subjects - if anything, the opposite is true. Education doesn't just mean indoctrination, it means teaching you how to think for yourself. A literate person is half-free, even in chains. I support taxing citizens in order to pay for public education because it enhances freedom.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> I said that education makes better citizens. By this, I did not mean that education makes better subjects - if anything, the opposite is true. Education doesn't just mean indoctrination, it means teaching you how to think for yourself. A literate person is half-free, even in chains. I support taxing citizens in order to pay for public education because it enhances freedom.


The people benefiting from the higher salary education offers them* clearly have more freedom when other people bear the cost of their education, the folks who don't want to go to school and opt for another field of work being forced to subsidize people with higher future income are less free, your mistake is to base your assumption on the state of affairs of one dimension of the population, in that case the people who receive benefits from fully subsidized education.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> The people benefiting from the higher salary education offers them* clearly have more freedom when other people bear the cost of their education, the folks who don't want to go to school and opt for another field of work being forced to subsidize people with higher future income are less free, your mistake is to base your assumption on the state of affairs of one dimension of the population, in that case the people who receive benefits from fully subsidized education.


Depends on what you mean by 'freedom.' For me, freedom means the ability to achieve self-actualization, to become the person you want to be. If you're poor, being taxed might reduce your ability to achieve self-actualization, but if you're rich, not so much. At this point in time, using tax money to pay for free-to-the-user K-12 education provides a net gain in freedom, in my judgement. The same with some level of subsidies for post-secondary education. I'm not sure about free college tuition, though.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Depends on what you mean by 'freedom.' For me, freedom means the ability to achieve self-actualization, to become the person you want to be. If you're poor, being taxed might reduce your ability to achieve self-actualization, but if you're rich, not so much. At this point in time, using tax money to pay for free-to-the-user K-12 education provides a net gain in freedom, in my judgement. The same with some level of subsidies for post-secondary education. I'm not sure about free college tuition, though.


I'd happily accept that assessment if the state of education today was at least maintaining a level of decent quality, but clearly they don't, the special interest groups fighting for free tuition keep rambling on about access, which would be great in a world where poorer body-able students couldn't manage to stay alive while holding a job and studying to get a return later in life, but this is far from being the case and, education costs far more than it ever has, another question could be: Is it fair that poorer kids have to get out of school with a heavier debt load than their rich middle-class counterparts who had help from parents? if your answer is no, and your solution is guaranteed free tuition, then I don't see how one couldn't argue that this unfairness is present in all fields of life, and there you have the justification to have a full blown, state-run economy.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> I'd happily accept that assessment if the state of education today was at least maintaining a level of decent quality, but clearly they don't, the special interest groups fighting for free tuition keep rambling on about access, which would be great in a world where poorer body-able students couldn't manage to stay alive while holding a job and studying to get a return later in life, but this is far from being the case and, education costs far more than it ever has, another question could be: Is it fair that poorer kids have to get out of school with a heavier debt load than their rich middle-class counterparts who had help from parents? if your answer is no, and your solution is guaranteed free tuition, then I don't see how one couldn't argue that this unfairness is present in all fields of life, and there you have the justification to have a full blown, state-run economy.


I don't justify it in terms of fairness - I'll leave that to the left-libertarians like John Rawls. I'm a republican (note lower case 'r'). I justify it in terms of the option that gives the greatest net gain in freedom. There is a trade-off between the freedom gained by making it easier and more affordable for poorer young adults to get a good education, and the freedom lost due to an increased tax burden. At this point, I don't think I can justify free tuition at the college level, just subsidized tuition. Unfortunately, this has lead to tuition increases, since colleges have to provide additional services to students with less-than-elite secondary educations, and/or the first in their family to go to college.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> I'd happily accept that assessment if the state of education today was at least maintaining a level of decent quality, but clearly they don't,


I dispute this claim.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> I don't justify it in terms of fairness - I'll leave that to the left-libertarians like John Rawls. I'm a republican (note lower case 'r'). I justify it in terms of the option that gives the greatest net gain in freedom. There is a trade-off between the freedom gained by making it easier and more affordable for poorer young adults to get a good education, and the freedom lost due to an increased tax burden. At this point, I don't think I can justify free tuition at the college level, just subsidized tuition. Unfortunately, this has lead to tuition increases, since colleges have to provide additional services to students with less-than-elite secondary educations, and/or the first in their family to go to college.


that's the thing, colleges receiving public funds have all the incentive to raise their student fees, because their funding or lack thereof often is sold under the guise of ''access for all'', this leads to situation where colleges play the carrot game to get funding, while actually reducing access to quality education, they may have greater access (access = physical presence and actual capability to pay), but what good on earth does it do if the investment leads to nothing? everyone loses in this scenario, with a few, select expeptions, moreover, most of the assumptions about gov. subsidies being necessary so the poorer class has the opportunity to study are that every single lower-class person is willing and able to go there, and that statistics showing greater attendance in college is good, but once again, access =/= results, the only unchanging variable here is the fact that people with the necessary skills and motivation to attend are going to have their bills covered by the collectivity(ie: the working class, a good chunk of whom will end up subsidizing people with far greater financial means than they themselves have.



crazyeddie said:


> I dispute this claim.


You can't dispute the fact that it is getting harder and harder to get jobs with the same theoretical amount of education than before.
bust since your position on education is that it should aim for self-actualization, I'm not sure if you associate that goal with college actually allowing you to get a job later on, or if that expectation isn't supported by you.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

Pillow said:


> The total cost of running a uni would put poorer students off from going to uni. Then add to that that the student loan scheme probably wouldn't cover private institutions, so you'd have some unis wanting their fees up front or making students take out regular loans to cover their tuition that would damage their credit rating. *We'd end up with an elitist system* where you can only go to the top unis if you are from a rich family.


That was kind of my point. Universities has turned into a sort of social necessity when it use to be an institution for high achievers. In the past, you either had to be wealthy or intelligent (scholarships) to have a university degree, but now people go to University for completely silly degrees simply because it is expected of them. So in a sense, it could be argued that a University degree has become nothing more than a way for employers to weed out the lazy people from the hard workers.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> that's the thing, colleges receiving public funds have all the incentive to raise their student fees,


Not if you factor in competition. I went to a "value college" as an undergrad, now I'm going to the flagship public college in my state as a grad student. Even with tuition subsidies, there would be considerable pressure for colleges to keep tuition as low as possible in order to increase enrollment. Alternatively, if there were free public community colleges, there would still be private universities selling "quality" degrees at a premium. However, given the current economy, so many people are furthering their education because they can't find jobs that enrollments are going through the roof. My state has a tuition cap, and that, along with state budget cuts, means that my university is having to teach more and more students with less and less budget. My university is raising student fees (which my TA stipend doesn't cover :/) because that is the only way it can increase revenue. 

Subsidies are one thing, rent control is another :/ Hate to say it, but I _voted_ for the tuition cap, years ago, because I thought that it would force the state government to increase its share of the budget. That didn't happen....



Cover3 said:


> while actually reducing access to quality education, they may have greater access (access = physical presence and actual capability to pay), but what good on earth does it do if the investment leads to nothing?


Hopefully, the investment will lead to something. If not in terms of marketable skills, then at least greater self-actualization.



Cover3 said:


> are going to have their bills covered by the collectivity(ie: the working class, a good chunk of whom will end up subsidizing people with far greater financial means than they themselves have.


Hurrah for the progressive income tax. Or lack of it, since the GOP is fighting raising taxes on the rich with tooth and claw, despite tax burdens being at historic lows. And _kept_ at historic lows while we fought two wars. If you vote for the GOP, don't blame me that the tax burden is falling so heavily on the working class. Or on people with fixed incomes, since low taxes -> deficit spending -> inflationary 'tax' on fixed incomes. Any plan to reduce the deficit is going to have to involve tax increases, since we've slashed services until people are screaming.



Cover3 said:


> You can't dispute the fact that it is getting harder and harder to get jobs with the same theoretical amount of education than before. bust since your position on education is that it should aim for self-actualization, I'm not sure if you associate that goal with college actually allowing you to get a job later on, or if that expectation isn't supported by you.


I agree that it is harder and harder to get jobs with the same theoretical amount of education. But that has more to do with the current state of the economy than anything else. When the economy recovers, we will almost certainly benefit from having one of the most educated labor pools in history. And I would say that the quality of education we provide has advanced in absolute terms.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> Hurrah for the progressive income tax. Or lack of it, since the GOP is fighting raising taxes on the rich with tooth and claw, despite tax burdens being at historic lows. And kept at historic lows while we fought two wars. If you vote for the GOP, don't blame me that the tax burden is falling so heavily on the working class. Or on people with fixed incomes, since low taxes -> deficit spending -> inflationary 'tax' on fixed incomes. Any plan to reduce the deficit is going to have to involve tax increases, since we've slashed services until people are screaming.


In a world where every single government action(taking of money from some to give to others) are limited to public services for less privileged people, and that those services are by definition achieving the work they set out to do to the extent that people are taxed to provide this, I guess a progressive tax rate would make sense, but both these criterias are not present now, it comes down to whether you believe in a government with limited ability to pick it's citizens pockets to provide some perceived need of the population(emphasis on perceived), or whether you believe the level of taxation should be adapted to meet the needs of an expanding government, therefore justifying progressively taxing people to whatever amount is needed to achieve deficit zero, this is what baffles me because the people holding these views often see themselves as leftists, socialists or ''social-democrats'', whereas in concrete reality they're closet utilitarians.



> I agree that it is harder and harder to get jobs with the same theoretical amount of education. But that has more to do with the current state of the economy than anything else. When the economy recovers, we will almost certainly benefit from having one of the most educated labor pools in history. And I would say that the quality of education we provide has advanced in absolute terms.


Do you believe constant governmental intervention in the marketplace has any responsibility towards the state of the economy we're in today? I also don't understand the point you make when you say that government subsidies toward education has improved education quality, yet you don't want to fully take it over? Your reasoning seems quite linear here, how can you say that arbitrary-determined gov. subsidies have massively improved overall education quality, but then say that a full subsidy might not?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> In a world where every single government action(taking of money from some to give to others) are limited to public services for less privileged people,


All states, in order to exist, must perform some combination of legitimizing and/or coercive activities. In some cases, the state can gain the resources to do this through 'rent' - by directly controlling some resource such as land or oil. However, in our society, the state can only gain the resources to perform legitimizing or coercive activities by taxing the very individuals these activities are performed for/on. This places some limits on government action, since for each individual the costs of taxes must be less than (the benefits of legitimizing activities + the cost of resisting coercive activities), or else the individual will defect from the social contract the state has imposed. This is especially true in democracies, where a change in government does not require a change in regime.

However, this is more true for individuals who have the resources needed to resist the government, or at least have an effect on governmental policy through lobbying. In other words, the rich. The rich have more of a say in the halls of power than the poor. This is less true in this nation than in others (China comes to mind), but it is still true.

The progressive income tax is one way of extracting revenue from the economy. It has the least impact on the economy per dollar of revenue generated of just about any taxation policy. This is because the rich have a lower Marginal Propensity to Consume than the poor. The MPC affects the income multiplier. Because you want to maximize spending in the economy, and the rich are more likely to invest their money than they are to spend it, taxing a rich person a dollar hurts the economy much less than taxing a poor person a dollar.

Thanks to inflation, the GOP, and the fact that, barring a groundswell of populism, the rich typically have more of a say in government that the poor, the taxes in this nation have become dangerously flat. Even if we reduce government spending to the extent that is politically feasible, we are going to have to generate more governmental revenues in order to bring the deficit under control. (Which is _not_ the same as no deficit.) Making the income tax more progressive is the best way of maximizing government revenue while minimizing impact on the economy. Period.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

Cover3 said:


> In a world where every single government action(taking of money from some to give to others) are limited to public services for less privileged people, and that those services are by definition achieving the work they set out to do to the extent that people are taxed to provide this, I guess a progressive tax rate would make sense


Progressive taxation makes sense because taxing the poor, when they have no money makes them counter productive to society, while taxing the rich only makes them slightly less rich. 



Cover3 said:


> what baffles me because the people holding these views often see themselves as leftists, socialists or ''social-democrats'', whereas in concrete reality they're closet utilitarians.


I don't know why this surprises you, socialism has always been about removing unhappiness through social security.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> this is what baffles me because the people holding these views often see themselves as leftists, socialists or ''social-democrats'', whereas in concrete reality they're closet utilitarians.


I am not a closet utilitarian. Utility is a good-making feature of a policy, but it is not the sole good-making feature of a policy. And why do you believe there is a conflict? Mill, who wrote the book on utilitarianism (literally), was a "liberal." (Which is actually to the right of republicanism. Liberal: The king should go easy on the people. Republicanism: Off with the king's head!) 

I'm also not a social democrat, since I support the notion of human production, not social production. I certainly don't think that the government should seize the means of production, which very few social democrats endorse, these days.



Cover3 said:


> Do you believe constant governmental intervention in the marketplace has any responsibility towards the state of the economy we're in today?


The _lack_ of "constant government intervention in the marketplace" as you call it, or "regulation" as it is widely known, is what got us into the mess we're in. First off, you have the agent-principle problem of agents of large financial corporations taking stupid risks because the corporation's bonus system rewarded short-term gains and ignored long-term dangers. The shareholders might have been able to do something about this, but they were facing information asymmetry problems, that, hopefully, governmental regulators wouldn't have. Then you have firms that have been allowed to get too large. If just a few small firms were idiots, they might not have taken the whole financial sector down with them. But when you have really big idiots... And _then_ thanks to de-regulation, the financial sector was allowed to get entangled with the insurance sector. If we had proper regulation, there would have been firewalls in place to contain the collapse. And then....

More regulation might have placed more of a load on the economy, slowing its growth. But it would also have prevented such a catastrophic collapse. The worst part is that these obvious fixes STILL HAVEN'T BEEN PUT INTO PLACE!!!!! We're still vulnerable to another bubble once the financial sector completes its recovery!



Cover3 said:


> I also don't understand the point you make when you say that government subsidies toward education has improved education quality,


I never made that claim. It's possible that without government subsidies, the absolute educational benefit each dollar buys would have increased just as much. Education, like all professions, does advance its techniques as time goes by. It's just that without government subsidies, those educational benefits will be limited to an elite, and a poorly educated populace is a bad thing to have in a republic. 

That, and as a republican, one of the 'legitimizing activities' a state needs to perform is to promote freedom, and if the government made it so that only the fat cats could learn their ABCs, I certainly wouldn't be getting a good return on my tax dollars.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Oh, you just introduced the debate-killer... ''politically feasible'', if we're going by that standard, then sure, I fully support the most utilitarian system of taxation, because I bet over 70% of the things you think are not changeable/removeable because of lack of political will are actually serving the rich to a much greater extent than the poor you claim to want to help, so sure, tax the rich more to meet the expectations of public-revenue hungry entrepreneurs, if that makes the slightest sense, but know that you'll end up hurting the poor as well as the ''rich'' to the benefit of the wealthiest.



> The MPC affects the income multiplier. Because you want to maximize spending in the economy, and the rich are more likely to invest their money than they are to spend it, taxing a rich person a dollar hurts the economy much less than taxing a poor person a dollar.


What do they invest their money in? You assume that any large-scale investment is a zero-sum gain, which is a fallacy to begin with, but then you claim that taking away a fixed % of those earnings to be used by government will by definition turn it into a fully productive and helpful endeavor. Basically you're saying that governmental spending is somehow devoid of any personal self-interest, bias or conflict of interest, and benefits all, whereas private activity is selfish and is always constitutes a zero-sum gain as far as society is concerned. 



> However, this is more true for individuals who have the resources needed to resist the government, or at least have an effect on governmental policy through lobbying. In other words, the rich. The rich have more of a say in the halls of power than the poor. This is less true in this nation than in others (China comes to mind), but it is still true.


The rich will always lobby, always, and without quite realizing it, you are proving my point, governments which act as slot machines handing out other people's money to special interests are much more likely to fall into the hands of the very rich you deem have too much power over policy-making, you're expecting an all-powerful government with power of taxation over everyone to somehow just tax the richest and then expect these people being taxed not to use their power to tip the scale their way with whatever means they have left after that, theoretically it would work in a system within which public servants are holy angels and would make sure that every dollar collected via taxes goes to the appropriate places, but in reality you cannot ask of anybody to spend somebody else's money as well as he would have spent it on his own, WHILE asking that person to set aside their own self-interest.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> because I bet over 70% of the things you think are not changeable/removeable because of lack of political will are actually serving the rich to a much greater extent than the poor you claim to want to help


Citation, or it didn't happen. 

If the government broke down, no military, no police, which would you prefer to be: poor? Or rich enough to afford some mercenaries?

Joseph Tainter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Social Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Cover3 said:


> You assume that any large-scale investment is a zero-sum gain,


No, I'm saying that investment increases the supply side of the equation, while what you need to stimulate the economy is the demand side. Supply side economics just plain don't work - it's like trying to push a rope. Anybody who tells you differently has been bitten by a voodoo economics zombie. "Supply side economics" is a political strategy, not a defensible economic theory.

Paradox of thrift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Cover3 said:


> which is a fallacy to begin with, but then you claim that taking away a fixed % of those earnings to be used by government will by definition turn it into a fully productive and helpful endeavor.


In terms of stimulating the economy, government spending would do that even if we were just paying people to dig holes and then fill them back up. Ideally, government spending will be at least a _little_ bit more useful than that.



Cover3 said:


> Basically you're saying that governmental spending is somehow devoid of any personal self-interest, bias or conflict of interest, and benefits all, whereas private activity is selfish and is always constitutes a zero-sum gain as far as society is concerned.


Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Cover3 said:


> in reality you cannot ask of anybody to spend somebody else's money as well as he would have spent it on his own, WHILE asking that person to set aside their own self-interest.


Child support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The citizen is the parent of the people. The rich are citizens too. America: Love it or leave it!


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Nomen Nescio said:


> 1. Progressive taxation makes sense because taxing the poor, when they have no money makes them counter productive to society, while taxing the rich only makes them slightly less rich.
> 
> 2. I don't know why this surprises you, socialism has always been about removing unhappiness through social security.


1. If that's your basis to justify progressive taxation, would you argue against taxing revenue of say 300 000$/year to the tune of 85% while taxing the people with 45k/year at a 10% rate? If the objective is to fund whatever government budget/apparatus costs, and that any taxation that doesn't render someone unable to live is okay, I'll be waiting for the creative argument you come up with to say why my proposal isn't justified based on the principles you just spelled out.

2. The objective isn't what baffles me, the stubbornness with which those who advocate such a system refuse to admit the failure of their policies and claim that more of it will do it does.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

Cover3 said:


> If that's your basis to justify progressive taxation, would you argue against taxing revenue of say 300 000$/year to the tune of 85% while taxing the people with 45k/year at a 10% rate? If the objective is to fund whatever government budget/apparatus costs, and that any taxation that doesn't render someone unable to live is okay, I'll be waiting for the creative argument you come up with to say why my proposal isn't justified based on the principles you just spelled out.


Oh stop being silly, why would I play the devil's advocate against my own argument? You know full well that no one would ever endorse taxation at such an absurd rate and the reasoning behind it. You don't need me to make your arguments for you. 



Cover3 said:


> The objective isn't what baffles me, the stubbornness with which those who advocate such a system refuse to admit the failure of their policies and claim that more of it will do it does.


Political extremists will be political extremists, and I advocate neither. The best solution will not be found on either side of extremes but in the center.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> Citation, or it didn't happen.
> 
> If the government broke down, no military, no police, which would you prefer to be: poor? Or rich enough to afford some mercenaries?


The government has grown constantly since the great depression, the income inequality has widened hugely, is it just a coincidence or will you just blame capitalism for it?

Why post the wiki definition of straw-man if you're going to shove one at me beforehand?...



> No, I'm saying that investment increases the supply side of the equation, while what you need to stimulate the economy is the demand side. Supply side economics just plain don't work - it's like trying to push a rope. Anybody who tells you differently has been bitten by a voodoo economics zombie. "Supply side economics" is a political strategy, not a defensible economic theory.


Clearly you failed to read the criticism part, or even include it in your statement, I might as well argue the opposite, post the def. of supply-side economics, and call it a day, you're associating principles with actual political actions, but just on my side, you come off as a slightly less arrogant shahada.

I was getting started on diligently answering each of your points but I just noticed you posted twice, which will eat up my time too much for the rest of the day, plus your claim that lack of regulation caused the bubble coupled with your child support claim really discouraged me, there's only 24 hours in a day, and walking you through each fallacy involved is likely going to use up more of my time than I'm willing to spare right now

Last thing, you blame ''de-regulation'' as the cause of the bubble, i:e dismantling glass-steagall, the sad thing is that should we have a similar conversation just after the repeal of G-S, I'm sure you would have fully endorsed the move, because it was done under the guise of helping poorer people afford a home, while the government guaranteed the mortgages(i:e guaranteed the wall street bets), that particular 'deregulation' was sold on a bi-partisan basis, the GOP knew it'd benefit the big financiers, but would still get to act tough when the market would inevitably collapse, and the democrats would just get to blame deregulation, capitalism, and greed for the mess, you,re basically completely ignoring the root cause of why this was allowed to happen.



Nomen Nescio said:


> Oh stop being silly, why would I play the devil's advocate against my own argument? You know full well that no one would ever endorse taxation at such an absurd rate and the reasoning behind it. You don't need me to make your arguments for you.
> 
> 
> Political extremists will be political extremists, and I advocate neither. The best solution will not be found on either side of extremes but in the center.


Okay, so what happens when a ''center'' type of taxation isn't enough to cover the increasing costs? You're the one who claimed it was okay to tax the rich progressively because they'd only be ''slightly less rich'', what's slightly? who determines this? what if my example of 85% rate only applied to people earning over 5 million? we have a taxation rate of 50+% for over 80k of earnings here, I call that absurd(considering the obsolete/inefficient things bought with the collected revenue), but some people call for even more, so while it's easy to wash your hands of the question and claim that putting the rates at a perceived and arbitrary 'center', it doesn't prove the validity of the points you tried to make.


Political extremists will be political extremists, and I advocate neither. The best solution will not be found on either side of extremes but in the center.[/QUOTE]

Okay, so what happens when a ''center'' type of taxation isn't enough to cover the increasing costs? You're the one who claimed it was okay to tax the rich progressively because they'd only be ''slightly less rich'', what's slightly? who determines this? what if my example of 85% rate only applied to people earning over 5 million? we


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

Bottom line is, it's the public that needs to decide if they want free education or same/lower tax rate. I think it's absurd for the public to want free education while protesting whenever polititans talk about raising tax. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

The idea that we can just pass the cost onto the 1% is not a permanent solution.

Ps. I personally support lower tax rate, and have the people who want education pay for it. I don't see the downside of everyone getting a tax break and have the people who want educatuon pay the true cost of it.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

alphacat said:


> Ps. I personally support lower tax rate, and have the people who want education pay for it. I don't see the downside of everyone getting a tax break and have the people who want educatuon pay the true cost of it.


Is this for K-12, or just college?


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

I think wealthy people should get educated and poor people should dig ditches and/or join the military. What I mean is that I have trouble viewing this issue and others like it in terms other than that of class warfare.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> I think wealthy people should get educated and poor people should dig ditches and/or join the military.


If you're going to post here why won't you at least give a coherent response instead of polluting internet space with your unoriginal platitudes?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> If you're going to post here why won't you at least give a coherent response instead of polluting internet space with your unoriginal platitudes?


Thereby saving space for your unoriginal platitudes?


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Thereby saving space for your unoriginal platitudes?


Closely followed by your quadriple-posting load of demagogic, unrelated anecdotes, yes.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Cover3 said:


> If you're going to post here why won't you at least give a coherent response instead of polluting internet space with your unoriginal platitudes?


Rather than an "unoriginal platitude" I think of it as an off-hand form of an _reductio ad absurdum_ argument. To embrace letting everyone fend for themselves is to give the privileged more privileges and to ensure that those who are destitute remain so. I find the morality (or lack there of) bound to this position to be cruel, barbaric and most importantly, unchristian. Thus demonstrating that the position is patently absurd.

As an aside, "As long as I am well provided for, what care I for the rest" is the battle-cry of Satanism. I'm surprised how many people willingly rally under this motto, especially conservative Christians.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> Closely followed by your quadriple-posting load of demagogic, unrelated anecdotes, yes.


Yes, I do remember that one time....


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Rather than an "unoriginal platitude" I think of it as an off-hand form of an _reductio ad absurdum_ argument. To embrace letting everyone fend for themselves is to give the privileged more privileges and to ensure that those who are destitute remain so. I find the morality (or lack there of) bound to this position to be cruel, barbaric and most importantly, unchristian. Thus demonstrating that the position is patently absurd.
> 
> As an aside, "As long as I am well provided for, what care I for the rest" is the battle-cry of Satanism. I'm surprised how many people willingly rally under this motto, especially conservative Christians.


And this post is a form of off-topic discussion, the OP asks if you agree with free tuition for college or not, your loaded statements don't bring anything substantive to this particular debate, though I have to say it's certainly more entertaining than crazyed's opinions on the economic crash and vague-as-vapor solutions.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Is this for K-12, or just college?


College, since changing the K-12 system is not realistic, as it would probably cause a significant riot and the downfall of our government.

Also, I do believe that basic math and language skills taught in K-12 is necessary for anyone to be in the labor force today. College, on the other hand, should be paid by the people who actually want to go, rather than subsidized by the masses.



EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> Rather than an "unoriginal platitude" I think of it as an off-hand form of an _reductio ad absurdum_ argument. To embrace letting everyone fend for themselves is to give the privileged more privileges and to ensure that those who are destitute remain so. I find the morality (or lack there of) bound to this position to be cruel, barbaric and most importantly, unchristian. Thus demonstrating that the position is patently absurd.
> 
> As an aside, "As long as I am well provided for, what care I for the rest" is the battle-cry of Satanism. I'm surprised how many people willingly rally under this motto, especially conservative Christians.


Huh, what does Christianity have to do with anything? Our country is 'supposed to be' a meritocracy. People are suppose to work for their keeps, not given stuff by the government. The government is supposed to be there to ensure peace, and basic rights, not to redistribute wealth. Morality is relative, hence is why your argument is moot once you start telling people what is moral and what is not.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> Is anyone in favor of it? there's this huge 'strike', which is in fact a boycott where I reside and the big student unions are spear-heading it, what they oppose is the government plan to unfreeze tuition hikes over a 5 year period, in effect doubling the tuition costs over a 10 year period(accounting for previous hikes), while I am somewhat sympathetic for their stand against the government(there are countless other expenses that could be done instead), their stated mission on their website is free tuition, which I don't support, considering the already dirt-cheap tuition offered here, but I'm curious if people here are in favor of such a goal, or not. Thank you.


I'm in favor of it. 
In my state not only has financial aid been cut but tuition costs have gone up. 
Because I value education of the masses, I value education. 
Because I value education, I endorse education being affordable and easily accessible.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

Cover3 said:


> Okay, so what happens when a ''center'' type of taxation isn't enough to cover the increasing costs?


Either cut spending or increase tax. It's rocket science man!



Cover3 said:


> You're the one who claimed it was okay to tax the rich progressively because they'd only be ''slightly less rich'', what's slightly? who determines this?


When there is no longer any incentive to make money, progressive taxation has gone too far. My biggest concern is the overwhelming power lobbyist have and their affect on taxation. Mitt Romney, for example, was only taxed at 14% despite making $20 million in 2010 because he lobbied against closing up the loophole that allowed him to legally escape taxation.



Cover3 said:


> 'center' works well in small debate like here, it doesn't prove the validity of the points you tried to make.


 Center works because it allows for flexibility. There are too many variables to account for in human society and because of this, there will never be one perfect system. If you want to survive, you must be flexible.



Cover3 said:


> vague-as-vapor solutions.


You call it vague, I call it simplistic. If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> And this post is a form of off-topic discussion, the OP asks if you agree with free tuition for college or not, your loaded statements don't bring anything substantive to this particular debate, though I agree it's certainly more entertaining than crazyed's opinions on the economic crash and vague-as-vapor solutions.


Oh, I'm sorry. Was I supposed to be entertaining? I thought I was doing my civic duty in schooling you in basic macroeconomics, which you could learn at any of our public universities  And the tuition was even free!


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

alphacat said:


> Huh, what does Christianity have to do with anything?


I'm just infatuated with the incongruity between being Christian and being fiscally conservative. That's all. 



> Our country is 'supposed to be' a meritocracy. People are suppose to work for their keeps, not given stuff by the government. The government is supposed to be there to ensure peace, and basic rights, not to redistribute wealth. Morality is relative, hence is why your argument is moot once you start telling people what is moral and what is not.


"supposed to be a meritocracy" 
"the government is not to redistribute wealth"
Citations needed!

Are you saying that morality plays no role in the distribution of wealth in this country? Or perhaps morality _should_ play no role?

This is the barbarism that I seen in fiscal conservatism. To stick to an ideal at the expense of human suffering. This essentially propagates a class system where a person's future is decided at birth. The whole "working for your keeps" becomes an absurd platitude when some people are written off as economically nonviable while others are handed everything. 

I don't think it's a viable position to merely retreat to one's idealized interpretation of what government should be instead of confronting issues of social injustice. In other words, you can't just rationalize the marginalized people of this country out of a discussion.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. Was I supposed to be entertaining? I thought I was doing my civic duty in schooling you in basic macroeconomics, which you could learn at any of our public universities  And the tuition was even free!


No wonder they told you de-regulation was the ''cause''.... isn't it ironic that in your first post you voice your support for government help for americans to own homes, and then cry about 'deregulation' when the whole thing crashes after the government came in, guaranteed loans, destroys glass-steagall, all under the guise of 'making more homes affordable for more americans', and the whole deal was supported by your dear democrats... It would seem nothing _is _free.


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> No wonder they told you de-regulation was the ''cause''.... isn't it ironic that in your first post you voice your support for government help for americans to own homes, and then cry about 'deregulation' when the whole thing crashes after the government came in, guaranteed loans, destroys glass-steagall, all under the guise of 'making more homes affordable for more americans', and the whole deal was supported by your dear democrats... It would seem nothing _is _free.


I'll admit that home owner subsidies played a role. But so did the crap economy, where the housing market was about the only thing moving. And, yeah, Glass-Steagall might have been thrown out under Clinton, but if my admittedly spotty memory serves, it was the Republicans in Congress that did it.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> I'll admit that home owner subsidies played a role. But so did the crap economy, where the housing market was about the only thing moving. And, yeah, Glass-Steagall might have been thrown out under Clinton, but if my admittedly spotty memory serves, it was the Republicans in Congress that did it.


want to try again?

YEAS	NAYS NV
REPUBLICAN	207	5 10
DEMOCRATIC	155	51 5
INDEPENDENT 1 
TOTALS 362	57 15


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> want to try again?
> 
> YEAS	NAYS NV
> REPUBLICAN	207	5 10
> ...


Cover, I admittedly have only a 'free' education in math, but 207 > 155, yes? So, I would say that Republicans also have the lion's share of the blame on this one.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Cover, I admittedly have only a 'free' education in math, but 207 > 155, yes? So, I would say that Republicans also have the lion's share of the blame on this one.


That's not the point, I don't think republicans are any better than democrats on most issues, but the repeal was supported by a great majority of democrats, and their whole leadership as well, so to suggest that the republicans forced the democrats to repeal this is a funny proposition, I thought it only existed in the mythical realms of the democrats partisan forums...










You can always retort with ''well... THEY SUPPORTED IT LESS, MY TEAM WINS!''


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> That's not the point, I don't think republicans are any better than democrats on most issues, but the repeal was supported by a great majority of democrats, and their whole leadership as well, so to suggest that the republicans forced the democrats to repeal this is a funny proposition, I thought it only existed in the mythical realms of the democrats partisan forums...


So, since this bill reduced the constant involvement of government in the marketplace, is this a case where you support what the leadership of the Democratic party?


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> I'm just infatuated with the incongruity between being Christian and being fiscally conservative. That's all.


I don't see a conflict between these two things. The Bible tells individuals to give up some of their individual wealth (or whatever their talents are) in service of others. It does not mandate that we should establish a government that takes wealth from some people and gives it to other people under the threat of force.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't really have a problem with the way things are now. I go to a private school with a huge endowment and get hefty grants from them to pay my tuition since I don't have the means to do it myself. The other students who go here whose parents are investment bankers or whatever do pay for it themselves. Everyone just pays what they can. That's why financial aid exists at the federal and school level. If it didn't, that would be a bit unfair. But since it does, I don't see anything wrong with schools charging money they need in order to operate.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

I rescind what I said earlier. 
I think the best idea is to keep people ignorant. The less they know the better.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> So, since this bill reduced the constant involvement of government in the marketplace, is this a case where you support what the leadership of the Democratic party?


I'm non-partisan 

I don't support or oppose G-S, with the FDIC guaranteeing banks, low interest rates, government-sanctioned rating agencies, you'd be hard-pressed to claim that the repeal of glass-steagall reduced government intervention, it only allowed banks to become even bigger, which would be perfectly fine if the things I just mentioned weren't so because then they'd have to face the losses down the line, in which case the whole bubble couldn't possibly have been financed.



marzipan01 said:


> I rescind what I said earlier.
> I think the best idea is to keep people ignorant. The less they know the better.


You don't have to give things away in order for them to be available, why not stop charging money for houses? do you want to keep people homeless?


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> I don't support or oppose G-S


Now you're being vaguer than me, which by the transitive property of vagueness means.... I'm prepared to admit that the Democrats made a mistake - if you're prepared to admit that regulation can sometimes be a good thing. Or at least say what you do support. Turn about is fair play!


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> I
> You don't have to give things away in order for them to be available, why not stop charging money for houses? do you want to keep people homeless?


Hey, man, I have a solution to all our problems. I think we should leave the matter of homelessness up to state appointed aristocrats. 
I agree with this blog. This person seems to have it all explained pretty well: 

Feudalism « arcadianunderground


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

crazyeddie said:


> Now you're being vaguer than me, which by the transitive property of vagueness means.... I'm prepared to admit that the Democrats made a mistake - if you're prepared to admit that regulation can sometimes be a good thing. Or at least say what you do support. Turn about is fair play!


 I support real interest rates and a situation where the government doesn't intervene in these things, but the answer is not to regulate for the sake of regulation, what must happen is the possibility of going bankrupt should you be making overly risky decisions, if there's no governmental or semi-g. body to shift the buck to when shit hits the fan, no sensible bank would risk making such hazardous moves.

As for your proposition, the ultimate regulation is the responsibility one bears for his/her decisions, in the case of the last bubble, the responsibility was shifted to the collectivity while the problem that created it was government-backed, remove the government guarantees and no bank would have been able to finance such a mess, much less be able to be bailed out by them.



marzipan01 said:


> Hey, man, I have a solution to all our problems. I think we should leave the matter of homelessness up to state appointed aristocrats.
> I agree with this blog. This person seems to have it all explained pretty well:
> 
> Feudalism « arcadianunderground


I don't see your point


----------



## crazyeddie (Oct 19, 2011)

Cover3 said:


> no bank would have been able to finance such a mess


Really? In the absence of government backing, banks would be that weak? Wow, how sad for the free market system!


----------

