JP Hochbaum
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 2,549
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I like this idea:
"Oregon's legislature is moving ahead with a plan to enable students to attend state schools with no money down. In return, under one proposal, the students would agree to pay into a special fund 3% of their salaries annually for 24 years."
"Using 2010 census data not adjusted for inflation, Mr. Gettel estimates students would pay an average of about $800 back into the program the first year after graduation. As their incomes grow, that would increase to about $2,000 in year 20, by which time they would have paid off the cost of their educations."
Oregon Is Doing Free Higher Education the Right Way | Demos
I don't see anything in the bill about it being a tax?While this system sounds good if implemented nationally, it has some problems on a state/local level. One of which is that once one leaves Oregon it amounts to taxation without representation, as they are then liable for their current state's (nation's?) taxation but not Oregon's. Another problem is that one may attend 2 years of school in Oregon, and finish their school (in another 4 years?) elsewhere then they would be liable for a larger repayment amount to Oregon, but based on money earned largely by education received (and paid for) elsewhere.
I don't see anything in the bill about it being a tax?
Did I miss that?
What power would you suggest that the Oregon gov't use to get folks to pay into their "special gov't fund"?
I like this idea:
"Oregon's legislature is moving ahead with a plan to enable students to attend state schools with no money down. In return, under one proposal, the students would agree to pay into a special fund 3% of their salaries annually for 24 years."
"Using 2010 census data not adjusted for inflation, Mr. Gettel estimates students would pay an average of about $800 back into the program the first year after graduation. As their incomes grow, that would increase to about $2,000 in year 20, by which time they would have paid off the cost of their educations."
Oregon Is Doing Free Higher Education the Right Way | Demos
I don't see anything in the bill about it being a tax?
Did I miss that?
What power would you suggest that the Oregon gov't use to get folks to pay into their "special gov't fund"?
...isn't that exactly what this is?You know what's an even better idea? Not making everyone start out their working life in debt. Education should be an investment in future generations, not something we hold them on the hook for.
...isn't that exactly what this is?
No, this is making education contingent on going into debt. Which is a stupid idea. It's one of the reasons that my generation is broke. Because we all owe so much money in order to get an education and get a job, and then those jobs pay a pittance and we can't afford our rent. Because the solution isn't to tweak debt. It's to not subject people to debt in order to just get their foot in the door.
No, this is making education contingent on going into debt. Which is a stupid idea. It's one of the reasons that my generation is broke. Because we all owe so much money in order to get an education and get a job, and then those jobs pay a pittance and we can't afford our rent. Because the solution isn't to tweak debt. It's to not subject people to debt in order to just get their foot in the door.
No, this is making education contingent on going into debt. Which is a stupid idea. It's one of the reasons that my generation is broke. Because we all owe so much money in order to get an education and get a job, and then those jobs pay a pittance and we can't afford our rent. Because the solution isn't to tweak debt. It's to not subject people to debt in order to just get their foot in the door.
Education has been contingent on going into debt for a while. Oregon is trying to make free public tuition in exchange for a low percentage of future income. That's more than tweaking debt, it's more a tax levied on only those the system pays for more than it is debt--traditional debt would be in a fixed amount and schedule payments irrespective of income, which is the entire problem with debt in the first place.No, this is making education contingent on going into debt. Which is a stupid idea. It's one of the reasons that my generation is broke. Because we all owe so much money in order to get an education and get a job, and then those jobs pay a pittance and we can't afford our rent. Because the solution isn't to tweak debt. It's to not subject people to debt in order to just get their foot in the door.
Although you still don't seem to acknowledge the possibility of sovereign finance offset by deflationary interest. I'll still push for monetary reform in that direction, but for the moment, we both know you're only correct as a function of legality.There is no actual particular debt amount that the education is contingent upon. The amount that one has to pay for the services rendered is totally based upon the economic outcome of the education. Hey, no income then no payments, and loads of income result in bigger payments.
I would assume that there wouldn't even be a listing on credit reports, since there was no outright loan, or loan amount, or set amount to repay.
The reality is that if we offer education, someone has to pay, whether it be a private school or a public school. It only makes sense for the people who use services to pay for the services they use. Why should I have to pay for YOUR education?
Yeah, that's kinda how modern governments work.I guess you're right, since money for the government seems to grow on trees.
Education has been contingent on going into debt for a while. Oregon is trying to make free public tuition in exchange for a low percentage of future income. That's more than tweaking debt, it's more a tax levied on only those the system pays for more than it is debt--traditional debt would be in a fixed amount and schedule payments irrespective of income, which is the entire problem with debt in the first place.
Although you still don't seem to acknowledge the possibility of sovereign finance offset by deflationary interest. I'll still push for monetary reform in that direction, but for the moment, we both know you're only correct as a function of legality.
I'm talking of the basic observations of MMT--the government isn't technically funded by taxes, so your statement that someone has to pay for education is only true in the current legal structure of our monetary system. The concept of pay it forward, pay it back is quite acceptable and immensely preferable over the current system, but I'd still prefer it if were truly free, and there's no real reason it can't be.I didn't understand a word of that. Can you explain in terms that even "the village idiot" can comprehend?
I'm talking of the basic observations of MMT--the government isn't technically funded by taxes, so your statement that someone has to pay for education is only true in the current legal structure of our monetary system. The concept of pay it forward, pay it back is quite acceptable and immensely preferable over the current system, but I'd still prefer it if were truly free, and there's no real reason it can't be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?