MusicAdventurer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 268
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The government should pay for college when it is statistically likely to lead to a greater increase in tax revenues than the expense of the program. Since we can't judge that on a case-by-case basis, we need a rules-based policy that ensure that it applies in the majority of cases; a "close enough" rule that allows us to eat the occasional loss while still benefiting overall.
Of course, we can't have programs like that because people would insist on "equal rights" for English and PE majors.
Viktyr Korimir said:The government should pay for college when it is statistically likely to lead to a greater increase in tax revenues than the expense of the program. Since we can't judge that on a case-by-case basis, we need a rules-based policy that ensure that it applies in the majority of cases; a "close enough" rule that allows us to eat the occasional loss while still benefiting overall.
Of course, we can't have programs like that because people would insist on "equal rights" for English and PE majors.
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?
Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?
What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?
Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?
What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?
I think there should be affordable college. It is a violation of equal opportunity to make colleges so expensive that only kids with rich parents can attend.
It is a violation of PRIVATE colleges to be mandated what they can or cannot charge. It is not a violation of equal opportunity to increase costs for a product that is in high demand. If people are willing to pay for it and the college can remain profitable, what right does anyone have to interrupt this transaction?
I think there should be affordable college. It is a violation of equal opportunity to make colleges so expensive that only kids with rich parents can attend.
When you say "free" you actually mean "tax-payer funded", because it costs something even if the student isn't the one paying the bill. In which case, I would base funding off of academic performance.
Should everyone have access to all types of college education and degrees regardless of their financial status and should the only factor that should be considered when allowing access to college education and degrees be their ability to complete such academic curriculum?
Or should only those who can afford a college education or those select few who receive scholarships be allowed access to college education and thus, one’s financial status should be considered in addition to one’s ability to complete academic curriculum?
What option did you pick or which one best reflects your beliefs and why?
Ideally, yes, but in reality no.
1. Economically without some sort of downward price pressure, college costs will go up too fast as there is no motivation to take bloat out of the system
2. Cost to benefit analysis would need to be under taken to see where the profitable amount of subsidies are as compared against the value added to society vs its costs.
3. I doubt we could afford it.
In response to your number (2) - You are suggesting that if we invest $1 dollar of tax payer money and in return society receives $2 worth of product (the graduated student), then we as a society should make this investment, up until the point that that $1 is giving us a return of less than $1. Correct?
Assuming that we could actually come up with these exact numbers, I have some issues with this thought process: As cost effective as this investment is to society and though I may benefit individually from each dollar invested, each dollar I invest has an opportunity cost. Where else could I have invested or spent that dollar to increase either my own wealth (potentially at a greater rate) or happiness individually? By creating these grants you make the decision on my behalf that the opportunity cost for my dollar is less than the opportunity for another's education. And you take that dollar by force (by threatening jail time if I do not comply and pay my taxes). This is not acceptable. Even if I choose to keep that dollar in a savings bank which will not keep up with inflation, taking the freedom/power to make that irrational decision away from me is unacceptable.
Something like that, even though we should recognize it would be incredibly hard to calculate.
Opportunity cost is of course part of a good cost benefit analysis.
I am sorry you find it unacceptable, however, this does not affect my reasoning.
I don't intend on influencing your reasoning with my acceptance of your idea; only to draw attention to my counter-reasoning
So let's say opportunity cost is included. Does the fact that the government has found the BEST investment to increase my happiness and/or wealth give them the right to make that decision on my behalf? I do not understand how you can say yes to this question. If I choose to be unreasonable, why would you take that choice away from me? It is a freedom to make that choice. The underlying philosophical problem I have with grants is that they are another tax to redistribute my wealth. To make investment decisions of my property on my behalf and to punish me if I do not comply.
If this method of redistribution were merely an opportunity and voluntary, then provide me with the data that the investment is worth my dollar and I will make the rational decision, the decision that makes me the happiest. It seems you fear that people, when presented with a fully informed decision, will be irrational and so we must force the rational choice upon them through legislation. I've made some leaps here; feel free to correct my assumptions. I'd really like to know why you think that grants would be appropriate in any situation, so giving you all the benefits of doubts, how do you defend your position?
I don't intend on influencing your reasoning with my acceptance of your idea; only to draw attention to my counter-reasoning
So let's say opportunity cost is included. Does the fact that the government has found the BEST investment to increase my happiness and/or wealth give them the right to make that decision on my behalf? I do not understand how you can say yes to this question. If I choose to be unreasonable, why would you take that choice away from me? It is a freedom to make that choice. The underlying philosophical problem I have with grants is that they are another tax to redistribute my wealth. To make investment decisions of my property on my behalf and to punish me if I do not comply.
If this method of redistribution were merely an opportunity and voluntary, then provide me with the data that the investment is worth my dollar and I will make the rational decision, the decision that makes me the happiest. It seems you fear that people, when presented with a fully informed decision, will be irrational and so we must force the rational choice upon them through legislation. I've made some leaps here; feel free to correct my assumptions. I'd really like to know why you think that grants would be appropriate in any situation, so giving you all the benefits of doubts, how do you defend your position?
easy, I defend my position because I don't think what you bring up is all that important.
While there is a place for individual rights and needs (and a huge one at that) they should always be balanced with societal needs as the two are always linked.
Is your screen name from I Love Lucy??
We're moving pretty far into the abstract at this point; what is a 'societal' need? I assume you would consider college to be one of them, with all of the assumptions made about cost-effectiveness.
But the balance is naturally occurring, assuming that the few individual rights are being fully protected. The job of the government should not be to define societal needs. Government represents and protects individuals, not societies. Those individuals create and define society. That is how they are linked. Not through government.
In a perfect and functional world and society, the list you could put under "job of the government" would be incredibly small.
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?