State stiffs universities, tuition goes up

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>You also live in a country. If not, your state would have been
overrun long ago by more powerful neighbors. The lack of internal
threats on this continent was one of the strongest reasons for
establishing a federal government superior to state governments by
ratifying the Constitution. Living in your small, more rural state,
has certain advantages that you appreciate, but they do not
necessarily transfer to other states with different resources,
demographics, etc., and the virtues of small local government are
very difficult, if not impossible, to implement on a federal scale.</p>

<br>

<p>Well, NH is a net donor nation to the Federal Government so it isn’t
like we have our hand out.</p>

<p>But let’s talk about Singapore. A country in third-world status with a
generally uneducated populace that was kicked out of Malaysia onto a
piece of land with no natural resources. They’ve moved into the first
world, have to deal with an urban setting and they have a combination
of low taxes, high income, very low unemployment (they need a lot of
immigrants for their expanding economy), 3% of GDP healthcare costs,
excellenet education system, and they’re able to compete with China
and India next door.</p>

<p>They do a good job of spending their resources wisely as opposed to
cranking up taxes to throw money away.</p>

<p>It’s harder to scale up local government but look at what we have on
the opposite end of the scale. Corruption, high costs of living,
housing and healthcare problems, education problems. These things
also occur in rural states with small populations. What is different
about the states that do well vs the states that don’t?</p>

<br>

<p>I don’t really see an irony in the two sentences that you pointed
out. Taxes are not voluntary, and never have been. If voluntary
contributions were adequate for the functioning of government, there
never would have been a need for taxes. The whole “voluntarily pay
more taxes if you want” argument is absurd because it puts the burden
on an altruistic few rather than society as a whole, and the latter
should pay for its government.</p>

<br>

<p>And yet it works quite well for colleges and universities. At least
those that do a good enough job so that their alumni and their parents
appreciate that they use the money wisely.</p>

<p>Nobody is saying that voluntary contributions are adequate - that’s a
strawman. What others are saying - to those that want to pay more
taxes - to go ahead and make contributions.</p>

<br>

<p>If charity were sufficient to take care of schools, the sick, etc.,
there would have been no serious poverty to address through social
programs. That was not the case and the Johnson’s great society
programs did reduce poverty in this country. If every individual
simply got to choose where his or her money went, the distribution
of money for education and the general welfare would be completely
haphazard. Charity is what one chooses do after taxes, not instead
of taxes.</p>

<br>

<p>Charity works quite well in certain areas. But donors want to know
that the money is well-spent. The Catholic Church in the Boston area
used to be quite wealthy and considered a worthy cause. Throw in the
pedophile priest scandal and see what happens to their donation rates.</p>

<br>

<p>I do agree that throwing public money at the problem is not a good
approach, but I also believe that taking money away is worse
approach unless it can clearly be shown that no significant
deterioration in schools, or other public services will occur. While
we cannot afford everything, the wealthy citizens of this country
can afford to pay more than they do for the benefit of those less
fortunate.</p>

<br>

<p>I do not see how you can resolve these two things without cleaning up
government. I see no interest at all in cleaning up government. Those
that benefit from it want more. Many of those that pay for it want less.</p>

<br>

<p>I share your disdain for government by special interest groups we
have now, but the race to the bottom mentality makes it worse not
better. What does it say about our so-called leaders who disdain the
government that they intend to preside over if elected? Public
schools have long been recognized as essential to a well functioning
democracy. They should be viewed as a priority for the Country, not
an unnecessary burden because the more successful citizens can
afford private schools or homeschooling.</p>

<br>

<p>Public Schools are a priority. We spend, typically, $11,223 per
student per year. Do you want more, less or the same? If more or less,
then by how much?</p>