- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
right you are--its people who think they might pay 100 to a thousand more saying they don't mind while those who are say retirees with large dividend incomes are going to see their taxes go from 15% to 43 percent. which contrary to the lies that the dems spew is hardly "paying a little more"
How do student's benefit? Are we proposing even more handouts?
Taxes (government support) keeps tuition down at state schools. Allows more people to attend school. It's called teaching hem to fish.
So, are you saying that a person that doesn't go to college can't learn to, "fish"? A slap in the face to all the hard working folks who go to work everyday and never spenta day in college.
Taxes (government support) keeps tuition down at state schools.
Support this lie.....
It's really math. Government gives the school dollars. This lowers tuition that students have to pay. When budget cuts hit schools, tuition went up (not down). This is particularly true at state schools.
A new study from the New York Federal Reserve shows declining state and local financial support for public higher education is causing tuition to skyrocket, increasing much faster than at private colleges.
State Budget Cuts Drive Up Tuition At Public Universities: New York Federal Reserve Report
The average tuition at a four-year public university climbed 15% between 2008 and 2010, fueled by state budget cuts for higher education and increases of 40% and more at universities in states like Georgia, Arizona and California.
Average cost of four-year university up 15%
Ehrhart said the system already has made numerous spending cuts, such as merging its 33 colleges around the state to 25 institutions. The system also has relied more on part-time instructors, who are less costly than full-time teachers.
“They have cut to the bone,” Ehrhart said.
The institutional fee was in response to there being little else to cut, system leaders said. This charge is similar to one the State Board of Regents started in 2009 for students attending the University System of Georgia. That fee was created to offset state budget cuts and was supposed to end this summer. But leaders kept the fee saying the system can’t afford to lose the $210 million a year it brings in.
Higher tuition and fees in the technical system could raise as much as $18 million this year and as much as $42 million next year, Light said.
Technical colleges increase tuition amid state budget cuts | www.ajc.com
As recently as eight years ago, Colorado funded roughly two-thirds of tuition costs; students paid the remaining third, either directly, or through grants, loans, or scholarships. Now this formula is reversed. Students increasingly rely on loans to bridge the gap between what they can afford and what scholarships and grants cover. All public Colorado institutions have been forced to dramatically increase tuition, thanks to state funding cuts.
Commentary: Government cuts = higher tuition | EdNewsColorado
You may argue it's proper to raise it on them, but you can't deny the facts. Cuts translate into higher tuition.
I'll be back for more later j, but this one isn't entirely true:
3. Most higher education is not for profit. While most academics view that as a great virtue, I don’t. The lack of a profit motive reduces incentives to cut costs, improve product quality, and other things necessary to make profits and enhance wealth in the private market economy.
The largest abusers are privates, and they have higher tuition. I've linked it before and will so again when I get time.
Joe
That's fine, just make sure to be able to say why you think something is untrue, not just make the declarative statement....That won't fly.
FACT: According to the Department of Education, (as reported in The Washington Times), 26 percent of all student loan money and 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default come from for-profit programs, despite the fact they account for just 12 percent of college students.
FACT: These schools aren't cheap—despite the lack of campuses or classrooms or counseling or even much personal interaction with faculty members. Again, according to the Education Department, (as reported in USA Today), for-profits cost on average $30,900 per year compared to public colleges at $15,600 and private, non-profits at $26,600.
(snip)
[Students at For-Profit Colleges Earn Less, Study Says]
FACT: Not enough of this taxpayer money is going to educate students—for-profits devote less than one third of the money that public institutions do to instruction. It is even less than one fifth of what private non-profit institutions provide (Department of Education). Those are huge and disturbing gaps.
(snip)
FACT: As the New York Times reported last December, these for-profits spent $16 million dollars on lobbyists to confront the Obama administration, members of Congress like Sens. Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin, and many others, to prevent any legislation. Instead of "cleaning house" the for-profits sought to "clean up" by keeping those federal dollars rolling in. Courageous members Harkin and Durbin have stood their ground against the onslaught.
For-Profit Colleges Must Crack Down on Predatory Practices - Peter Fenn (usnews.com)
This combination of naïve students and misleading information allows for-profit colleges to set tuition in line with their profit goals (many of these colleges are publicly-traded companies) rather than in line with the cost of education. Figure A shows that the average cost of a certificate program at a for-profit college is 4.7 times the cost of an equivalent program at a public community college. The average cost of an associate degree is 4.2 times what it would cost at a typical community college. Bachelor’s degree programs average 19 percent higher at a for-profit college than at a flagship state public university.
High cost and high debt for students at for-profit colleges | Economic Policy Institute
For-profit schools cash in on GI Bill meant for veterans - Jun. 26, 2012
Ok, now thanks for that, now show me where Universities themselves with their huge endowments, and bloated administration, and instructor costs, according to the picture you are painting here have any accountability at all in this? I think you are trying hard to shift blame to banks, to even students themselves for poor choices, but I don't see any honesty in accountability coming from your postings here on this...Why is that?
If I were to look at this with a blank slate, I would have to conclude that Collages, and Universities were doing the same thing to students, that happened with the housing collapse.
In what world does a 40% increase in tuition within a 5 year period seem justifiable in the real world to you? If an Oil company did this you'd be leading the charge calling them greedy pigs.
You lack a lot of understanding of this my friend. State schools report to a board, department of ed, and state legislators. There's a reason why they don't pray on the public. They have to account for not only dollars, but results. Assessment has been the way of life for a long time. Public schools are far more "ACCOUNTABLE" in every important way.
Taxes (government support) keeps tuition down at state schools. Allows more people to attend school. It's called teaching hem to fish.
Well, surprise, we disagree. :mrgreen: However, that was one small portion of the 12 reasons I gave you. Should I assume that you agree with the others?
Oh, and you never addressed why it is that some schools tuitions have risen absurdly fast, and completely out of kilter with anything remotely approaching accountable.
Hard to fish with out the pond. Or lake, or ocean.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that students have nothing to work with? Schools? or the country?
Life is about balance. If your students dont learn to fish they starve. No? If the pond where they get their fish dries up or is overfished they starve. No? Lesson being don't overfish the pond, or there will be no fish. It works the same way with taxes and business in general.
What would be overfishing? Taxes for them have been going down for a long time. And they have not resulted in a larger pond. Perhaps we have wrong how that works.
No it works just like that. Ponds dont nessarily get bigger. That depends on other factors. To look at taxes objectively we have to look at a common denominator, as taxes over the years have changed. Instead of tax rates we need to look at tax bite. How much of as pecentage of income did the taxpayer actually pay. We've had 90% tax rates. How many people would actually pay 90% on their taxes? Not one. I doubt even you. It would be a very hot day in hell before I would pay that kind rate. It would be worth risking jail over. The more you tax the more people will avoid it. People arent stupid. Unless they can make a reasonable amount of money for their effort and risk they are going to avoid that activity. You think I am in business for my health? Theres a balace point between taxation and income. Exeed the balace point even though you increase the tax revenue will go down. People will not work for free.
So we need to look at a common denominator when examining tax policy though time so we can determine actual tax implications and compare them. Not to would just be a waste of both our times. My suggestion for comparision is to compare actualized tax rates. Compare apples to apples. What we would be after is the actual realized tax compaired to income. This would allow us to compare tax rates over time and determine accurately their actual effects.
So are you game?
Sounds like you're trying to find a way to rig the game, to skew it so your orange looks like an apple.
But present what you want. I'll review it.
No thats why I am asking you, and explaining my reasoning. Taxes from 1911 till now were not the same. In order to compare them we have to have a some common way to measure them equaly, a common denominator just like in working with fractions in math. In order to work with a fraction we generally need a common denominator. Same applies to taxes and how we would go about compairing them. I am suggesting using the EFFECTIVE MARGINAL RATE.
Here is document on why I belive this to be so.http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf
A republican document? I wonder how many conservatives accept a democrat report? When I get to my computer, I'll look for one. Though I was going back to 1911. I'm not sure we have to back any further than 2000.
But I'll look for some informative from a source equal to yours.
All it is is a reason why and it happens to be the first one convienent that makes my essintial arguement. The idea is why we need to compare the taxes on an equal basis. It doc simply makes the arguemnet for me why and what we should be comparing. First we need to settle on what it is we are comparing. I am proposing what they did IE Effective Marginal Rate. I dont particularly care about WHO the source is from so long as the arguement for their case is reasonable and plausible. Thats my take. Comparing rates back to 1911 is still a good thing because thats when the income tax started. Thats my opinion.
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?