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 also disagree with your conclusion that you made above.
It's simple math. You spend the most money where there's likely to be the greatest return. Subsidizing those LEAST likely to graduate reduces alumni donation revenues to the universities. And, yes, even state schools receive alumni donations which go to various uses from funding scholarships to funding campus buildings, programs, etc.
Quote:
Yet, I thank you. I am going to ask my 17 year old to read your post. She has terrible study habits. I want to challenge her with the assertion you made and ask her if she will fail at College as she was educated in Bronx and Manhattan public schools.
Are you in the bottom 40%? If so, the odds are greatly against your daughter.
Quote:
This helps to illustrate the differences between poor and wealthy families and academic success.
Exactly, and that's why it's extraordinarily cruel for the poor to out-breed everyone else by a rate of 3 to 1. That deliberately selfish act of bearing a child into a life of poverty saddles that child with a lifetime of struggle.
We could have that, too, if the US taxed like Europe. Here's a comparative chart on what their effective national tax rates are for a middle income earner, for those who are interested. Page 9:
American middle income workers simply won't accept being taxed by the Federal Government at an effective tax rate of 45%-50% (look at the 2nd column from the left). That's why we can't have national health care, and all those other socialist/collectivist goodies.
If I was taxed at a progressive 45 percent but did not have to pay 10 percent of my income for health insurance it would save me money.
It's simple math. You spend the most money where there's likely to be the greatest return. Subsidizing those LEAST likely to graduate reduces alumni donation revenues to the universities. And, yes, even state schools receive alumni donations which go to various uses from funding scholarships to funding campus buildings, programs, etc.
Are you in the bottom 40%? If so, the odds are greatly against your daughter.
Exactly, and that's why it's extraordinarily cruel for the poor to out-breed everyone else by a rate of 3 to 1. That deliberately selfish act of bearing a child into a life of poverty saddles that child with a lifetime of struggle.
I was in the bottom 40 percent. And thanks to a College education I am no longer. I support planned parenthood, family planning, and choice so that the poor can avoid having children they know they can't afford. I also call for reform of some welfare to not grow if more children are added. Yet, the investment in children of the lower economic levels is a great one. You have overstated the conclusion and reasons of the graduation rates. Yet, I would be willing to discuss further privately.
I was in the bottom 40 percent. And thanks to a College education I am no longer. I support planned parenthood, family planning, and choice so that the poor can avoid having children they know they can't afford.
By giving voluntary donations? If so, that's good. That should be funded by voluntary donations.
Quote:
I also call for reform of some welfare to not grow if more children are added. Yet, the investment in children of the lower economic levels is a great one.
Actually, it's not. Head Start? Failure. War on poverty? Failure. 70% of those born into poverty never rise above the bottom quintile their entire lives. 70%. And over-funding public schools in low-income areas? More failure. It's sad to say so, but it's just throwing money down a bottomless pit.
By giving voluntary donations? If so, that's good. That should be funded by voluntary donations.
Actually, it's not. Head Start? Failure. War on poverty? Failure. 70% of those born into poverty never rise above the bottom quintile their entire lives. 70%. And over-funding public schools in low-income areas? More failure. It's sad to say so, but it's just throwing money down a bottomless pit.
I myself am a few pay checks missing or a severe disabality from being poor. So are most of the middle class. How about you ?
One question for you... Do you think you pay the tax rate of the bracket in which your income falls? Note that my posts include the word "effective."
Before I continue any conversation with you I expect an aplogy for your earlier foolish comments. If not kick rocks. I am civil and polite and if you wont be, I will not converse with you.
I myself am a few pay checks missing or a severe disabality from being poor. So are most of the middle class. How about you ?
How does that even matter? And why do you think people, themselves, shouldn't prepare for exactly such a possibility? Why do you automatically assume it's someone else's burden to bear?
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.
Only the top 0.1% (minimum income: $2,124,117/year) pay that:
