A free public college education can be free right now. We don’t have to raise taxes at all. The amount the government spends on subsidies/loans/grants/etc to private universities could easily pay for a free public college education for those who want it. We are wasting government money on these private universities.
1 Like
Free college doesn’t only benefit middle-class families. It probably benefits lower-SES more. So why free college for all? Because middle-class people vote (and at higher rates than lower SES).
If you want a social welfare system as robust and as well-supported as Medicare (or the NHS in the UK), make it universal like Medicare or the NHS. If you want a system that sees budget cuts, make it targeted and income-based like Medicaid.
Even in this scenario, it is still considerably better to have the capital gains income (as well as the original saved capital) than not to have either the original saved capital or any capital gains income at all.
Just curious: Have you actually done the math on this (or just making an unfounded assertion sound like fact)?
I remember hearing about this in the past when tuition was much lower. It still may be viable.
That’s ignoring the tangible or intangible benefits you get from spending the money in the first place. The end result of that logic (that it’s somehow “better” to save as much as possible) is that you should never spend any money on enjoying yourself so you die rich. But you can’t take it with you!
1 Like
Interesting. Deming proposes to get rid of Pell, subsidized loans, and tax credits/deductions (like 529 plans) and redirecting that money to make publics tuition-free (presumably for in-staters only, though it isn’t clear from the article). From a purely policy perspective, I can see where he is coming from on several of those points. Realistically, there is zero chance of his proposal flying politically.
2 Likes
Obviously, there is a middle ground between spending a high income into the poor house versus never spending anything to enjoy yourself.
1 Like
Looks like the linked page is referring to $79 billion in 2016-17 that public colleges got in tuition – presumably including both in-state and out-of-state tuition – that could be eliminated by redirecting $91 billion in other college subsidies (tax credits and benefits, student loan subsidies, Pell grants, etc.).
I know you are being facetious- but have to point out that for the purposes of this thread, the notion of savings is NOT to die rich. It’s to allow a family to educate its children. Paying down our college savings was just that- paying it down. I didn’t plan to die rich- and if the actuarial tables are correct, and my income stays stable until I retire, I won’t die rich. But mission accomplished and I don’t regret it.
Saving for anything- down payment on a house, education, helping an ill family member-- all of these require NOT spending every penny enjoying yourself. That’s just the way it works.
7 Likes
Mostly, but there is a serious point underlying this. Different people discount the future at different rates. Usually you consider that kids (and adults) who can defer gratification will be more successful (viz the famous “marshmallow test”). But if your future is more uncertain (you might die early or might suffer economic catastrophe because your job is suddenly outsourced) then your discount rate should be higher, meaning there’s less reason to defer that gratification.
And if the financial system is set up to make that even harder (whether through heavy advertising of credit cards or making you think you will get more financial aid if you spend your money instead of saving it) then basically it is stacking the deck against people who already are at a disadvantage.
This seems like what some claim about poverty in that it “trains” people to think more short-term, with a higher discount rate for the future, since there may be no future (the “immediate gratification” may simply be not starving, or not being evicted due to being unable to pay the rent, etc.).
But does it apply generally to high income people? Indeed, a high income person who fears that their career may disappear (to outsourcing, obsolescence, or otherwise) may want to save aggressively in order to build up retirement-level savings at an early age, in case retirement is forced due to disappearance of the career.
Doesn’t it depend on whether that high income resulted from already possessing the ability to delay gratification, eg staying in school to qualify as a doctor or a lawyer? Lottery winners are often famous for blowing the proceeds rather than saving them.
1 Like
I like this idea.
Agreed. Why are we wasting government money on private colleges (especially for-profit private colleges)? Make public colleges tuition free for those admitted. There would also be not tax increase (just move the money from grants/loans/taxes). You will see tuition at private college free-fall. It helps everyone except the private colleges.
1 Like
Free tuition without federal grants and access to loans will put college out of reach for a lot of people. NYS has free tuition for residents who earn less than $125k. Students who attend a SUNY receive the full ~$7k Excelsior tuition grant. Those who attend a private college get half that amount. It’s easy to qualify based on income but can be incredibly difficult to keep. If it follows the path of FL’s Bright Futures it will eventually become increasingly difficult just to be eligible.
The Excelsior Grant alone isn’t enough to make college affordable. For those lucky enough to have a 4-year SUNY within commuting distance the Excelsior can help make college affordable, but the $7k grant only covers tuition. They still need ~$2k for fees + money for books, a car, insurance/maintenance/repairs, and gas. The Pell Grant doesn’t help because it’s subtracted from the Excelsior. A student who gets $4k Pell only gets a $3k Excelsior Grant so they still have just enough to cover tuition. Families rely on student work earnings and the federal student loan to make up the difference in commuting costs.
But not everyone has a 4-year SUNY within commuting distance. Low income students in that situation wouldn’t be able to afford college without Pell and the federal student loan. If state and federal grants were only allowed to be used at public colleges then students who are eligible for a lot of need based aid at those colleges wouldn’t be able to attend. They’d have to go to one of the public universities which would result in fewer spots for kids whose only option is the state university.
We’re already seeing an increase in competitiveness at the SUNYs because of the Excelsior. Local kids with solid profiles who would’ve been admitted just a few years ago are being rejected. For many, cc is the only affordable option. It’s easy to see why families whose kids have profiles that would make them eligible for more selective schools are finding the SUNYs attractive. A $7k grant bringing the net cost down to ~$15k can be really attractive to families in the $80k-125k income range. Throw in the federal student loan and summer work earnings and parents are paying ~$7k/year out of pocket for a 4-year residential experience. That’s a tough deal to beat. But it would be impossible to do with just a tuition grant.
1 Like
WOW!
I hear this all the time, from people who are often extremely happy with almost all of the government services they currently get. The main issue is perception, in that some people really only even see the things that don’t work. When police, fire, water treatment, energy, FBI, environmental safety, military, roads, snow plowing, and thousands of other things work well, some people don’t notice. They focus on anecdotal stories, fear mongering, and a few valid red tape issues that do actually exist (like the legacy DMV, the problems with mass transit, and so on).
If you think bloat, complacency and inefficiency are unique to the government, you are wrong. Most private companies have the same issues, and it’s only the top performing private companies AND government agencies that overcome them entirely.
For me, I prefer the bloat and decreased efficiency in government run systems over the absolute putrid corruption of the purely private/capitalistic ones. There are areas where capitalism is valuable and less damaging to society, and other areas where the opposite is true. For me, education is one of the areas capitalism has failed us. It has worked great for the top 10%, not well for the other 90%.
4 Likes
This is part of the challenge. While a CC degree is 100% better than nothing, there is a huge gap with what you can do with a CC degree compared to a 4 year degree from an average university (or better).
My company, which has almost 1000 people and all of the jobs would be considered good, only looks at people from top universities. We’re even getting to a point, like many stronger companies, where a masters degree is required just to be considered for upper management, so when the company lists its senior employees, they all have that paper in their one paragraph bio.
The gap between the free bare minimum, and what is really key to having a chance to climb the ladder here in America, is wide, and getting wider.
Full disclosure, I am someone who went to a CC, then transferred to a (below average) 4 year university, and was able to overcome that. A large part of the reason was because I was a computer science major back in the 90s when there was high demand and a huge shortage of us, but this path of CC start to corporate leadership success gets more difficult and less likely every year. I don’t see it happening much anymore.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on government efficiency. Just because the government provides those services doesn’t mean they’re well run. And government never goes out of business because of poor management, corruption etc…they just print more money.
6 Likes