instead of student loans, grads should pay a percent of their income for ten years

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 16
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
i would think five to ten percent of their income would be sufficient, per year, for ten years.  no loans, just payments in the future. the government can give schools a net present value of estimated future payments, and collect the payments on income taxes. 

this would incentavize colleges to make their students economically viable grads, which is what the end goal is anyway. they would focus more on practical skills. they might decide that four years and excessive unneeded classes aren't necessary, making it more efficient again.  (though the government can require some very basic courses, like generic psychology  and generic sociology and generic science etc etc and basic math and reading and writing) this also requires that students dont just get a free ride, but that they chip in on their own education, which would appeal to conservatives.  students with not much intelligence or potential would be saw for who they are, and they would be found to be maximized to their potential by the school. majors that are worthless wont get as much money, and that would cause the system to adapt... maybe only the cream of the crop students should be doing humanities, and their would be a punishment of less money to both the student and school for allowing low skill students to go into the humanities. maybe a philosophy major will end up at mcdonalds, and neither he nor the school will benefit much. maybe the school wont accept stupid kids in the humanities. 

the well off grads would pay more, who are the most economically viable ones. and the less economically viable ones would pay less. there's a certain justice to that, if that happens to fit your political ideology. 

this proposal is an example of the kind of concrete solutions that politicitians should be working on. the beurocrats in washington have lost the policy in politics. 
#2
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@n8nrgim
I think college should be free because it’s not fair how elderly people got college for free when they were in their teens and 20s, but Gen Z has to pay $30,000 a year for college.

If college wasn’t subsidized at all, it would cost about $60,000 a year for students.  Then nobody but the rich are going to college and our society becomes poorer as a result.

College should cost the same as high school; free at the point of service paid for by tax dollars.
Topic's author
#3
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
the only reason it costs so much is because the government stuck its nose in. when the government has an open check book to pay tuition, it causes costs to sky rocket. without government involvement, few would take on the risk of loaning money to students, because it's a bad credit risk. half of students shouldn't be there and wouldn't be able to afford paying tuitition creditors back anyway.

making college tuition free by paying the costs, is just throwing gas on the fire.  

taking away loans and forcing colleges to accept a fixed percent changes everything. now, everyone can go, and the schools and students will adapt to the most efficient outcome they can muster. 

you got your economic theories all mixed up. 
#4
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Freeeeee!?!?! 
Gotta do some major expense revamping. 
My focus would be on land. Property is highly expensive to own amd upkeep. 
What you think?
#5
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
Woe. If the issue is govt. involvement, how is govt. forcing colleges to accept new terms be any different? 

I think we can agree that insurance is the biggest influence for college costs. Anyone and everyone can be sued for what ever these days where as the days of old (where our parents/grandparents recieved college for free) put more liability in the hands of the individual. 
Topic's author
#6
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@hey-yo
if the government isn't throwing money at the problem by just paying what colleges charge, and is keeping them in check by forcing them a limited amount, then tuition won't grow out of hand.

i dont know where you came with that 'insurance is killing everything' point. way out of left field. it's one of those conservative talking points that only come up whenever conservatives want to panacea cover everything issue that is supposedly the root of all evil. you should read up on this issue.... the government throwing money at this issue is 90 percent of the problem. i dont know where your insurance issue ranks but i can't wrap my mind around how it would rank very high on costs. when our parents went to school, it was super cheap. then the government got involved and started writing checks with no regulation about it.... it's an obvious cause and effect situation. 
are you very young? your 'insurance is the problem' sounds like something someone would say who has no perspective on this problem, like a young person.
#7
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
i think its a good idea to take % of income (assuming income is made) but im concerned about its application to the tax code.
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@hey-yo
Free college can be paid for by cutting the military budget 10%.
#9
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Woe, word?
#10
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
No no. Im saying insurance is the higher percentage of a dollar when you pay for things. Including  college. Insurance was not a thing when college was free. Over time people started to consider college as being liable for its environment. Insurance covers  lawsuits and initial expenses when shtf. 

154 days later

Topic's author
#11
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
why did you just ignore all my great counter points to your awful idea and just double down on said awful idea? 
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,197
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
instead of student loans, grads should pay a percent of their income for ten years
I mean, this is basically just public education, with extra steps and extra problems. your point is they should receive a free education, then pay taxes on their income. This is exactly what we already do for kindergarten through high school. The much simpler version of your plan is to just make universities public funded and recoup the expense as taxes. 

Making this a privatized system just adds in extra problems. Universities would be incentivized to only educate people in "profitable" degrees. So they would be pushing everyone to be investment bankers or something instead of other important, but lower paying degrees. This would probably mess up the job market pretty badly.

It would also probably create other problems. Like people taking low paying internships for a few years in exchange for a higher salary later or stock options or something. It would be very exploitable. 
Topic's author
#13
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@HistoryBuff
nothing the government does is perfect, everything they do will need modified, that's just the nature of the beast. so if people are trying to get around paying a percent of their income, then the other monetary rewards they get will need to be taxed somehow.

you can't just write blank checks to the private sector and not expect costs to sky rocket. it's throwing gas on fire. that's what would happen if you just write checks to colleges for tuition. 

why do you assume my version would mess up the job market? just because colleges are focusing on profitable majors doesn't mean less profitable majors wouldn't be funded. if someone is willing to go to school and pay their starbucks wages for a philosphy degree, then there will be a college who will take them up on that offer.  it's money in exchange for a liberal arts education that basically costs nothing. maybe the school will focus on philophy majors who would likely be smart enough to get a high paying job despite picking a non profitable major.... i imagine though there would always be a college willing to take tens of thousand in exchange for teaching lesser able students the art of philosphy. 
we shoujldn't pretend that the point of college isnt to make money, and the point of colleges as businesses isnt to make money... we're just acknowledging that and making the bottom line the main focus. but again, it's not the only focus, so i think you are jumping to conclusiosn because you dont want to admit what a stupid idea you have to just write blank checks to colleges.

again, like our other thread about mens rea and trump with you clearly distorting everything in that article from a prosecutor... this is just another example of showing someone how they have stupid ideas, and the person is too stubborn to accept it 
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,197
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
nothing the government does is perfect, everything they do will need modified, that's just the nature of the beast. so if people are trying to get around paying a percent of their income, then the other monetary rewards they get will need to be taxed somehow.
I'm not sure I understood you then. Are you suggesting that the percentage of the income being collected is being collected by the government? So this is just public education?

you can't just write blank checks to the private sector and not expect costs to sky rocket. it's throwing gas on fire. that's what would happen if you just write checks to colleges for tuition. 
whose talking about a blank check? We don't just write blank checks to high schools or elementary schools. 

why do you assume my version would mess up the job market? just because colleges are focusing on profitable majors doesn't mean less profitable majors wouldn't be funded.
of course it does. Private corporations want profit. If they make more profit pushing 1 major over another, they will do that. That is what capitalism is. There is way more money in investment banking than in say, social work or nursing. But social workers and nurses are way more necessary for society. 

we shoujldn't pretend that the point of college isnt to make money, and the point of colleges as businesses isnt to make money... we're just acknowledging that and making the bottom line the main focus.
ok, so you are talking about the priority being completely backwards. The goal of education should not be profit, it should be public good. We don't only teach profitable subjects in highschool. We teach whatever subjects we think will help that person in life and help society. University should be no different. The whole idea that schools should be profitable is a bad one. It incentives outcomes that are not best for society or even the students. 

again, like our other thread about mens rea and trump with you clearly distorting everything in that article from a prosecutor... this is just another example of showing someone how they have stupid ideas, and the person is too stubborn to accept it 
whoa. That was uncalled for. the current system is broken because schools focus on profit over education. Your whole argument is that we should double down and expand their profit motive. Focusing on the source of the problem and expanding it won't fix the problem. It will make it worse. 
Topic's author
#15
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,002
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@HistoryBuff
of course it does. Private corporations want profit. If they make more profit pushing 1 major over another, they will do that. That is what capitalism is. There is way more money in investment banking than in say, social work or nursing. But social workers and nurses are way more necessary for society. 

we shoujldn't pretend that the point of college isnt to make money, and the point of colleges as businesses isnt to make money... we're just acknowledging that and making the bottom line the main focus.
ok, so you are talking about the priority being completely backwards. The goal of education should not be profit, it should be public good. We don't only teach profitable subjects in highschool. We teach whatever subjects we think will help that person in life and help society. University should be no different. The whole idea that schools should be profitable is a bad one. It incentives outcomes that are not best for society or even the students. 
supply and demand will still be in effect. the less colleges focus on nurses, the higher nurses will be paid. so more students will pick that. it will all balance out. the more bankers are focused on, the less profitable they will be and less people will choose it. the most talented people will make the most money, which is justice as it should be. it will balance out. 

plus choosing majors will still be a basic choice of what someone wants to do for a living. people choose to be social workers now because they want to, i'm sure they still will want to. some people want to  be nurses, so they will pick that. the colleges will still find it profitable to teach nurses and social workers. maybe some colleges will focus on investment bankers, but there will always be someone out there willing to make profit at teaching nurses etc, and even teaching philosophy majors. 

i did point out that we can require some humanities classes be taught. it will be taught efficiently though, instead of incentivizing colleges to just drag college out with excessive classes because we are writing them blank checks. 

we dont write blank checks to high schools, because the local government regulates the whole thing. what you are proposing is letting the private sector ask whatever the maximum is that they can ask, and then expect the government to pay it. percent of income plans puts a cap on all that.  if a nurse can't afford 100k student loans, why do you think it's okay for the government to pay it? the person who is at the center of all this should pay what they are able, and with my system, by definition, they can afford it

if we didn't do my percent of income plan, i would be okay with paying tuition directly from the government, if prices were regulated. the whole world does it to some extent with healthcare, and the most sucessful countries do it a lot with healthcare, so i wouldn't mind if we did that with tuition. it sounds too complicated though, so i'd prefer just making everyone pay a percent of income. 
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,197
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
supply and demand will still be in effect. the less colleges focus on nurses, the higher nurses will be paid. so more students will pick that. 
do you read the news? There is already a critical shortage of nurses. It has not caused them to be better paid. They just work the remaining nurses harder because paying them more would hurt their profit margins. So you are saying something will happen, when we already know it wont.

the most talented people will make the most money, which is justice as it should be. it will balance out. 
this is emotional nonsense. Hack investment bankers can make like 10 times what a nurse can. It doesn't mean they are more talented. Just that investment banking is more profit driven and sales jobs usually pay better than service jobs. It is not, and never has been, the case where more talented people automatically make more money. It is often the opposite.

plus choosing majors will still be a basic choice of what someone wants to do for a living. people choose to be social workers now because they want to, i'm sure they still will want to. some people want to  be nurses, so they will pick that.
I'm sure they would. And if the college shuts down their nursing program? Or cuts back the number of nursing slots in the school so they can focus on training stock brokers, what then? It doesn't matter how much you want to be a nurse if there is no slots for you. 

i did point out that we can require some humanities classes be taught. it will be taught efficiently though, instead of incentivizing colleges to just drag college out with excessive classes because we are writing them blank checks. 
I find your position a bit confusing to be honest. You want the schooling to be funded by the government and paid for with taxes. You want the government to be able to mandate (at least to some extent) curriculums, how long they take etc. You position is basically just a government funded and run university system, but you still want to allow corporations to be in the middle so they can try to gouge and make money. I simply don't see why you would want that. What value do the private corporations add to your idea?

 if we didn't do my percent of income plan, i would be okay with paying tuition directly from the government, if prices were regulated. the whole world does it to some extent with healthcare, and the most sucessful countries do it a lot with healthcare, so i wouldn't mind if we did that with tuition. it sounds too complicated though, so i'd prefer just making everyone pay a percent of income. 
I mean, it sounds like we have some common ground. A single payer system where the government pays for people to be educated, recoups the expense of this investment with taxes and has the ability to regulate the school. This is exactly what other countries do with health care and I would be thrilled to see schools run this way too.