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.
Regardless of whether or not you personally agree, I am thinking about the Montreal protests that are in the news here in Canada. The students are protesting over tuition fee increases, and getting pretty serious -- engaged in actions like trashing the education minister's office, and walking out of classes etc.
I don't know how the media coverage portrays it in the US, or if it is on the news much etc., but there are a lot of people with the viewpoint that these are spoiled brats raising a racket and causing trouble, but also (just based on perception) small but fair-sized number that do seem to agree with the students' protests and feel solidarity with their ideals. Most of the rest of Canada outside Quebec also does not seem that pleased/supportive, based on media sentiment. However, there is a small minority that still thinks college should be more affordable, even if not free.
In the world forum, I started a post about attitudes about having free post-secondary education in many countries (obviously in most developed countries, elementary school and high school are free or even required) and how many people believe it should extend to college. It was mentioned that there was free state university education in California, until the Reagan years.
Now, regardless of what you personally believe, do you see in the United States any movement like this? Is it completely a non-issue in the United States for the most part, or do you feel in your state/area etc. there are some people who believe that this is an important/political issue?
None whatsoever.
If anything, giving the skyrocketing national debt, people are less in the mood to give away freebies than they were ten years ago. What's more, with a huge network of grants, scholarships, and student loans, just about any student with a decent GPA and standardized test scores can get an entirely affordable post-secondary education at a public university or junior college.
Free post-secondary is just rife with unintended consequences. Suddenly, you have 28- and 30-year olds simply staying on the college treadmill forever. There's really no incentive for students to push themselves out into the workforce, and there's really no incentive for parents to keep their kids on the straight and narrow.
You say tax rates were lower in the past. But Bush cut the tax rates for the wealthy. and Reagan did that too. So now we have lower tax but high tuition.[quote=ram2;24677533]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatornation
OK, but where is the tax money going - other welfare programs? 40 years ago, tax rates were lower and state tuition was lower (adjusted for inflation). So now tax rates are higher AND tuition rates are higher. Let me ask again - where is all this tax money going if not to the state university system?
[quote=munna21977;24693033]You say tax rates were lower in the past. But Bush cut the tax rates for the wealthy. and Reagan did that too. So now we have lower tax but high tuition.
States had lower sales tax rates, lower property tax rates, and lower income tax rates 35+ years ago vs. today. Those are the taxes that fund state universities.
If you look at typical state funding, it's gone from paying for 70% of the cost to educate a typical public university to paying 30% of the cost to educate a typical student over the past ten years. The raw numbers may have increased, but the per capita funding has cratered because increases in enrollment have been far greater than increases in funding.
You say tax rates were lower in the past. But Bush cut the tax rates for the wealthy. and Reagan did that too. So now we have lower tax but high tuition.
States had lower sales tax rates, lower property tax rates, and lower income tax rates 35+ years ago vs. today. Those are the taxes that fund state universities.
FEDERAL taxes do not fund STATE universities.
Not to mention that tax revenue went up 27% in five years after Bush cut the tax rates. The tax cuts were for everyone by the way.
If you look at typical state funding, it's gone from paying for 70% of the cost to educate a typical public university to paying 30% of the cost to educate a typical student over the past ten years. The raw numbers may have increased, but the per capita funding has cratered because increases in enrollment have been far greater than increases in funding.
At the same time state funding was being decreased for education, states were increasing tax rates. Where is this money going?
At the same time state funding was being decreased for education, states were increasing tax rates. Where is this money going?
a higher tax rate does not necessarily imply higher tax revenues
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.
