‘Go Back to Auschwitz’ and ‘Go Back to Africa’ Yelled Outside Trump Rally

[smilesammich 10,727]

great post. The vulgarity of some of the posts here,,, sigh

i mean, the year is 2016 and we have the internet. the possibilities are pretty endless but my kid is being prepared for the world by filling in little black dots on a test with a pencil.

at least the internet has vastly improved our grasp of vulgarity.

[OriZ 3,157]

Free college tuition - why is it a bad idea?

Well, where do we start. How about with the fact that government is the most inefficient body that exists. If product X would cost a private company a certian sum of money - chances are that for a lower quality it could cost 2-3 times as much if it was the government. It has been proven - take a look even at public schools. So much is spent on them per year yet with not much to show for it.

As Milton Friedman brilliantly put it: if you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. Not to mention the fact that what government gives government could just as easily take as well. In other words - the government creates the problem and then pretends it is the solution. Once you rely on it to be the solution - you're at their mercy, you'll do anything so that they don't take your drug away from you.

Another point is that when you pay for something you actually care about what you do with it. Can you imagine if it was free - oh I don't feel like going today or oh I want to try something new. Why not - someone else is going to pay for it. I don't wanna pay for someone else's kids' college tuition. We don't all have the same number of kids, we don't all send our kids to public colleges, some of us don't have any kids. Why should our tax dollars be responsible for someone else's education?

This will cost $70 billion per year. Much of it would provide free education to students whose families can already afford it. I believe making something cost less to deliver is a much better solution than subsidizing to bring price down. Unfortunately government really likes the latter. The system needs to be more cost effective, not less, and free public college will only make it less cost effective. Also, today students can take much of their aid to the institution of their choosing. Free public college would limit choice as many private institutions, that wouldn't be able to compete with a highly subsidized, free public option would struggle to survive. It would also reduce pressure on public colleges to serve students efficiently. It would cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which are already on the cusp of delivering low cost, high quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system. Is it not enough that by virtue of eliminating competition - the government has already caused issues such as with the car manufacturers? I can just see it now...a bailout of colleges(real estate is another example and I can go on and on).

Anywhere there is government involvement, there is less innovation. Top-down controls means a less dynamic and innovative system. The price of free public college is more than taxpayers would spend on it. A system based largely on public institutions managed through top-down regulation, would exacerbate the challenges, not solve them.

"colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low paid adjunct or part time faculty" according to Sanders' college for all act. Currently 70% of American university faculty is adjunct professors, so a majority of part timers could potentially face unemployment.

Another thing to consider:

At age 19, only around 20% of children from the poorest 2% of families in the country attend college compared with 90% from the richest 2%. Inbetween, college attendance rates climb practically straight up the income ladder: the richer your parents are, the greater the chance you are in college at 19. In public colleges today already - students from the poorest fourth of the population currently pay no net tuition while richer students receive much fewer tuition and living grant benefits. Making college free for everyone would essentially mean giving far more money to students from richer families than from poorer ones. Any policy reducing tuition to zero would benefit students whose families earn the most, who currently pay all or nearly all of a school's full tuition price because they can afford to. And if the revenue is not replaced, it means fewer resources to teach students. It just makes no sense. This is one thing I agree with Clinton about - a better way would be to try to reel tuition back to reasonable prices and continue to subsidize financial aid for those who need it.

There are many reasons poor kids don't go to college - and cost is one of the reasons least supported by available evidence.

Also, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state will pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for services such as room, board, textbooks etc. Those services will go up in price. Those costs are not trivial. Although Sweden abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the UK, and only slightly less than students in the US.

If institutions are free, there will be massive influx of applicants. Those who don't get admitted to the free public institutions, will be faced with either a high priced private institution or no college at all. Based on the basic economic rule of supply and demand, an increase in the applications to private universities will cause the already high price of tuition to rise even more. In countries where tuition is free, universities are failing to keep up with demand. Germany has struggled to keep up with building classrooms(according to the economist).

In short, free undergraduate tuition would only lead to more competition among applicants, higher costs at private universities, disruption of university research and apathy among institutions that are supposed to maintain a high quality learning environment, and lastly, as a trader, I am also opposed to the way he wishes to pay for all this(robin hood tax).

Another quote from Friedman(my fav economist): "one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results" It's been proven time and time again that even the best intentions by government bureaucrats usually don't end up very well and lead to unwanted and unpredicted consequences. Governments mess things up big time. We need the government to stay out, not go further in.

I think overall the best plan would be one where -

1. There is academic criteria. The bar doesn't have to be set very high, just enough to reach with reasonable effort.

2. Effort criteria - Can only make so many changes, miss so many days, etc.

3. Financial eligibility criteria - you would have to be under a certain threshold to qualify. Obviously sometimes being a kid also means you don't necessarily pay all of your own bills, but in that situation there could be incentives offered to the family/parents such as tax credits. It would still be cheaper for the state than paying for your whole tuition.

4. Reduce to cost of tuition. This can be done in several ways, however I need a break before I write another long post. One way though would be to eliminate the need and/or make it harder to qualify for most student loans. Some of this will already happen via the aid, however, I believe this is a huge part of the problem to start with. Just like incredibly easy mortgage loans are hugely responsible for the real estate bubble and crisis, incredibly easy student loans are also responsible for the rise in tuition fees. Wherever there is government intervention(intervention, not aid) there are unintended consequences. They can either take the air out of this bubble slowly, or get ready to bailout colleges next.

5. This would have to cover BOTH private and public institutions, in order to avoid the competition mentioned before. The money that would be made available by not offering free tuition to those who can afford it(as opposed to Sanders' plan) would be enough to cover the private institutions. However, I believe the academic criteria should be higher for those(so that not everyone decides they should just go to a private institution if the state is paying for it and thus not only cost the state more money but also cause potential hardship for those institutions).

In theory lack of competition does cause a lot of harm in a capitalistic economy, and there is some merit to having one school offering something another school might not (for instance some schools have names that are synonymous with high quality and standards.. we all know the ones, and this often draws in the best and brightest) but... here's a slight problem in the idea that everyone needs to just find the institution that is most suitable. A kid may be the best and brightest but also the poorest. How many times have we heard of kids wanting to go to a dream college but as always end up picking the cheapest college and not the one that may be the best to suit them? It becomes nothing about a school's educational value and about money in the end. Years ago when my sister graduated, she had offers from a couple very good universities, but ended up never going because there was no way she'd ever afford it. She's been working hard all these years at her job but in her youth she probably would have taken a very different path if she'd had the opportunity to.

I believe the plan outlined above would have solved the problem?

Now lets move on to lowering tuition. Artifically inflated demand outpacing supply is one of the biggest problems I think. Getting a higher education and getting a student loan to pay for it has led to a glut of college applicants and not enough spots for everyone. Eliminating the need for most student loans will help with this. I think if certain colleges(and the government can certainly help with incentivizing this) create significant excess capacity, sufficient to absorb an increase in enrollment, they would be able to lower costs. A handful of colleges already announce one-time tuition cuts each year. Total undergraduate enrollment in those colleges increases. For example, Bethany College(W. Virginia) cut its tuition in 2002-2003 by 42%. It was able to attract 60% more freshmen, increasing total campus enrollment by 13%. Financial aid was also cut by 43%. The combined impact yielded a net increase in total tuition revenue, despite the decrease in rates.

Students should be incentivized to take at least 15 credit hours per semester so that they can graduate in 4 years or less. Government can also incentivize colleges as well as students to offer/take more accelerated classes, that cram a semester's worth of material into 6-8 week sessions, so you get the degree you want but at a much lower price.

Government needs to pressure schools to develop plans to evaluate utilization rates for summer session and consider opportunities to increase productive activity, as university buildings mostly lie idle in the summer.

Killing low enrollment courses is another idea.

There is also a problem with program duplication and lack of efficiency. There should be incentives to make colleges more efficient. There should be a carrot as well as a stick if they do not become more efficient. Also, students should be able to move between community colleges and universities more easily and less costly.

Rewarding schools on the number of students who graduate as opposed to the number that attend is another great idea that was implemented in Ohio already. Schools with 6 year graduation rates of below a certain percentage, say 30%, should be closed.

I believe the government should start reducing scholarship and grant money(this won't be necessary under the other plan). Those eat into university revenues, which forces them to raise tuition. With less scholarship funding, universities will find new ways to compete. Instead of bigger scholarship to attract students, they will offer employment opportunities, locale, and a lower price. As prices fall, more students will attend, which will in turn raise more revenue that they can reinvest in the school or drop prices further to attract even more students.

This is obviously NOT what I do for a living so I'm sure there's fine tuning that can be made and alot more than can be done. There are many creative ideas out there and the professional people that actually have a say in those things should put the effort into implementing some changes.

Combine this with the plan I outlined before and I think you get a system where everyone's got a shot, yet one where government won't need to grow. And in the long run, government could actually be smller. This will be done because by having the academic criteria you are virtually guaranteeing that alot of those people will end up succeeding and getting decent jobs. If they do that they can contribute more into the economy, pay taxes, etc. You will have less people end up in poverty or selling drugs on the street(or worse) which means not only less poverty but less crime. Smaller inmate population, less goverment expenditures, which all equal lower revenue needs. And this can all be done by just helping those who really need it most AND deserve it most. I don't believe this is socialism. Yes, Sanders plan for free tuition for all is indeed socialism. That one will cost so much more money and have so many more inadvertent results. You can't seriously fight tuition cost if you help everybody who does well. It is clear there was not a whole lot of thought behind Sanders' plan just as there wasn't behind the ACA. They're both half assed backwards.

Socialism is when the state provides you with everything(that it can just as easily take away). So if we had state sponsored universal health care, AND free tuition for all, possibly even sponsored housing(not just aid) then we could call it socialism. When the government is in everything, owns everything, provides everything...not when we help only those who really need it, and add the accountability criterias. It is much better than the debt based system of today, that just shoves student loans down people's throats.

And enough with the "well rounded education" thing ok? This is such a retarded concept. Alot of my wife's family ended up in nursing school. Many RNs. The type of stuff they teach them has nothing to do with with their job. Nothing. It's a complete and utter waste of time and money.

[OriZ 3,157]

And as far as what should the threshold actually be, well, obviously it is hard to say right now. There would need to be studies done on it. My guess is somewhere between 5-10 times the federal poverty level(I wanna say like $10,000 a month/$120,000 a year?). Obviously this might need to be adjusted to the cost of living in different states. So if the household you live in or come from makes, say, under 10,000 a month, you would qualify for help as long as you also qualify with the academic/effort criteria. If your household makes more than that then no. Absolutely no reason for us all to pay for someone else's kids to go to school as a principle. As aid - yes.

[Jacque67 7,328]

For some fools it is all just about the money. Sigh

Edited March 19, 2016 by Jacque67

[smilesammich 10,727]

And as far as what should the threshold actually be, well, obviously it is hard to say right now. There would need to be studies done on it. My guess is somewhere between 5-10 times the federal poverty level(I wanna say like $10,000 a month/$120,000 a year?). Obviously this might need to be adjusted to the cost of living in different states. So if the household you live in or come from makes, say, under 10,000 a month, you would qualify for help as long as you also qualify with the academic/effort criteria. If your household makes more than that then no. Absolutely no reason for us all to pay for someone else's kids to go to school as a principle. As aid - yes.

the family that is bringing in 10,000 a month should be paying significantly higher taxes on that income. if their children opt for public university so be it, it's not like their parents didn't contribute.

[OriZ 3,157]

the family that is bringing in 10,000 a month should be paying significantly higher taxes on that income. if their children opt for public university so be it, it's not like their parents didn't contribute.

Well that's exactly it though, you're trying to raise taxes and grow government, I'm trying to lower taxes and shrink government, while still providing safety nets to those in need.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Well that's exactly it though, you're trying to raise taxes and grow government, I'm trying to lower taxes and shrink government, while still providing safety nets to those in need.

Presidential campaign in the offing?

[OriZ 3,157]

Presidential campaign in the offing?

Nah, don't need another birther issue.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Nah, don't need another birther issue.

Lol.

[Expat1 971]

While cute, I'm afraid that's just still not good enough. While your post tells us what we all already acknowledged about the importance of college tuition being available, it does not address any of the points in this thread on why "free tuition for all" is not the way to go. There are other ways to help people get the tuition they need that were mentioned here. Why are you stuck on "free college for all" without even being able to explain how it is better than other ways? You claim you want equality. Do you really want your tax dollars paying for the tuition of someone whose family makes $200,000 a year?

No one wants to deny equal education, but people should have the choice. Personally, to be honest with you I'm not big on higher education. Never was, never will be. I know some people think it's a necessity, and in today's world unfortunately it's really hard to get hired otherwise, but I find most school teachers and college professors to be useless. But that's just me. Neither my wife nor I really did the college thing - I'm self taught on everything I do and know. I did attend 2 years of tech college after high school, where I got an associates in practical engineering, but I can tell you today I regret it, it was a waste of time. Hated every moment of it, never worked a second in it. I couldn't stand middle school, high school, or that. I'm not a school person. The only reason I even did it was because there was a program with the IDF, where they pay your tuition basically because they want to train you for their purposes, so that they have highly skilled people to do the work they want them to do. So mine was basically hey we'll pay your practical engineering tuition, then when you're done and start doing your 3 year mandatory service(which in this case starts only when you're 20 instead of 18) you'll be a tank turret technician for us. And so I was. Now why is this important - because it is precisely the example I gave earlier - if it's free, you'll try it, what the heck. Someone else is paying for it anyway so who cares right? Doesn't hurt to try. My wife never attended college. She is also self taught on everything she currently does in our business(and has done for the last 20 years or so).

So I was never one of those who believe you HAVE to go to college to succeed in life. But, just like college itself is not for everyone, the same goes for different colleges. People need to have options and choices, we each have our preferences, personally I'm a firm believer that if someone - say you have a child who doesn't want to attend college - I don't think it is a big deal at all. I would never make my kids feel like they have to(like some parents do).

Next - thoughts on tuition.

Yes Val of course some of it is not always all of our original ideas(although some, indeed are). Of course we learn and adopt certain things, just like we toss some things we disagree with. It's a normal process every person does about every subject in the world.

Oriz why do you think people who pay the most into the tax system should be denied the benefits for what they worked for and paid? I do not understand that mindset.

[OriZ 3,157]

Oriz why do you think people who pay the most into the tax system should be denied the benefits for what they worked for and paid? I do not understand that mindset.

Because I do not think that college tuition should turn into something that is covered for all. I do not think anything should turn into something that is covered for all by the government. Since there is only so much money to go around, I am fine with tweaking(as outlined above) the system but keeping it the same in the way of just providing aid to those who need it. I also don't think the tax bracket should be as high as it is now for those same people who pay the most into the tax system, and I don't agree with the robin hood tax at all.

Just because they don't get college tuition out of it - doesn't mean they are being denied the benefits for what they worked and paid. They get plenty of other benefits. It's like the example of medicaid that I have given before, or if you'd like another example - housing. They pay the most into the system does that mean they should qualify for aid with that? Why is college tuition any different just because it is an "investment"? You can afford it, pay for it. That goes for everything. A household that can potentially save a couple thousand dollars a month at the very least if not much more should not have their college tuition needs covered by the government. You can't accuse me of being biased saying this - as I actually save more than that. However, as I have also said, that doesn't mean there can't be certain tax credits. But NOT free college.

Edited March 19, 2016 by OriZ

[Expat1 971]

While cute, I'm afraid that's just still not good enough. While your post tells us what we all already acknowledged about the importance of college tuition being available, it does not address any of the points in this thread on why "free tuition for all" is not the way to go. There are other ways to help people get the tuition they need that were mentioned here. Why are you stuck on "free college for all" without even being able to explain how it is better than other ways? You claim you want equality. Do you really want your tax dollars paying for the tuition of someone whose family makes $200,000 a year?

No one wants to deny equal education, but people should have the choice. Personally, to be honest with you I'm not big on higher education. Never was, never will be. I know some people think it's a necessity, and in today's world unfortunately it's really hard to get hired otherwise, but I find most school teachers and college professors to be useless. But that's just me. Neither my wife nor I really did the college thing - I'm self taught on everything I do and know. I did attend 2 years of tech college after high school, where I got an associates in practical engineering, but I can tell you today I regret it, it was a waste of time. Hated every moment of it, never worked a second in it. I couldn't stand middle school, high school, or that. I'm not a school person. The only reason I even did it was because there was a program with the IDF, where they pay your tuition basically because they want to train you for their purposes, so that they have highly skilled people to do the work they want them to do. So mine was basically hey we'll pay your practical engineering tuition, then when you're done and start doing your 3 year mandatory service(which in this case starts only when you're 20 instead of 18) you'll be a tank turret technician for us. And so I was. Now why is this important - because it is precisely the example I gave earlier - if it's free, you'll try it, what the heck. Someone else is paying for it anyway so who cares right? Doesn't hurt to try. My wife never attended college. She is also self taught on everything she currently does in our business(and has done for the last 20 years or so).

So I was never one of those who believe you HAVE to go to college to succeed in life. But, just like college itself is not for everyone, the same goes for different colleges. People need to have options and choices, we each have our preferences, personally I'm a firm believer that if someone - say you have a child who doesn't want to attend college - I don't think it is a big deal at all. I would never make my kids feel like they have to(like some parents do).

Next - thoughts on tuition.

Yes Val of course some of it is not always all of our original ideas(although some, indeed are). Of course we learn and adopt certain things, just like we toss some things we disagree with. It's a normal process every person does about every subject in the world.

Do you really want your tax dollars paying for the tuition of someone whose family makes $200,000 a year?

A family of 4 making $200,000 a year pays about $38,000 in federal income taxes, in addition to $8k or so in social security and medicare taxes. What is this "your tax dollars"? It's actually their tax dollars paying for it, not the other way around. I am saying that yes I don't mind my tax dollars paying for it (my bill this year was up there in the mid-50's) and after you get there please let us know where you think your tax dollars should go but don't imply that if I note that it would be nice to have one program for all it means I think that someone else's tax dollars are expected to pay for it. State tuition and fees as I recall were about $12k last year, which is a fraction of (my own, nobody else's) tax dollars and would have been a fraction of the same (mine) tax dollars two years ago at $200,000. Divvy up your own tax dollars please, in my case there is no "somebody else" paying for it.

With that said, most technical, science, engineering, medical (especially medical) professions require post-secondary education, without option.

[Expat1 971]

Because I do not think that college tuition should turn into something that is covered for all. I do not think anything should turn into something that is covered for all by the government. Since there is only so much money to go around, I am fine with tweaking(as outlined above) the system but keeping it the same in the way of just providing aid to those who need it. I also don't think the tax bracket should be as high as it is now for those same people who pay the most into the tax system, and I don't agree with the robin hood tax at all.

Just because they don't get college tuition out of it - doesn't mean they are being denied the benefits for what they worked and paid. They get plenty of other benefits. It's like the example of medicaid that I have given before, or if you'd like another example - housing. They pay the most into the system does that mean they should qualify for aid with that? Why is college tuition any different just because it is an "investment"? You can afford it, pay for it. That goes for everything. A household that can potentially save a couple thousand dollars a month at the very least if not much more should not have their college tuition needs covered by the government. You can't accuse me of being biased saying this - as I actually save more than that. However, as I have also said, that doesn't mean there can't be certain tax credits. But NOT free college.

Right now there are no tax credits either and yes I just pay for it.

College is not for the benefit of the earner/taxpayer by the way, it is for the (legally adult) student. Extrapolating that onto the parents is just another form of redistribution.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Expat1

[OriZ 3,157]

Do you really want your tax dollars paying for the tuition of someone whose family makes $200,000 a year?

A family of 4 making $200,000 a year pays about $38,000 in federal income taxes, in addition to $8k or so in social security and medicare taxes. What is this "your tax dollars"? It's actually their tax dollars paying for it, not the other way around. I am saying that yes I don't mind my tax dollars paying for it (my bill this year was up there in the mid-50's) and after you get there please let us know where you think your tax dollars should go but don't imply that if I note that it would be nice to have one program for all it means I think that someone else's tax dollars are expected to pay for it. State tuition and fees as I recall were about $12k last year, which is a fraction of (my own, nobody else's) tax dollars and would have been a fraction of the same (mine) tax dollars two years ago at $200,000. Divvy up your own tax dollars please, in my case there is no "somebody else" paying for it.

With that said, most technical, science, engineering, medical (especially medical) professions require post-secondary education, without option.

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that again, the reason I believe the government has to be very selective about aid, and only provide it to those who are financially and academically eligible, is BECAUSE I want to reduce taxes, and shrink government. So this family of 4 would not be paying $38,000 anymore. If you could lower their taxes by even a mere 5%, that alone would be enough to cover their tuition. I don't understand this "lets take more so we can give more back"...why don't we try a "lets take less and have to give less" approach.

Edited March 19, 2016 by OriZ

[OriZ 3,157]

Right now there are no tax credits either and yes I just pay for it.

College is not for the benefit of the earner/taxpayer by the way, it is for the (legally adult) student. Extrapolating that onto the parents is just another form of redistribution.

Parents should want to do that(assuming they can afford it) for their kids easily without the government having to nudge them to. Or maybe it's just Jewish parents lol...

Nevertheless, like I said, the government could definitely incentivize them to(in the form of tax credits etc)