• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie sanders wants to tax stock trades to pay for free college

As though free higher learning means that students no longer will have to get up and go to school every day, make their classes and their grades to achieve their degrees.
 
Absolutely spot on Fiddy. The real elephant in the room regarding this issue is the greed displayed by College and University Administrators. When the money became so easy for students to get their hands on, tuition costs went through the roof.

It's a crime, and Sander's plan will only exacerbate the corrupted atmosphere.

There were many things at play that increased tuition costs. Student loan access and sheer volume, decrease in state funding of university systems (depending on the state, by the way), administrative expansion and duplication, university building construction, and so on.

I think we should be careful not to put most of the blame on more students wanting education, because in many ways that blames people for wanting to increase their station in life and doesn't really address the other problems involved.

What we can do now is tighten the excesses.

Middle and upper level offices have expanded, while faculty and students alike cannot make sense for what they do to aid research, education, or the vitality of the university. Administrative salaries have significantly increased while teaching salaries have absolutely plummeted to Walmart part-time level salaries. Construction costs in the university have gone up, sometimes filling the buildings with expensive, pretty features, that could have been seen as completely unnecessary. To them a nice looking building with all of the frills is an advertising benefit. What it truly does for the student is far less certain.

Students in traditional universities are frequently required to spend an incredible amount of money in dorm living and food plans for at least a year. The quality of each dorm truly varies, but the costs are often impressive. It's not as if a student can split the cost for their measly accommodations either. Each student gets to fork up an individual fare that goes straight to the university.

While costs have gone up, tenure and a stable faculty have gone by the wayside. While the traditional university has prided itself on being research institutions rather than teaching, it has significantly decreased the ability for persons in academia to do so.

Students no longer are being taught by people with some semblance of job security or enough time to actually improve the mentorship of their pupils. When teachers are split between many campuses, making little wages, and having no offices, students are being taught by teachers that are burnt out and have little ability to devote their attention toward traditional tutelage of students. They make little money and are too damn tired to care anymore. As you progress through a program, a student ought to have a healthy relationship with their mentors and improve their crafts so they can exit school with their skills developed and their social networks expanded. If your professors increasingly seem distant, you lose a vital component to higher education: apprenticeship.

Meanwhile states across the country have viewed higher education funding with increased indifference. Funding has plummeted at about the same time that tuition costs have skyrocketed. Without the support from one direction, schools have resorted to getting the funds elsewhere: the federal government, private banks whereby the final payers become students and their families. This isn't true in all states. Mine has been a stalwart supporter of the university system. Even in the midst of corruption from the universities with regard to their administrative bloat, my state has funded them as they desired. Nevertheless, the issue is to be found throughout the country.

What will taxing stocks truly achieve in the midst of such structural problems? Nothing positive, in my estimation. It may, as you have said, incentivize further fiscal licentiousness.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, I also forgot about online courses. This will depend on the state's given higher education system, however, in many schools online education has become seen as both an optional convenience and a requirement. This often means it may be even more expensive to complete one's education online. Some programs more susceptible to the belief that practicing professionals or would-be professionals want distanced education can find themselves being required by the campus to enroll in online courses. This also means that depending on the susceptibility, entire programs could be exclusively online. Meanwhile, the cost per credit is higher and colleges may require that anyone receiving any sort of tuition and fee waiver still be required to pay the full amount. This ends up becoming a huge cash cow to the university, who is already using cheap labor, while it is a huge strain for any student.
 
putting a significant paywall between students and education is poor national policy, because it discourages kids from attending college. i'll explain it to you one last time since you haven't quite picked up on it : you're paying more in entitlements on the back end because kids who don't go on to post secondary education end up collecting more in entitlements. you're paying the money anyway. all we have to do is shift some national priorities, and we could probably guarantee debt free access to college to every student. it would probably mean ending foreverwar, but we should do that anyway. or, conversely, if neoconservatives and others won't consider ending foreverwar, then we would raise taxes appropriately if needed. my guess is that we'd see savings on the back end, though.

I don't know what this pay wall is you are referring to college costs money.
get loans, get grants, get scholarhips and work. that is how most people pay for college.

I know it is a personal responsibility another 4 letter word in the liberal dictionary.

again I posted the link and have given you the opportunity for you and your liberal friends to start your own scholarship fund with your own person donations.
there is no reason to thieve from other people.

you seem to not want to do this.
 
Its not a straw man its a question. Why cant you answer it? You asked If I was going to "move beyond thievery?". Well 1.)What thievery am I supporting? And 2.)If what I think you are stating falls under 'thievery', the 50cent tax on $100 of stock, are all taxes "thievery"?

yes thievery is the attempt to take something that doesn't belong to you and give it to someone else or take it for yourself.

Its not a straw man, its asking questions.

no it is a strawman I didn't mention other taxes. that is the distortion. next you attempt to get me to defend your distortion of what I said and you argue the distortion.
you then commit yet another fallacy with the paint brush effect. if this means this then it means all.

you are just one logical fallacy after another.


Again, not a distortion and not a straw man. Questioning and challenging your positions. So again I will ask: "If college is free will they not work? Is something wrong with university being provided? Why is something wrong if university is provided and they dont have to pay any or as much as you did? If someones experience is different than yours because of a policy changed does that make it inherently "wrong" or "bad"?"
yes it is and no amount of your denial will change what it is and that is a strawman.

you aren't challenging my position you are distorting my position then trying to argue the distortion that is why it is a strawman LOL.


Whats this then? "I gave you the link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government"
a link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government. if you feel that they are not getting enough of YOUR money then you are than happy to give it.

So pick and choose what we fund?
nope giving you a chance to live up to what you spout.

Why is what? Why dont people just randomly donate money to the state to fund universal college education? Well because we have these things called taxes and expecting people just to hand over money to the federal government at will is not going to fund universal college education because its not law or policy.

So unless you are threatened with force to give up your money you won't do it? funny I thought you and liberals would be happy to freely give up your money? but you won't
so the hypocrisy is seen for what it is.

For all your talk about fallacies, this is pure irony.
nope look at your name and the title that you claim it is called truth.

Why is taxing stock like this thievery?

What right do you have to that money in the first place? 0
 
what I find funny is that when presented with the options to fund this themselves none of these so called upstanding liberals will do it.
they want to take from someone else that isn't there's.

and the liberal ideology hypocrisy is revealed.

simply amazing they won't even support their own nonsense when it is applied to them they expect everyone else to support it.
 
I don't know what this pay wall is you are referring to college costs money.
get loans, get grants, get scholarhips and work. that is how most people pay for college.

I know it is a personal responsibility another 4 letter word in the liberal dictionary.

again I posted the link and have given you the opportunity for you and your liberal friends to start your own scholarship fund with your own person donations.
there is no reason to thieve from other people.

you seem to not want to do this.

you know damned well that we can't send everyone to college debt free via donations. what you can't seem to grasp is how much that paywall hurts America. the idea of taking on that much debt is a serious deterrent to a lot of 18 year old kids. meanwhile, Europe is making post secondary education a lot more accessible. so basically, in thirty years, the populations in Europe are going to be a whole ****load more educated than ours, and their intellectual pool will be a lot deeper. this is just one more reason why it is completely stupid to price anyone out of an education. it's horrible national policy.

it's just unreal. let's see, we can tell the kids to bootstrap it and then pay entitlements to those who fell through the cracks, or we can educate them so that a lot fewer of them fall through the cracks. what should we do? why, bootstraps and entitlements, of course. huzzah!

:roll:
 
you know damned well that we can't send everyone to college debt free via donations. what you can't seem to grasp is how much that paywall hurts America. the idea of taking on that much debt is a serious deterrent to a lot of 18 year old kids. meanwhile, Europe is making post secondary education a lot more accessible. so basically, in thirty years, the populations in Europe are going to be a whole ****load more educated than ours, and their intellectual pool will be a lot deeper. this is just one more reason why it is completely stupid to price anyone out of an education. it's horrible national policy.

it's just unreal. let's see, we can tell the kids to bootstrap it and then pay entitlements to those who fell through the cracks, or we can educate them so that a lot fewer of them fall through the cracks. what should we do? why, bootstraps and entitlements, of course. huzzah!

:roll:

The way I see is it the US has poured billions more into educating our kids with no educational results, far from it. Our students are less educated in spite of billions spent. i would suggest that problem be fixed fist so that once out out of high school they have been educated to go to collage. The first step is to have a voucher system then parents and students can choose a school based on performance and not have to go to a school of nonperformance.
 
The way I see is it the US has poured billions more into educating our kids with no educational results, far from it. Our students are less educated in spite of billions spent. i would suggest that problem be fixed fist so that once out out of high school they have been educated to go to collage. The first step is to have a voucher system then parents and students can choose a school based on performance and not have to go to a school of nonperformance.

i'm open to new ideas in secondary education, but my state has pretty much disgusted me. it is run by right wing ideologues who do what they can to hinder public education in favor of privatized education. ****, our ex-state superintendent even got caught boosting the assessment of a private school that wasn't performing. i'm fine with private competing with public for quality of education, but not when the state is stacking the deck.

another policy change idea that i support is requiring that kids finish high school or get a GED. there is absolutely no reason to let a kid make a stupid decision like dropping out. it ends up costing society a ton of money. every student should be required to at least finish high school.
 
i'm open to new ideas in secondary education, but my state has pretty much disgusted me. it is run by right wing ideologues who do what they can to hinder public education in favor of privatized education. ****, our ex-state superintendent even got caught boosting the assessment of a private school that wasn't performing. i'm fine with private competing with public for quality of education, but not when the state is stacking the deck.

another policy change idea that i support is requiring that kids finish high school or get a GED. there is absolutely no reason to let a kid make a stupid decision like dropping out. it ends up costing society a ton of money. every student should be required to at least finish high school.

I'm in the business of trying to change secondary education practices for certain students, so I'm with you on that broad mentality.

With the GED, I'm absolutely mystified as to why it makes sense to completely penalize a student for dropping out and having the good sense to address the mistake they made at 16 or 17 years old. For one thing, the damn tests can cost as much as I had to fork over for Praxis exams in university teacher preparation colleges. They have made that test far harder than what regular students have to go through. This dramatically increases the time they have to spend preparing for the examination (add another year or two). If non-drop outs get to take an easier test or sit back with a mediocre accumulation of credits, why in the hell should drop outs be forced to be far better students than everyone else in order to get an entry-level education certification? All that does is ensure that a significant population remains in the underclass, thereby reducing their station in life at the same time as increasing the likelihood that they will rely on government aid.
 
Last edited:
How about a transaction tax on food sales instead? That way everyone has some skin in the game

Everyone already has skin in the game if that is what you call paying taxes.
 
I just proved it

You have proved nothing of the sort. All that you proved is that not everyone is going to just give their money away unless it benefits them directly. And that applies to conservatives just as much as liberals.
 
Everyone already has skin in the game if that is what you call paying taxes.

Not when it comes to the tax proposed by Sanders.. Sorry to disappoint you
 
On a micro level, absolutely it does. I seriously doubt it makes a difference on a macro level.

If everyone had a college degree, would that necessarily make them more productive? Who would do the service and manual jobs now, which we depend on?

My instinct says that we would see a slight increase in overall productivity, but, at the end of the day, you'd simply be moving the bar to where college becomes the new high school.

Part of the reason a college education is valuable today is that not everyone does it. It takes motivation.

Motivation, not education, is the biggest ingredient in success

They'd still have to pass their classes to graduate, and the people who don't care/aren't motivated would still fail those classes.
 
Not when it comes to the tax proposed by Sanders.. Sorry to disappoint you

So you believe that ALL people pay EVERY tax?

But if you want to get picky - ALL people who buy or sell stock would indeed pay this tax. Just like all people who earn income pay income tax. Or all people who buy gasoline pay the gas tax. Or any number of taxes.
 
I'm in the business of trying to change secondary education practices for certain students, so I'm with you on that broad mentality.

With the GED, I'm absolutely mystified as to why it makes sense to completely penalize a student for dropping out and having the good sense to address the mistake they made at 16 or 17 years old. For one thing, the damn tests can cost as much as I had to fork over for Praxis exams in university teacher preparation colleges. They have made that test far harder than what regular students have to go through. This dramatically increases the time they have to spend preparing for the examination (add another year or two). If non-drop outs get to take an easier test or sit back with a mediocre accumulation of credits, why in the hell should drop outs be forced to be far better students than everyone else in order to get an entry-level education certification? All that does is ensure that a significant population remains in the underclass, thereby reducing their station in life at the same time as increasing the likelihood that they will rely on government aid.

yeah, i wasn't aware that they were doing that with the GED. last i heard, it was fairly straightforward to take the test in my area, but that was more than ten years ago. i'm sure they'll do whatever they can to squeeze the most money out of kids that they can. just one more reason why we shouldn't let them drop out in the first place. if kids already aren't allowed to quit tenth grade, why should they be allowed to quit eleventh or twelfth?
 
So you believe that ALL people pay EVERY tax?

But if you want to get picky - ALL people who buy or sell stock would indeed pay this tax. Just like all people who earn income pay income tax. Or all people who buy gasoline pay the gas tax. Or any number of taxes.
I believe that not all people would pay the tax proposed by Sanders, The Robin Hood tax. And for the record, not everyone who earns income pays the income tax. However, a transaction tax on food would get more, if not all, people on the record as having skin in the game
 
I believe that not all people would pay the tax proposed by Sanders, The Robin Hood tax. And for the record, not everyone who earns income pays the income tax. However, a transaction tax on food would get more, if not all, people on the record as having skin in the game

You are correct about they come tax. Thank you for the correction.

I do not know the intricate details of the Sanders proposal but I would favor a tax on ALL stock transactions.

I would much much rather tax stocks transactions than something very basic to living like food.
 
yes thievery is the attempt to take something that doesn't belong to you and give it to someone else or take it for yourself.
So all taxes are "thievery"? Are you against all taxes then?

no it is a strawman I didn't mention other taxes.
Haha something getting mentioned that is used to challenge your position is not a straw man.. Using the same knowledge you use to draw a logical conclusion in the form of a question is not a straw man. Its literally using your own knowledge and train of thought to ask a question.

that is the distortion.
Nope. Its a question.

next you attempt to get me to defend your distortion of what I said and you argue the distortion.
:lamo Oh no! You have to answer questions! Why cant you just answer the questions?

you then commit yet another fallacy with the paint brush effect. if this means this then it means all.
Nope. I asked you a question....

you are just one logical fallacy after another.
:lamo


you aren't challenging my position you are distorting my position then trying to argue the distortion that is why it is a strawman LOL.
What are my questions then? I'm trying to figure out your position, and on what logical grounds you reach your conclusions by asking questions...

a link that you can give all the money you want to the federal government. if you feel that they are not getting enough of YOUR money then you are than happy to give it.
It very much seems to be an argument of voluntarily giving your money to the federal government as an alternative to this tax as a means to pay for college education...
nope giving you a chance to live up to what you spout.
So do you extend this logic to all government programs or just this one? And if so why just this one?
So unless you are threatened with force to give up your money you won't do it?
Yup. Thats usually how laws work.
funny I thought you and liberals would be happy to freely give up your money? but you won't
1.)Again I am not a liberal
2.)By what? Whats "giving up money"? Donating to charities?

so the hypocrisy is seen for what it is.
By calling for "legislation which is offset byimposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%fee on derivatives" ( http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file ), which would pay for tuition free public college? Supporting that legislation thus makes "liberals" hypocrites because, what? They dont do what? Fund it all with their own money?

nope look at your name and the title that you claim it is called truth.
I am a socialist, not a liberal. And even supporting free public college does not make one a socialist.

What right do you have to that money in the first place? 0
Constitutional authority. Politics. The right to hold an opinion.
 
You are correct about they come tax. Thank you for the correction.

I do not know the intricate details of the Sanders proposal but I would favor a tax on ALL stock transactions.

I would much much rather tax stocks transactions than something very basic to living like food.
As I said, a tax on food would make sure everyone had skin in the game which is a more equitable approach
 
As I said, a tax on food would make sure everyone had skin in the game which is a more equitable approach

I will stick with the tax on stocks.
 
you know damned well that we can't send everyone to college debt free via donations. what you can't seem to grasp is how much that paywall hurts America.

So instead of supporting your own idea you demand that other people pay for your nonsense? why should they?
again what pay wall? College costs money. there are plenty of ways to pay for it. I did and so have millions of other americans.
again you want to promise them a free education then you fund it along with all your liberal friends.

the idea of taking on that much debt is a serious deterrent to a lot of 18 year old kids. meanwhile, Europe is making post secondary education a lot more accessible. so basically, in thirty years, the populations in Europe are going to be a whole ****load more educated than ours, and their intellectual pool will be a lot deeper. this is just one more reason why it is completely stupid to price anyone out of an education. it's horrible national policy.

yet it doesn't stop millions of kids from graduating college every year. amazing isn't that your appeals to emotion fail when looking at reality.
there are plenty of affordable college's. that provide good educations.

it's just unreal. let's see, we can tell the kids to bootstrap it and then pay entitlements to those who fell through the cracks, or we can educate them so that a lot fewer of them fall through the cracks. what should we do? why, bootstraps and entitlements, of course. huzzah!

more appeal to emotion. the fact is nothing you even if it is free will make them go if they don't want to.
then again you still can't justify taking other peoples money to do it when you won't even spend your own money to do it as I have proven.


pretty much sums up your logic on the matter.
 
You have proved nothing of the sort. All that you proved is that not everyone is going to just give their money away unless it benefits them directly. And that applies to conservatives just as much as liberals.

if you can't support your own ideology then it isn't a very sound ideology to begin with.
if you noticed none of them who are harping about it have stepped up to the plate.

not one. it is just excuse after excuse.
 
So instead of supporting your own idea you demand that other people pay for your nonsense? why should they?

because they already are.

again what pay wall? College costs money. there are plenty of ways to pay for it. I did and so have millions of other americans.

http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/Debt_Facts_and_Sources.pdf

again you want to promise them a free education then you fund it along with all your liberal friends.

already addressed.

yet it doesn't stop millions of kids from graduating college every year. amazing isn't that your appeals to emotion fail when looking at reality.
there are plenty of affordable college's. that provide good educations.

OECD: The US Has Fallen Behind Other Countries In College Completion - Business Insider


more appeal to emotion. the fact is nothing you even if it is free will make them go if they don't want to.
then again you still can't justify taking other peoples money to do it when you won't even spend your own money to do it as I have proven.

you're paying for people who fall through the cracks already, and yet you still refuse to see that the money is better invested on the front end.
 
Back
Top Bottom