8/27/2013
The article I found comes from the British newspaper "The Guardian" and explains the downsides to an agreement reached by Congress concerning student loan debt. The article, in its entirety, can be found here. This article, from the "Washington Post", gives some background on the actual legislation that was passed.
Overall the article makes the point colleges are too expensive for the average middle class college student. The article also criticizes the student loan interest rate legislation for its relatively ineffectual solution. The legislation, according to the article (and myself for that matter), failed to address the primary concern of collegiate expenses: the actual cost. Total collegiate costs for a four year degree in the past 30 years has risen a ridiculous 357%, compared to a more modest 120% raise in the CPI (consumer price index, meaning how much things cost) over the same amount of time. The article also shows the American people are at a bit of a dilemma: they need to go to college in order to get a job, but college costs are also at an all time high. Still more, the job market in the past couple of years has been incredibly bad, so even with a four year college degree some will still find it difficult to find a job. Towards the end of the article the author questions the necessity for some to go to college. The New York Times, however, recently published an article showing this necessity is at an all time high. Now more than ever is a four year degree required to work anywhere other than McDonalds. Jobs that require a college degree are the backbone of what make this nation great. The more we discourage potential college students with excessive amounts of debt, the more we start to fall behind our foreign competitors.
Although the legislation's immediate impact will be to keep student loan interest rates at around 3.80%, it also tied this interest rate to the Federal Reserve Boards interest rate. Meaning if the Fed raises its interest rates (as it likely will) so to does the interest rates on student loans go up. There is, however, a cap to interest rates for student loans, but this is only for undergraduate degrees. The cap is set at 8.50%, and according to the CBO interest rates will reach that rate within the next five years. Meaning the piece of legislation is only another temporary fix.
Ultimately, we need to move towards a direction where the government pays for college expenses for everyone (at least those who graduated high school). This system would complete the ambitions of some of our founding fathers (notably Jefferson), and it would pull the United States into the 21st century. A system where education is free is the only system that can guarantee everyone has an equal opportunity, despite race, economic background, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc, to succeed. Providing for the general welfare and equal opportunity are what this nation is all about. A fiscal conservative might point out that the cost of providing free quality education for a country with a population of 310 million would be considerable - even for government standards. However, the returns on an investment of this nature are guaranteed to outweigh the cost. There is practically no risk. If you have more Americans in higher paying jobs then you get more tax revenue from those Americans. Granted, we couldn't have everyone go to Stanford or Yale, but even a community college education is better than just a high school diploma. It's not like this hasn't ever been done before; most countries in Europe have mostly free tertiary education and California will also pay for the first two years of schooling beyond high school. In order to keep up with other western democracies the United States needs a better educated populace.
I understand the dilemma of having low college expenses-- heck, that's going to be me in a few short years. What you failed to address, however, is how possible it is to go to college. There are less expensive colleges that one can go to, such as community colleges. There are also things such as student loans and the all-important scholarships. There are millions of scholarships floating around and if you are willing to put forth the effort, they are fairly attainable. College has been an ever-present threat in my mind. It is something that I have aimed for since an early age. Because of this, I have plain carefully so that in the time that is approaching rapidly in my life, I will be able to afford it. Not only have I sought out scholarships, and plan to do more, I have also taken AP classes (shocker) so that I can get college credit for a less expensive amount. I also have a part time job where I save portions of my pay check in a college fund. For those who wish to go to college, it is not something that is unattainable, as you have made it sound, but something that must, instead, be worked for. If we lower the tuition fund, there would be some benefits such as that more would be able to attain a higher education, but we also risk things such as the quality of the education being decreased. Teachers already don't get paid nearly enough. Why would they continue to do so for a lesser rate? We would get stuck with lower class teachers, where those that would offer a higher level of education would go to where the money is. Lowering the tuition rates, too, would not necessarily make it cheaper to go to college. School would still have to be paid for, but it would be done in more stealthy ways, such as a little thing I'd like to call TAXES. By attempting to educate more of the masses, we might just be binding ourselves even further.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain to you why that's wrong, Madeline. And I apologize for the laconic statement. I don't intend to be impolite or anything.
ReplyDeleteIn address to your first point, the one about community colleges, there is a problem with the idea that community colleges are currently cheaper - at least to certain groups of people. For one, those who are in financial need (under $60,000 total income per family) will usually find universities to be cheaper than the local community college. This is based purely on being accepted into the university and the financial situation of the student. Secondly, students who achieve academic success will find more scholarship offers at the university level. This means universities are generally cheaper for lower class individuals who are smart enough to get into the university. However, those lower class students who are not academically proficient enough to be accepted into said university can't afford community college because it is simply too expensive. The very people who society thinks go to community college actually can't afford it.
As for loans, I will propose a moral question to address that point. Does it seem fair for, on average, a whole class of people to be burdened with debt based on the position in society they were born into? Wealthy families tend to assist their children with college, whereas poor families don't generally have the ability to assist their children.
There are certain situations where a person, who is properly motivated can work to pay for college despite financial disabilities. I am speaking in broad terms. However even if a person works their butt off for and during college and graduates debt-free, it still would not be fair for said person to have worked that hard where some don't have to because they were born lucky.
This division between the lower and upper classes is a self reinforcing principle. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Those whose parents go to college are more likely to go to college. People who go to college will, on average, make more in there life time. Thus, a class of college-goers and non-college-goers will progressively stratify over time. A democracy where the possibility of social improvement for those financially ill-predisposed increasingly becomes limited isn't a democracy in the true sense of the word. It becomes a society where only the rich castes of citizens rule. It becomes a plutocracy or oligarchy; much like medieval Europe, communist China, or anarchic Somalia. Places where wealth rules supreme. Therefore, it becomes necessary for a true Democracy, or Constitutional Republic if you prefer, to guarantee the equality of opportunity for all peoples. Part of equality of opportunity is equal access to college, ease of admittance into college, and an equal experience at college (that list isn't necessarily all inclusive) with regards to financial background. The determining factors of if and where a student goes to college should never include the cost of the college or university itself.
"College has been ever present...", from this line on until you make the next point you commit to the logical fallacy of "Person Who" or a hasty conclusion/induction if you prefer that term. Just because one situation worked out well (your situation in this case) doesn't mean the system will work correctly for all - or even necessarily a majority - of people. For some, a small but not excusable minority, college is in fact impossible to attend given their current financial situation and their current entanglements with things possibly considered more important than college (food, house, medical bills ect). For a larger minority, college is something they don't consider a priority because they are preoccupied with trying to survive. They are stuck in a repetitive cycle living from paycheck to paycheck. They are wage slaves.
The next point, the one about teacher salaries, is a slippery slope argument. No where in my article did I suggest to lower teacher salaries, in fact I think quite the opposite. In this case I can have my cake and eat it too (because I'm awesome like that). It isn't impossible for there to be high quality education, well paid teacher, and free college. Oxford or Cambridge or pretty much any university in Europe accomplishes this.
ReplyDeleteNow, to pay for this, at the start, if nothing else was cut from our national governments budget, there would be a tax increase. However, the way a progressive tax structure works means those who can already afford it will foot most of the bill. The Warren Buffets will be paying most of the bill because they can afford it. A higher tax affects them less, so they are taxed more. The college students or lower classes won't see any significant financial strain for an increase of taxes this minuscule.
In the long run, and I said this in the article, the tax won't be required anymore because people will make more money. People making more money means the government makes more money. So the government can lower those tax rates and still make the same amount.
That's pretty much it. I do agree that I was being somewhat dramatic in the article. I apologize for that. I tend to assume that people assume when I say 'is' or 'are' or 'all', they know it's not really 100% of the time like the language suggests. That was my bad. Thanks for commenting though, I had fun refuting your comment. If you have any other objections to my comment feel more than welcome to share them.
Not all scholarships are academic. If you want a scholarship, you can get one. Yes, it may require some (shudder) work on your part, but you do not have to been inheritably smart in order to get one. For example, there are sport scholarships, debate scholarships, fine art scholarships, poetry scholarship--almost anything that you can imagine. Heck, there's scholarships for Ping-Pong. There are also ways to get academic scholarships even if you are not a born genius. If you work hard and study than you can easily get one. I understand your point of view of taking care of the people who can't afford it, but if you WANT it, then you can GET it. Speaking from personal experience, I am going to have to pay for college myself. My parents aren't adding a single penny to my college fund. So despite the fact that I'm a "white, middle-class American", it's me and me alone who will be providing for my education. And I am going to get every single scholarship that I can get my hands on. Especially because the college of my choice--the one that will give me the biggest benefit for the career and lifestyle choices that I will make in my future-- is the University of Washington. Even if I was a resident of that state, this school is expensive. But it's what's going to offer the best education for me. I am going to be the one taking advantage of the benefits of this education, so I should be willing to work my hardest to be able to afford to go to it. The government is not going to reap the benefits of the higher income that theoretically I could receive from gaining a higher level of education. All those tax payers won't be reaping in the profits. *I* will. Me.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the loan is to get an education so that they can be qualified for a job that will EARN THEM THE MONEY TO PAY OFF THE DEBT. You are assuming that they will just be amassing debt. I am assuming that they will have the moral fiber to fulfill the agreement made when taking out a loan. It is not something that you *have* to do, but it is an option. I am listing here multiply ways that a person can afford to gain an education in this life. Loans happen to be one of the ways. How is that "unmoral" of a person to decide to make the agreement to take out a loan? It is THEIR DECISION. And, to be frank, if they don't like the education that the United States can give them, I'm sure Mexico will take them.
Luck has nothing to do with this. Was Carnegie "lucky"? Rockefeller? They got to their position in life because they worked for it, or found ways for the system to work for them. My dad grew up on a farm. Now he's part of the iconic "lucky" middle-class Americans. My parents lived in a trailer for the first years of their marriage. Luck has nothing to do with this. Seizing the opportunity and getting off your lazy butt is what matters. I'm not saying this for all Americans. I realize the exceptions to the rule--there are times when it is necessary for someone to need assistance to get a proper education. But for the majority of Americans, if the want advancement, they can GET IT. For some, I agree, it will be harder. But they're the masters of their own fate. If this is what they want, then they should be willing to do what they have to to get it. Being American in general is "lucky". Take a look at yourself for a moment. You go to a nice school. You have nice clothes to wear. You have access to indoor plumbing-- and what a miracle that is!!
Of course they're "more likely" to go to college if their parents did, but that's not saying that they can't. Would you want to go to college as strongly if you didn't have parents, teachers, and advisors telling you that this is the right thing that you're supposed to do--that you almost *have* to do it. You're over-generalizing on a lot of things. Not all rich get richer. Not all poor get poorer.
Maybe they all just need to take financial lit.
ReplyDelete"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."-- that is the definition of a Democracy. Can you tell me where in that definition it says anything about the government forcing people to succeed?
Find me *any* definition that says that.
Oh, and oh yes. America is *so much* like communist China. Whoops, sarcasm. We are not forcing people to not succeed, and nor should we force them *to* succeed. There is a point in which the government needs to take a step back and let the individual take responsibility for themselves.
Equality of opportunity is an equal fight. I believe in that, not that we should spoon feed everybody everything they want.
Huh. Maybe I had a "hasty conclusion" because I don't have access to the internet at my house. If I want to use the internet, I drive a half an hour a way to use one at the library because the city I live in doesn't offer a library. So, forgive me my "hastiness". Your little speech wasn't too perfect, either. And the situations you're talking about don't represent the whole, either. Same argument back at ya, buddy. I see that you've been paying attention in Philosophy, then. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get a scholarship, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get into college.
"larger minority"... hmmm... oxymoron.
It's not a slippery slope. It's flirting with the line, perhaps, but a better example of a slippery slop would be you're example of saying that by not lowering college admissions, America is going to turn into communist China.
Of course there can be a higher pay wage for teachers and lowering the price of college-- if you raise the taxes. A lot. And then you're *still* paying for it.
Now I ask you, is it fair to make the people who have worked all of their lives, earning and saving money, to pay for someone else's education? This is a general example, I admit, but it still proves my point. I don't want to pay for your college. Sorry.
PEOPLE WON'T MAKE MONEY BECAUSE YOU'RE TAXING THE PEOPLE WHO DO MAKE MONEY.
I adhere that some of this was not the most...diplomatic. I apologize, but I don't take any of it back. Thanks for responding. Nothing personal, just more towards the issue than the person, if you know what I mean? Ha. Well, thanks. It's been fun.
As I address the issues at hand, I apologize if they are not in the order previously addressed. I’m writing as I am thinking.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the concept of equal opportunity: this is a concept that Mrs. McMurray referred to as one of America’s “lofty aspirations” (or whatever her exact terminology was). While it is one of the U.S.’s best goals in my opinion, it is a goal, which is to say that as a society derived of imperfect humans, we have not reached it completely yet and it is dangerously deceptive to think that we have. As far as this relates to education, I turn to an example: the working class demographic. Imagine a fisherman who works in Louisiana. His father was a fisherman, and he expects his son will do so also. In his opinion, education is a waste of time for his son because it will not help his son to become a better fisherman in any facet. Although he has not vocalized this opinion to his son, the fisherman subconsciously acts on his attitude towards education. The fisherman does not respond his son excelling scholastically, he doesn’t talk about school hardly at all in the home, and he cannot but help to respond positively when his son does well fishing. To the young, teenage, impressionable mind of the son, it seems that education doesn’t equal acceptance or success and that to have both of those inherently desirable traits he must become a fisherman. And so the cycle of the working class continues. This illustrates how, yes, he had all the same opportunities to receive scholarships as us and, yes, he could have earned the money for college that his working class father couldn’t afford, but in all of his developmental years he never once learned the intrinsic value of receiving an extensive education. This is why in America we have mandatory schooling until the age of eighteen, is to encourage equal opportunity even when there are large demographics that do not understand how education and opportunity are directly proportional in today’s world. This is why, without education, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. I understand your allusion to Carnegie and Rockefeller and even your parents, but the one thing that is still not equal today in America is the belief in the value of education, which I am assuming your parents had, and even if they did not, well there are exceptions to every rule. I have a friend whose uncle dropped out of high school as a sophomore and now makes $60,000 a year. This illustrates how hard work has equal a part in the world as does education. But let’s return to the fisherman. Even if he had the work ethic of a masochistic bull, he could only do so much to improve his standing with regards to employment. It’s a fact that a majority of the high paying jobs today are near impossible to achieve without some kind of college education, so even with regards to the exceptions, the wealthy class would become smaller and wealthier and the working poor class would become larger and much more impoverished (and possibly even climaxing in a revolution that would be reminiscent of the Bolsheviks).
Now, most of this leads back to probably one of the most deadly of the human ailments: apathy, and more specifically, apathy toward ideals, such as the intrinsic value of education. If everyone on the whole planet cared about an idealistic world, then after searching for a solution to the unideal world we live in, they would for themselves discover the value of education and they would pursue it, even if they decided to become a fisherman (I have nothing against fishermen, it is just a good example of a working class job that is a great job but doesn't pay as much, as say, a VP of finance for a bigwig corporation). Then we could depublicize education, because people would be pursuing it by choice. Education would become cheaper and overall better quality than it is now. On a side note, yes, I am implying that we should force education on people, even if they don’t want it (think how much you hated school as a seventh grader, but how much you realize it benefits you now). Since, however, this is not the world we live in we have a mandatory education system. My explaining in all of this is to shed light on why, although apathy is more common than not, we have the illusion that equal opportunity is realized. Equal opportunity logistically does exist; equal motivation and work ethic in education does not. The values of education with regards to society are too important to leave to the private sector.
ReplyDeleteNow I understand I have made a lot of generalizations and strange implications as I have reasoned. Let me clarify a few of my beliefs to shed light on my previous arguments. I believe that education as much as work ethic is important to being successful. I believe that the only thing keeping our capitalist society from failing as Marx predicted is a complete education.
Secondly, the concept of education as an investment: it is so. While those who are successful do reap the fiscal rewards of their work, things like progressive taxes make it so the government, and then, cyclically, the person again as a result, benefit as well. Someone benefiting from their work and the government benefiting from that person’s work are not mutually exclusive categories. That progressive tax would in effect, return more than it would take, not in your personal finances, but in the status of our society, which is in our personal interest.
As far as paying an additional tax for education, I would be honored to do so, not just because I understand how much I have appreciated my education personally, but because it would improve the society I exist in, which directly benefits me. It is not an unreasonable tax; it wouldn't be asking to fund an entire additional tuition, just enough to lower tuition so that we can maintain the quality of education while making it affordable, which could be accomplished in a matter of single percents. Of course this is all deeply rooted in my personal sentiment, but I think that if everyone understood the implications of an educated society, they would be eager to chip in as well.
By the way, “larger minority” is not an oxymoron. If you have three groups that make a total of one-hundred, the first being eighty-five, the second being nine, and the third being six, you can only have one majority: eighty-five. Therefore you have two minorities one of which is larger than the other, nine, and therefore making a “larger minority.”
ReplyDeleteI agree that we shouldn’t make people succeed. I would like them to, but I don’t think we should force them to. Once again, however, an educated society is a beneficial society, even at a personal level. It increases things like effective decisions politically, an increased proficiency in economics, and a higher output culturally, to name a few benefits. To put it shortly, when it comes to education it’s not just their success that is affected.
All of this is to say, education is important to all of us and we should do what we can to help.
Ethan, i do have some questions i would like to address in your blog. First off, why does a product become so expensive? Its a simple law of economics, supply and demand. Why do you think that college tuition has become so expensive? Let me put it another way, you say you are going to Yale right? If tuition was $30,00 a semester, and you had to pay it, would you still be going there? Not likely, but since your tuition will be payed for some other way, i.e. scholarship, government grant, loan etc hence Yale has no problem charging that kind of money. But if it were left to the individual to pay, the cost of that education would come down dramatically. Free education paid for by the government is already what we have, through government grants and subsidized loans, which is the reason why tuition's have sky rocketed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSecond, you pointed out that the author questioned the necessity for some to even go to college. Then you quoted the New York Times "The New York Times, however, recently published an article showing this necessity is at an all time high",followed by your comment "Now more than ever is a four year degree required to work anywhere other than McDonalds." First of all, the New York Times is such a liberal publication that they totally lack objectivity and have absolutely no credibility. So what of the people who make a living in the trades? Electricians, plumbers, contractors, etc, a college education is not for everyone and a good living can be made without one.
Next you say, "Ultimately, we need to move towards a direction where the government pays for college expenses for everyone (at least those who graduated high school)" First of all, I reiterate the government already pays for school for the poor via grants and student loans which has led to the high tuition. You make it sound like we should be like Europe and pay for everyone's education and that somehow Europe is superior to the USA. News flash, Europe and California are BROKE because they ran out of other peoples money. Plus if they had to pay for their own defense then they would really be broke.
I have a moral question for you, you say "the way a progressive tax structure works means those who can already afford it will foot most of the bill." So is it ok for the "majority" to take from the minority? Whats the difference between voting in government representatives to steal other peoples money or putting a gun to their head for your benefit? You wouldn't dream of robbing a rich man, but you have no problem voting in someone else to do it for you. In case you haven't noticed, the rest of the world wants to be like us, not the other way around.
I am going to be busy until Monday (I'm going on a trip), so I will reply to all the comments then rather than now.
ReplyDeleteKyle, I'm going to reply to your comments in a slightly different order than you posted them in.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I will address your second paragraph. First, here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education sorry I don't know how to do hyperlinks in comments) is a second source. I think you will find this more credible. Second, to me, it seems wrong to completely dismiss information based purely on the origin of the info. I don't even do this with Fox. Also, 'The New York Times', though liberal at times, is by no means so biased that it isn't credible any longer. Perhaps the opinion pages are, but they are called the opinion pages. Third, I am sorry I didn't put a link to the NYT page, I'm too lazy right now to be bothered. Fourth, I hadn't considered trade schools, but, overall the amount of people in trade schools is shrinking. The way I phrased the McDonald's question implied (though perhaps not strongly enough) that I don't think of college education in terms of absolutes. I don't think all jobs need a college education. I also don't think the jobs that don't require a college education are limited to the McDonald'ses of the world. I was referring to the larger category sourrounding McDonald’s and only specifically said McDonald’s itself. The fault for that confusion is on my end. I am sorry. Hopefully that helped disambiguate the Mckie D's statement.
Now, to address your third and first paragraph.
First off, I would like to point out that loans are not free by definition (even if they are subsidized). You have to pay them back, hence not free.
Just for a disambiguation, when I used the word ultimately, I was referring to what I think the 'ultimate' location of our collegiate system should be. It is what we should be striving to achieve. This is the end goal and could not be achieved with only minor adjustments to the system.
Now, to address your concerns, the ultimate reason college costs will be non-existent is because the government will be paying for everyone. They will decide, based on previous academic success, where you will be most suited to go. The geniuses will go to the Yales and the near-dropouts will go to the community colleges.
The reason why the government isn't going to get a raw deal in this exchange is, and this is shocking, the prices of tuition will be tied to CPI, average income, average wealth, interest rates, cost of living, and other economic factors that demonstrate how well the economy is doing. This will guarantee that professors and deans remain proportionally compensated for their work. When things become more expensive to buy, the amount the government is funding the colleges increases and nothing really changes. The purchasing power of the college remains the same.
Note: this does not mean that all colleges will receive the same amount of money; factors such as the number of students enrolled, quality of education, upkeep of facilities, prestige of professors, and so on, will play a part in the funding the colleges receive. If a college enrolls more students, or educates more effectively, or is in the process of constructing a new wing, and so on, then the college, of course, will receive a more substantial budget.
I reiterate a point which Noah made. Though we like to think we have designed a system with no cracks and everyone has the ability to achieve an education (for a cost), the reality isn't so ideal. Our system isn't perfect. Our system isn't even adequate. The classes that have the hardest time acquiring college education are: one, the poor who live in the inner city or remote countryside and two, the lower middle-class-men who has to borrow an insane amount of debt to go to college. Noah did a great job describing the poor in the countryside and the parallel can be drawn for those in the inner city. But, for the lower middle-class, or working class (the term which I prefer), is also at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to attending college. The parents of said student can't be expected to help pay for their students education; they would become destitute. The students themselves also don't see the benefit (because sometimes there isn't any) of going to college when they are forced to pay extraordinary sums of money (in the form of loans, subsidized or not) to attend. It may not end up being financially beneficial for the student to spend 100,000 dollars. In the end, they may not run a net-positive when it comes to their education. They aren't willing to take the possible risk associated with going in debt (especially that much) when to them it seems like they would be better off working their whole lives.
ReplyDeleteNow, If the student doesn't want to attend college for other reasons, I'm fine with that, but the student should not need to consider the financial advantage or disadvantage associated with the cost of higher education. They should only take into account their ideal profession, their academic background, ect. The ideological reason is education should be a right, not a privilege. The only way to make education a right is to design a system that is blind towards the economic background of everyone. Where cost isn't taken into effect. Everybody, no matter what their economic, religious, racial, or other background, deserves the chance to be educated. If the system denies someone who is black an education, because they are black, everyone immediately realizes the injustice; however, if the system denies someone who is poor, because they are poor, people aren't as quick to condemn the injustice. In reality they are very good parallels. Now, some may say that it is possible to become more affluent and therefore the parallel is non-existent. However, the amount of times people have completely changed their social class, before they were eighteen, is so small that it can be discounted in the larger picture. It is an outlier and is thrown out.
In ideological sum, everyone should be guaranteed an equal opportunity to succeed despite possible handicaps present with them at birth.
To address your points about Europe and California: I do in fact think we should be more like Europe. Specifically, the Nordic countries such as Sweden or Norway or Finland. The economies of those Nordic countries, despite popular opinion, are very strong. They were hurt in the financial crisis but not nearly as bad as most of the world. They also have top notch education. Finland has the smartest (or 2nd smartest depending on where you look) students in the world. Finland also has a completely government funded tertiary education. Also the amount Finland spends on said education isn't as great as one would think.
Also, California isn't broke; they have a government surplus. They are also the fifth largest economy in the world. They have an economy rivaling Germany and ahead of France.
Also Europe does in fact pay for its own defense. Among NATO countries, The U.S. is the highest spender. Even without the U.S. contributing to NATO, it still spends more than any other country worldwide. In fact, it spends twice as much as the nearest competitor (China). Five (not counting Russia but counting Turkey) of the 15 countries with the highest military expenditure are in Europe. The countries within the European Union spend nearly twice as much as China does on its military. No matter how you slice it Europe more than pays for its own defense.
ReplyDeleteNow for your fourth paragraph.
First off, the way you rephrased what I said is fallacious. It's called a false equivalency, or possibly a Strawman depending on how you want to look at. I said, "the way a progressive tax structure works means those who can already afford will foot most of the bill." Then what you used to refute was, "So is it ok to have the majority take from the minority?" The two are not equivalent.
To demonstrate the ridiculous nature of the 'majority minority' comment I will propose a hypothetical. Suppose a government charges, in income tax, 500 dollars per year to all its citizens. The 500 dollars would be charged independent of the income of each citizen. Now, if the government were to charge rich people more, it would be the 'majority taking from the minority' as you put it. In fact, even with taxing everyone 500 dollars, any program that benefits the poor more than the rich (education, public safety, roads, sewage, ect) would also be the 'majority taking from the minority'.
Now of course, most people can easily see how ridiculous that scenario is. Also, I'm not saying this is what you support I just needed this as a starting point. The fact that most people see this as unfair leads most to make the tax-code based on a percentage: to charge 10% of everyone's income instead of 500 dollars. I don't think anyone would prefer the lump-sum tax over the percentage tax.
Mathematically what is happening here is changing a constant (m=0) tax to a linear tax (m=p). You are moving the taxing structure up an order of magnitude. Likewise, you are changing what is taken into consideration from nothing to income.
I'm sure most people are now confused because they think I support a flat tax rate. I don't. I also don't support a lump-sum tax. I support what is called a progressive or graduated tax rate. Meaning, rich people get charged a higher percentage than poor people.
The justification for this is simple: the rich can afford to give a higher percentage of income to the government without it hurting their livelihood. It won't negate the economic gains they have made. McMurray has given multiple examples and if you ask she'll probably give another one.
Mathematically you are simply going a a step higher. You are basing things on a quadratic progression rather than a linear one. Likewise, it is based on a persons livelihood rather than their income.
Real quick, In response to Madeline's comment which went unanswered, The definition you found for democracy is a fine definition and demonstrates my point more than adequately. No where in the definition does it mention wealth playing any role into the political apparatus. The point I was making was that the U.S. would become a plutocracy if nothing was done to fix our education system.
ReplyDeleteNo where (and I checked multiple times) did I say people should be forced to succeed. That argument is one of the best strawmen I've ever seen.
The 'hasty conclusion paragraph' seems like an ad homminem.
Notice: in my next paragraph I am making a point in the abstract. I quote:
This division between the lower and upper classes is a self reinforcing principle. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Those whose parents go to college are more likely to go to college. People who go to college will, on average, make more in there life time. Thus, a class of college-goers and non-college-goers will progressively stratify over time. A democracy where the possibility of social improvement for those financially ill-predisposed increasingly becomes limited isn't a democracy in the true sense of the word. It becomes a society where only the rich castes of citizens rule. It becomes a plutocracy or oligarchy; much like medieval Europe, communist China, or anarchic Somalia. Places where wealth rules supreme. Therefore, it becomes necessary for a true Democracy, or Constitutional Republic if you prefer, to guarantee the equality of opportunity for all peoples.
No where up to that point do I ever mention the U.S. So, there is no slippery slope within my argument because I never said, "America is going to turn into communist China." You said that. Therefore you are constructing yet another strawman to tear down.
Perhaps you don't have to raise taxes, perhaps just cut our bloated military budget.
It is perfectly acceptable, if you live within our society, to expect you to pay into the system. Part of that system is paying for everyone's education. Everyone benefits if everyone is more educated.
K, I refuted your most egregious points and all of the other points have already been addressed by myself or Noah.
Ok, so my thoughts after reading everyone's comments is, aren't we already trying to force people to succeed by making them go to elementary and secondary schools? Yes, I understand that you can't force people to go to college, and succeed, but that's not even really the point here. The point is that college is way expensive, and we want to make it cheaper. I agree with Ethan, that a good way to go about it is to have the government pay for everyone's college. I'm not saying that we will be forcing everyone to go to college, just that we would pay for those who do. Those who don't want to go to college can go and be plumbers, or whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteJust as in high school you can't force anyone to succeed, the same will be the same at college. It will simply be a more elevated high school, but you won't even be forcing anyone to attend.
I don't think it is necessarily a good idea for gov't to pay for everything, because as the system now is, more students are driven to do well in college the first time, because the money paying for it is coming out of their own pockets. That said, I think we could lower costs, and still keep students motivated to succeed.
Woot! another comment!
Delete"I agree with Ethan, that a good way to go about it is to have the government pay for everyone's college. I'm not saying that we will be forcing everyone to go to college, just that we would pay for those who do."
"I don't think it is necessarily a good idea for gov't to pay for everything, because as the system now is, more students are driven to do well in college the first time, because the money paying for it is coming out of their own pockets."
These two points seem to directly contradict one another. I'm confused. Please help.