Please Excuse This Interruption of Your Gun Porn

[Cancel 2020.1]

that is what state university systems were supposed to provide... though they were low cost not free, they were still easily affordable until the past 15-20 years. There should be an in depth study as to why there is such a dramatic increase in costs per student. What is driving it?

They've done some studies. It's mainly reduced gov't subsidies, and increased demand for student services (like career counseling).

Where i am, public universities are significant savings over private, but still pretty exhorbitant. The cost of college is really absurd now, and sad. College SHOULD be free, or low cost. The ROI on something like that for the country is probably impossible to calculate.

 

[Airstrip One]

We can sit here and talk about reforming public education all we want. It is never going to improve. It is never going to be anywhere close to what a good private prep school has to offer, and generally all other private schools as well. It has nothing to do with the teachers, administration, or even budget shortfalls, and everything to do with the children we are producing and raising. The gap is going to continue to grow as a consequence.

 

[cawacko]

They've done some studies. It's mainly reduced gov't subsidies, and increased demand for student services (like career counseling).

Where i am, public universities are significant savings over private, but still pretty exhorbitant. The cost of college is really absurd now, and sad. College SHOULD be free, or low cost. The ROI on something like that for the country is probably impossible to calculate.

the reducing gov't subsidies is unfortunately a non-starter because all politicians want to say 'education is important, i'm going to make student loans more affordable so more kids can go to college etc...' Well that sounds great on the campaign trail and voters love to hear it but the unintended consequence of such actions is education costs actually increase.

 

[cawacko]

the working poor are rarely going to accumulate anything to leave to kids. Hence the term working poor. Middle income and up obviously have an opportunity to pass it on.

If we are going to have an inheritance tax then a couple things should be done...

1) No one is exempt from it once a certain level is attained.
2) If you are going to leave a large portion of an estate to a charitable foundation, your kids don't get to work for it.

Do you believe we should have an inheritance tax?

 

[Bonestorm]

the reducing gov't subsidies is unfortunately a non-starter because all politicians want to say 'education is important, i'm going to make student loans more affordable so more kids can go to college etc...' Well that sounds great on the campaign trail and voters love to hear it but the unintended consequence of such actions is education costs actually increase.

If increasing inequality is a concern, I don't see how making it more difficult for children of lower income families to attend college makes anything better. Yes, increased access to college (through subsidies) creates increased demand and increased costs, but the alternative is to basically make college not possible for children of lower income parents.

 

[NOVA]

No one comes into the world with guaranteed good health or riches beyond your dreams or long life and happiness......get used to it, its called reality

You're lucky you live in a country that at least tries to see that everyone gets a somewhat equal opportunity to reach the full potential that nature has
given you ...........and even that is an impossible task....

Its not the governments duty to make the ugly, beautiful...the poor, rich,....the stupid, intelligent, or the lazy, industrious.....

 

[cawacko]

If increasing inequality is a concern, I don't see how making it more difficult for children of lower income families to attend college makes anything better. Yes, increased access to college (through subsidies) creates increased demand and increased costs, but the alternative is to basically make college not possible for children of lower income parents.

1) Just to state for the record I'm all for kids going to college. There will always be exceptions and I know not everyone is the same but as a general rule I'm all for it.

2) The increase in the cost of college is reaching a point where a kid can be facing upwards of two hundred thousand dollars in debt upon graduation. I am all for kids of lower income families going to college but for anyone to come out with that type of debt is crazy. It's one thing if you're borrowing large amounts of money to go to law school where you know you have a good paying job waiting for upon completion vs. someone who chooses to go into a lower paying field and can spend a good portion of their adult life paying off their student debt.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Just to state for the record I'm all for kids going to college. There will always be exceptions and I know not everyone is the same but as a general rule I'm all for it.

2) The increase in the cost of college is reaching a point where a kid can be facing upwards of two hundred thousand dollars in debt upon graduation. I am all for kids of lower income families going to college but for anyone to come out with that type of debt is crazy. It's one thing if you're borrowing large amounts of money to go to law school where you know you have a good paying job waiting for upon completion vs. someone who chooses to go into a lower paying field and can spend a good portion of their adult life paying off their student debt.

I'm with you on the debt thing. I think government loans shouldn't pay for tuition at private colleges (there are few, if any, public schools that cost that much even for out of state students) or should be capped at the cost of attending an in-state public school.

Also, too, a note to anyone considering maybe going to law school: the bold is not true at all. Most law school graduates will graduate with tons of debt and no good paying job to pay it off.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They've done some studies. It's mainly reduced gov't subsidies, and increased demand for student services (like career counseling).

Where i am, public universities are significant savings over private, but still pretty exhorbitant. The cost of college is really absurd now, and sad. College SHOULD be free, or low cost. The ROI on something like that for the country is probably impossible to calculate.

Public universities should be relatively free, I have no problem with someone coming out of one with $10-15k in loans, but anything more than that is absurd. If you have any of those studies handy, I would be interested in reading them. If not, I will try to find them. Thanks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you believe we should have an inheritance tax?

I would prefer not, but to not have it, you have to increase elsewhere.... such as cap gains taxation

I think that is ultimately a better way. But if they are going to get massive breaks on cap gains their entire lives, then I do not have a problem with an estate tax (though I would personally cap it around 30%)

 

[Disillusioned]

Do you believe we should have an inheritance tax?

I don't, I think it's unethical and morally repugnant. We're already taxing for the common good, that makes sense, you pay into the pot and you get police, fire safety, roads, courts, defense, laws, you know, the common good. What possible reason is there to take the money of the dead guy, whose last will gave his money to those who loved him and he loved, and give it to the government?

It's an interesting way of punishing somebody for trying to give something to their descendants.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I don't, I think it's unethical and morally repugnant. We're already taxing for the common good, that makes sense, you pay into the pot and you get police, fire safety, roads, courts, defense, laws, you know, the common good. What possible reason is there to take the money of the dead guy, whose last will gave his money to those who loved him and he loved, and give it to the government?

It's an interesting way of punishing somebody for trying to give something to their descendants.

You're talking about it like it hits people and lower & middle income levels. It doesn't - it's a tax on wealthy estates. If it is eliminated, America will drift even further & further into the kind of aristocracy based on inherited wealth that the founders hoped to avoid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't, I think it's unethical and morally repugnant. We're already taxing for the common good, that makes sense, you pay into the pot and you get police, fire safety, roads, courts, defense, laws, you know, the common good. What possible reason is there to take the money of the dead guy, whose last will gave his money to those who loved him and he loved, and give it to the government?

It's an interesting way of punishing somebody for trying to give something to their descendants.

The estate tax only hits those with $5mm or more in total assets. Those are individuals who have been allowed to pay 15-20% in taxes on capital gains for the better part of two decades. We either treat all income the same or we have them pay after they are gone.

 

[NOVA]

You're talking about it like it hits people and lower & middle income levels. It doesn't - it's a tax on wealthy estates. If it is eliminated, America will drift even further & further into the kind of aristocracy based on inherited wealth that the founders hoped to avoid.

It doesn't matter WHO gets hit.....it's unethical and morally repugnant and thats the point.

Suppose it hit only the people of Irish descent or Jewish descent or even African descent.....its wrong because its wrong, and not 'acceptable' because it hits
only those you hate and especially that it doesn't hit YOU.


If the tax covered only money or capital gains that have never been taxed in the past, you might have an ethical case for taxing that portion ....


And the 'founding fathers' have nothing to do with the estate tax.....they certainly passed their wealth onto their heirs without a tax.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

It doesn't matter WHO gets hit.....it's unethical and morally repugnant and thats the point.

Suppose it hit only the people of Irish descent or Jewish descent or even African descent.....its wrong because its wrong, and not 'acceptable' because it hits
only those you hate and especially that it doesn't hit YOU.


If the tax covered only money or capital gains that have never been taxed in the past, you might have an ethical case for taxing that portion ....


And the 'founding fathers' have nothing to do with the estate tax.....they certainly passed their wealth onto their heirs without a tax.

You're a buffoon, and clearly haven't read what the founding fathers had to say on the topic. They were very concerned about the creation of a new aristocracy, the likes of which they had just escaped.

As for "morally repugnant," I have no idea what your moral compass is. Morally repugnant to me is watching more & more wealth get handed down to fewer & fewer people with each passing year, as the vast majority loses ground, loses access to better education, and dies poor.

Your view of the world is definitely weird.

 

[I'm Watermark]

You're a buffoon, and clearly haven't read what the founding fathers had to say on the topic. They were very concerned about the creation of a new aristocracy, the likes of which they had just escaped.

As for "morally repugnant," I have no idea what your moral compass is. Morally repugnant to me is watching more & more wealth get handed down to fewer & fewer people with each passing year, as the vast majority loses ground, loses access to better education, and dies poor.

Your view of the world is definitely weird.

I agree, to an extent. Taxing inheritance is helpful, but not the only way to solve class disparity. Among others, I generally consider these policies:
1. Free public higher education.
2. A jobs guarantee bill.
3. A progressive income/inheritance tax.
4. Incentive to start a laterally managed small businesses.
5. A corporate salary cap.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

You're a buffoon, and clearly haven't read what the founding fathers had to say on the topic. They were very concerned about the creation of a new aristocracy, the likes of which they had just escaped.

As for "morally repugnant," I have no idea what your moral compass is. Morally repugnant to me is watching more & more wealth get handed down to fewer & fewer people with each passing year, as the vast majority loses ground, loses access to better education, and dies poor.

Your view of the world is definitely weird.

Exactly. They always ignore this.

 

[cawacko]

I agree, to an extent. Taxing inheritance is helpful, but not the only way to solve class disparity. Among others, I generally consider these policies:
1. Free public higher education.
2. A jobs guarantee bill.
3. A progressive income/inheritance tax.
4. Incentive to start a laterally managed small businesses.
5. A corporate salary cap.

What would a corporate salary cap consist of?

 

[I'm Watermark]

What would a corporate salary cap consist of?

It's exactly what it sounds like.

Sometimes it's written such that only x% of revenues can go towards executive salaries. In other cases wage rations are used so, if x is the lowest wage, the highest wage can only be x:6(or whatever number is chosen).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I agree, to an extent. Taxing inheritance is helpful, but not the only way to solve class disparity. Among others, I generally consider these policies:
1. Free public higher education.
2. A jobs guarantee bill.
3. A progressive income/inheritance tax.
4. Incentive to start a laterally managed small businesses.
5. A corporate salary cap.

That sounds like a complete disaster waiting to happen.