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.
Do you seriously not comprehend that more money coming in to the program means more money for the schools in the future? The state has already demonstrated that it is not willing to support higher education with general revenue.
Once again, the SCHOOL doesnt give a crap about the money into the program, that money GOES TO THE STATE.. it the STATES JOB to come up with the money because the school already got paid a long, long time ago.
Here, since its so difficult for you to comprehend. Do you pay into Social Security? Are you concerned that there isnt any money there to pay you? NO YOU DONT..
Its up to the GOVERNMENT to meet its obligations, and you dont give a crap how they do it.. the school is no different.
what happens if you leave oregon after you graduate? i dont think for example minnesota is going to recognize an oregon tax.
That was the very question I had.. Hell, free college for my kids, might be worth moving there for a few years and then come back home when they are done.. Good luck collecting.
It's not a tax when the only people paying it are the ones who have already received an education.
Yes, those students would get the free tuition, but I would think they will still pay forward, since that's the idea.
If there's any logic to this, those students would pay an adjusted percentage. So instead of 3 %, someone who dropped out after 1 year would only pay .75 % of their income back under this system.
Maybe someone who dropped out after 1 month, might be excused or something like that.
The plan depends on honesty and there is always going to be people that will try to scam the system and screw it up.
Will they have to raise those percentages over time?
If you are really bright and going into a high paying field - why would you want to lock up to a 3% loss in pay for 25 years, which would be more than the cost of your college? It makes sense for someone going into a low paying field.
You look at a typical salary and the 3% doesn't seem to cover the cost of college...even before you adjust for inflation, which would make it worse.
Someone who averages 50,000 for the fist 25 years would pay in 37,500....but in 25 years...each dollar would be worth half of what it is now.
07-07-2013, 11:49 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Once again, the SCHOOL doesnt give a crap about the money into the program, that money GOES TO THE STATE.. it the STATES JOB to come up with the money because the school already got paid a long, long time ago.
So the school has no incentive to make sure that its revenue stream is healthy? Do you not comprehend how stupid that argument is? If the money isn't coming in, the state will simply slash funding for higher education.
Also, you should actually read the bill before you start with your all caps shouting about things you don't actually know. The money doesn't necessarily go to the state. It may, in fact, go directly to the university.
Quote:
Here, since its so difficult for you to comprehend. Do you pay into Social Security? Are you concerned that there isnt any money there to pay you? NO YOU DONT..
Not sure how your all caps answer actually answers the question you asked, but anyway... Yes, I do pay into it, and yes, I am concerned that there isn't money there to pay me when it's time to get my money back. I think you'd have a hard time finding a young(ish) worker with even a basic grasp of the system who isn't concerned that they may be paying into a system that isn't ever going to pay them back.
Quote:
Its up to the GOVERNMENT to meet its obligations, and you dont give a crap how they do it.. the school is no different.
First, the schools are state institutions that are heavily regulated by the elected government; it's ridiculous to assume that they will behave like disengaged individuals. Second, the state doesn't have any obligation to fund the universities.
Your comparison to Social Security falls flat on its face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
If you are really bright and going into a high paying field - why would you want to lock up to a 3% loss in pay for 25 years, which would be more than the cost of your college? It makes sense for someone going into a low paying field.
That's the biggest problem I see with the system. It's great for those who aren't going to make any money - they pay little or nothing for their education. For students going into high pay fields, Oregon no longer looks attractive since the cost is going to end up being on par with Washington and some of the UC schools, which are better than the best public universities in Oregon.
Last edited by i7pXFLbhE3gq; 07-07-2013 at 12:00 PM..
So the school has no incentive to make sure that its revenue stream is healthy? Do you not comprehend how stupid that argument is? If the money isn't coming in, the state will simply slash funding for higher education.
The state by then already has an obligation to pay for schoolings.. Where the money comes from isnt the schools problem. Yes, the school has an incentive to make sure ITS revenue stream is healthy, which is why I said they could do that by simply offering the students, heated swimming pools, free laptops, parties every week, but they have absolutely no concern for the states liabilities..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Also, you should actually read the bill before you start with your all caps shouting about things you don't actually know. The money doesn't necessarily go to the state. It may, in fact, go directly to the university. .
Your own link says the school gets to decide.. Lets see, do you think they would rather have money now, or 25 years from now? Come on, you cant be that nieve..
And section 1(4)a, actually shows where the institution has an incentive to jackup their prices. The college costs more, the reinbursement is more. And the student pays a flat rate regardless
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Not sure how your all caps answer actually answers the question you asked, but anyway... Yes, I do pay into it, and yes, I am concerned that there isn't money there to pay me when it's time to get my money back. I think you'd have a hard time finding a young(ish) worker with even a basic grasp of the system who isn't concerned that they may be paying into a system that isn't ever going to pay them back.
Ahh, see youre concerned YOU wont get paid back, not at all concerned that the government has to go in debt to do it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
First, the schools are state institutions that are heavily regulated by the elected government; it's ridiculous to assume that they will behave like disengaged individuals. Second, the state doesn't have any obligation to fund the universities.
Yes because schools would never jackup their prices, would they? Ooh thats right.. they already do.. thats why government is trying to fix it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
Your comparison to Social Security falls flat on its face.
Sounds like a good idea on paper. However as with many liberal ideas it will probably collapse in failure.
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.
