Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's mostly targeting businesses since most property transfers over $5 million are buildings owned by businesses such as banks and insurance companies and software companies and hotels that are located in San Francisco. They only pay it once per property transfer (sale).
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipsywicket
Be vigilant, they are there to destroy Texas with the same liberal ideals they are trying to escape from! Or maybe not. I'm a Texan who now lives in CA...trying to put some heads on straight. ;-)
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Anywho, I think an argument most could get behind is a funding system based on aptitude. If a student picks a major they have aptitude in, subsidized based on the level of aptitude. Strongly suited gets "free" tuition, mildly suited gets discounted tuition, and if it's not the major the student had the aptitude in, then they pay full cost. Fair???
Yes, they do, in one way or another (public transport etc). Not to mention the pay as you use tax on gas, that is supposed to be used for highway funds.
It's not the inclusiveness of who they are admitting, that's the problem. It's the exclusiveness of who they are taxing.
Expecting rich people to pay for everything is wrong on so many levels. They already pay mega tax compared to the average. In fact 45% of Americans pay ZERO federal tax.
So if you want money to fund something, do it by reducing expenditure in other areas. Or a FLAT tax (but how popular would that be eh?). Even then, the rich will still pay a disproportion amount.
So you are just posturing with the tax is theft nonsense then. Not everyone uses freeways. Thats the reality. You're fine with freeways and dont scream about "nothing is free", "tax is theft" when talking about freeways. Freeways are not used by everyone and is funded by all sorts of taxes. Gas taxes dont contribute nearly enough ro properly fund it.
You just dont like that the government invests in the quality of life of Americans, and kick and scream about costs when that happens, while you are silent when Trump talks about "rebuilding of the military" and his gifts to Wall Street.
Anywho, I think an argument most could get behind is a funding system based on aptitude. If a student picks a major they have aptitude in, subsidized based on the level of aptitude. Strongly suited gets "free" tuition, mildly suited gets discounted tuition, and if it's not the major the student had the aptitude in, then they pay full cost. Fair???
No. First, it would add costs to the college for administering the tests. (costs that get passed to students or taxpayers in the form of higher fees or tuition increases).
They already have college tests like ACT and SAT plus the student's grades and courses are already considered before they are accepted into a college program. Why add more layers.
Besides, if a student is failing or getting bad grades, they will quickly be kicked out of their major or they will fail out of college alltogether. Schools have minimum GPAs for college courses already. Students can't continue to do bad in their college courses.
The US has been stealing educated workers for some time now. Some nice socialist country educates them and we import them. Of course the natives have a problem as well. They have college debt while immigrants don't.
San Francisco will simply be educating the work force for the rest of the country at their expense.
The winners will be land lords, banks that finance real estate , and new students.
The losers will be renters, tax payers and young adults who paid for their education , only to see their investment go up in supply.
I don't see how explaining to that freeways aren't free means I'm against freeways.
Tuition will never be free. Just because you aren't paying for tuition, doesn't mean its free. You're so concern about the people but don't care if someone else has to pay for tuition.
Another thing, I don't belong to a wing. I'm the guy sitting underneath the table eating a bag of chips while there is a food fight going on.
No I believe all tuition fees for public universities and trade schools should be scrapped. Funded by taxes, just like freeways. You obviously dont believe we should invest in the quality of life of Americans and instead go further down the road of mass poverty and inequality. Look, low skilled manufacturing aint coming back. You either educate yourself or become irrelevant in the global marketplace. Dont whine about investing in the people while at the same time praising Trump's madness about trade wars.
Tuition should be brought down to where it was in 1990. But nothing should be made "free" by mass subsidies. In Europe college is free but only for elite students, everyone else is geared towards trade school or jobs. A 4 year degree is not necessary for happiness or affluence. I know many people without college degrees that make over $50,000 a year in low COL areas.
Obviously people without a college degree are mad as hell because they voted for Trump. So this is excellent news for Trump people. No tuition for trade schools, vocational training, college etc is a good thing.
Anyone can go to college in Europe, lots of open seats. Even Americans can go there and dont pay tuition.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod
No. First, it would add costs to the college for administering the tests. (costs that get passed to students or taxpayers in the form of higher fees or tuition increases).
They already have college tests like ACT and SAT plus the student's grades and courses are already considered before they are accepted into a college program. Why add more layers.
Besides, if a student is failing or getting bad grades, they will quickly be kicked out of their major or they will fail out of college alltogether. Schools have minimum GPAs for college courses already. Students can't do bad in their college courses and keep taking more more classes.
You obviously misunderstood my post. I said a "failing" student or one with bad grades which would be evident in their high school transcripts would get no subsidy, they would have to pay their own way. The students with the 4.0 GPA would get the subsidies (or the bulk of them)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
