Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 hour ago, seven said:

How many of you on the surl went to vocational/trade school? Or, if you're an old, how many of you are pushing your kids or grandkids into them?

I would push my kids to learn a trade if they had no desire to go to college. The problem is most parents tell their kids that they just need a degree and they'll be able to land a great job. What they should be teaching them is to study a subject in an in demand field. I would have liked to study history becuase it's very interesting, but I knew that I would have better job opportunities with higher pay if I studied electrical engineering. If I had no desire to go to college, I would have became an electrician. There's plenty of work for electricians.

[bad_teammate 13132]

29 minutes ago, this said:

Bottom 50% accounts for under 3% of all federal income tax revenue generated. Maybe even less. Poor(to me) would be the bottom 20th percentile, they account for absolutely NOTHING in federal income taxes. 

Already been pointed out that your point is irrelevant at the state level, but even if federal money was the issue, THE POOR STILL PAY TAXES.

The federal income tax is not the only tax that exists.

Oh, and the only reason they don't pay federal income tax is because they are paid jack fucking shit for wages to do all the work that actually creates the wealth. Those bastards.

17 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I completely disagree that making 4-year universities free for everyone is going to help the problem long term.

Define "the problem" that you think free-college advocates think is being solved.

Quote

Within a few decades there would simply be a massive increase in the number of college graduates to the point where having a degree is a lot less meaningful than it is now (and it's already becoming less and less meaningful every year).

Upward social mobility is critical to society, so enabling that is a noble goal. But when your plan moves everybody up at the same time then you aren't achieving that goal.

So many problems here...

1) Making college free doesn't "move everybody up", it simply removes a barrier between higher education and the poor.

2) Was it good that these degrees were more "meaningful" when they were more exclusive to the wealth class? lol

[Huckleberry 32694]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Define "the problem" that you think free-college advocates think is being solved.

That is covered pretty clearly later in my post (the need for upward social mobility).

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) Making college free doesn't "move everybody up", it simply removes a barrier between higher education and the poor.

That's the goal you want to achieve; I am pointing out a clear and obvious side effect that will take place.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

2) Was it good that these degrees were more "meaningful" when they were more exclusive to the wealth class? lol

No, it was not good that they were exclusive to the already upper class. Not sure why you're laughing.

The goal should be to afford those who are both capable and hard-working the opportunity to attend institutions of higher education without cost being an artificial roadblock. A solution which merely removes the roadblock for everyone instead of just those citizens is a bad idea for the reasons I've mentioned. Including socio-economic and family history criteria in the admissions and financial assistance decision-making processes is a far better way to target the people society needs in college for everyone's benefit. Having the taxpayers pay for Timmy Trustfund's 4-year university education after he graduates from St. Stephen's with a 2.5 and an SAT of 950 accomplishes nothing for society, but if it makes you feel better then go ahead and support that plan.

[wildcat09 29224]

The "rich people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue therefore their taxes must be too high!" argument is going to give me an aneurysm some day.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The "rich people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue therefore their taxes must be too high!" argument is going to give me an aneurysm some day.

The rich people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue therefore their taxes must be too high! 

The rich people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue therefore their taxes must be too high! 

The rich people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue therefore their taxes must be too high! 

 

Anything yet ?

[Orca of Peace 109]

Quote

I completely disagree that making 4-year universities free for everyone is going to help the problem long term. Within a few decades there would simply be a massive increase in the number of college graduates to the point where having a degree is a lot less meaningful than it is now (and it's already becoming less and less meaningful every year).

same concept applies to 4 year high schools. So many HS grads making that a lot less meaningful.

[bad_teammate 13132]

20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The goal should be to afford those who are both capable and hard-working the opportunity to attend institutions of higher education without cost being an artificial roadblock. A solution which merely removes the roadblock for everyone instead of just those citizens is a bad idea for the reasons I've mentioned.

Wait, are you saying that "free college for everyone" means "no admissions standards are allowed anymore"?

I genuinely do not follow what you mean by "everyone" as opposed to the "capable and hard-working". Give me a profile of the types of kids who would go to college in a "free college" scheme who are not currently (and shouldn't).

Quote

Having the taxpayers pay for Timmy Trustfund's 4-year university education after he graduates from St. Stephen's with a 2.5 and an SAT of 950 accomplishes nothing for society, but if it makes you feel better then go ahead and support that plan.

What college is he getting into? What is higher education supposed to accomplish? Why are you always limiting the concept to a 4-year plan when you're trying to argue against it?

[this 107]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Already been pointed out that your point is irrelevant at the state level, but even if federal money was the issue, THE POOR STILL PAY TAXES.

The federal income tax is not the only tax that exists.

Oh, and the only reason they don't pay federal income tax is because they are paid jack fucking shit for wages to do all the work that actually creates the wealth. Those bastards.

 

 

 

Federal income tax(47%), Payroll tax(34%), Corporate income tax(9%) together account for 90% of ALL the federal tax revenue generated. If you consider the top 10% as "rich", they account for 70% of ALL the federal income tax (47 X 0.7 = 32.9%), half the payroll tax comes from employers AKA the rich according to you (34/2 = 17%), and of course all the corporate income earners (must be) the rich (right?) so 32.9 + 17 + 9 = 60% of all the federal tax revenue comes from the Top 10%. At the very least. 

They take in 36% of all the income and account for more than 60% of ALL the federal tax revenue. 

On the federal level, the poor have absofuckinglutely no to very little contribution but extremely high participation when it comes to benefits. So stop with the rhetoric that the rich aren't paying enough or poor aren't getting enough. Its exactly the other way around.

But but but no social mobility: 2/3rds of the Forbes 400 are self made entrepreneurs. 

And oh, you get paid for what value you create, not your time. So the wages reflect the value, not what you or they think they deserve. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

same concept applies to 4 year high schools. So many HS grads making that a lot less meaningful.

We must only allow the

 

""""hard-working""""

and

"""""capable""""""

 

to go to high school.

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, this said:

And oh, you get paid for what value you create, not your time. So the wages reflect the value, not what you or they think they deserve. 

This is flatly untrue. This is insane to even say out loud.

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We must only allow the

 

""""hard-working""""

and

"""""capable""""""

 

to go to high school.

I know you think those are proxies for race and class -- and to some extent, you are correct.  But even if you adjusted for race and class, the truth remains that the bottom third of intelligence is the bottom third of intelligence.  You can give someone with an 85 IQ admission to college, and maybe he even earns a degree with low grades, but the bottom line is that inherent aptitude and skill are A determinative factor in success.  That doesn't mean that 85 IQ guy can't be successful, shouldn't be able to work for a living, have a life of dignity and some measure of success, etc.  In fact, it's really important that we focus on how such folks can succeed.  Just understand that it's not going to be as a doctor or chemical engineer.

I was born pretty smart, and that was nurtured.  My dad also tried to nurture athletic ability in me -- he tossed the football, pitched the baseball, all that good stuff.  Poor guy.  What a wasted effort.  I could have devoted 40 hours a week to becoming a better athlete, and I never would have been more than mediocre.  I just ain't made for it.  And that's okay too.  I gave up on my Earl Campbell-inspired NFL dreams by the time I was 10 or so.  And any government program that guaranteed me a chance to play college ball would have been a waste of resources and everyone's time.

I think we should bust our asses to ensure that race and class don't put kids behind the 8-ball before they even get to college.  Maybe poor kid Joe, given the right support, can go to college and become an engineer.  Or, maybe poor kid Joe, given the right support, still has an 85 IQ and needs to find another path.  We should give him every reasonable chance.  But who and what you are, inherently, still has to matter.  I don't want a guy with an 85 IQ designing my chemical plant.  I don't want a guy who runs a 5.5 40 with shitty hands (me) given a slot on the Longhorns as a WR.  That serves nobody.  I want everyone to have a chance to be what they can be.  I want them to take advantage of that chance.  I want them to find dignity and success in what they do.  I want them to earn a living wage.

But know that someone is always going to end up hanging drywall at the new McDonalds in Las Colinas.  And that's okay.  He just needs to be able to make a decent living doing it.  So he can afford cable TV, where he can watch the breast self-exam.

[RandomIdoit 655]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But know that someone is always going to end up hanging drywall at the new McDonalds in Las Colinas.  And that's okay.  He just needs to be able to make a decent living doing it. 

Those guys get paid by the sheet. I think they get $30 per sheet. That's not bad.

[American Swindle 102]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is flatly untrue. This is insane to even say out loud.

Really?  It makes a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.  

The free market pays based on value, not what government busy bodies and central planners deem appropriate.  Take the sick leave ordinance in Austin for example.  Good Business owners that want to retain valuable employees and be more competitive in the market *should* consider paying more sick days and more PTO to retain skilled labor, where SHITTY business owners should be allowed to not offer those same benefits.  Said shitty companies will not be as competitive and should fizzle out of the market because they lose talent to other businesses that retain employees with better benefits.  BUT, you have people that do not want to allow that and *FEEL* that businesses should be mandated to have these benefits in the name of compassion.  That's fine and dandy, but it still stands, those that create value command the benefits and more pay whereas those that do not provide value get paid the market price based on their skills.....make sense?

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

This.

Because the unintended consequence of letting every Tom, Dick and Harriet in college is that then you have to either a) dumb it down a la High School so that it is passable by the top 80% or whatever or b) spend a ton of money on people who are eventually going to drop out or fail out and deal with that waste (like there is with FAFSA, but to a much lesser extent).

Agreed.  I think there should be some sort of tiered system (well, hell, we have it now, it's just disjointed as all fuck).

unskilled employment - apprenticeships/Trade school-community college - lower tier state schools (SFA etc.) - mid tier state schools (UTD etc.) - flagship state schools (UT) - private schools (some of these may be comparable to state schools at all tiers).

Not-so-bright kid should be able to work construction.  Somewhat brighter should be able to become an electrician, plumber, etc.  Then next level can get a degree from SFA.  Then the next from UTD, etc. etc.  (and of course, these shouldn't be absolutes, but we're speaking in generalities here).

The point is -- our training of our future workforce shouldn't end at high school.  And an opportunity commensurate with one's ability should be available to all.

[Brisketexan 104557]

8 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

Those guys get paid by the sheet. I think they get $30 per sheet. That's not bad.

A reasonably skilled construction worker can make a fine living.  Hell, I'm the guy who said I'd tell all the out of work coal miners in WV that I found their coal jobs....but now they're construction jobs in Texas.  If coal mining is a legit life path, then construction sure as shit is.

[RandomIdoit 655]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed.  I think there should be some sort of tiered system (well, hell, we have it now, it's just disjointed as all fuck).

unskilled employment - apprenticeships/Trade school-community college - lower tier state schools (SFA etc.) - mid tier state schools (UTD etc.) - flagship state schools (UT) - private schools (some of these may be comparable to state schools at all tiers).

Not-so-bright kid should be able to work construction.  Somewhat brighter should be able to become an electrician, plumber, etc.  Then next level can get a degree from SFA.  Then the next from UTD, etc. etc.  (and of course, these shouldn't be absolutes, but we're speaking in generalities here).

The point is -- our training of our future workforce shouldn't end at high school.  And an opportunity commensurate with one's ability should be available to all.

They should start learning trades in high school like they used to. It exposes them to other options besides college or retail.

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

They should start learning trades in high school like they used to. It exposes them to other options besides college or retail.

Agreed, I'd like to see that path offered (not required, but offered).  Some schools do this.  I know AISD has the fire academy, so that's something.  Gotta have firefighters.  A good friend of mine is a firefighter -- college was a waste of time for him.  He joined the Marines, got out and worked construction, then joined AFD.  And has made a good life for his family.

[this 107]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is flatly untrue. This is insane to even say out loud.

No, what you're saying is completely false. Forget saying it out loud, even thinking it is ridiculous. 

[RandomIdoit 655]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed, I'd like to see that path offered (not required, but offered).  Some schools do this.  I know AISD has the fire academy, so that's something.  Gotta have firefighters.  A good friend of mine is a firefighter -- college was a waste of time for him.  He joined the Marines, got out and worked construction, then joined AFD.  And has made a good life for his family.

My dad used to teach at a school on the south side of San Antonio and they had a cosmetology school. It was great for those who wanted to have a career in cosmetology. They could have hundreds of hours under their belt by the time they graduated.

[Huckleberry 32694]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Wait, are you saying that "free college for everyone" means "no admissions standards are allowed anymore"?

We've been over this. I am saying that free college for everyone means that people will realize that being an accredited university means guaranteed revenue and eventually admissions standards to get into some university somewhere will be so lax they may as well not exist. Essentially there will be a university somewhere that will accept you if you have a high school diploma or GED. The market will not allow guaranteed revenue to go uncollected.

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I genuinely do not follow what you mean by "everyone" as opposed to the "capable and hard-working". Give me a profile of the types of kids who would go to college in a "free college" scheme who are not currently (and shouldn't).

Those without a plan for their future will enroll in free college because they have no idea what else to do. What's the downside if it's free? Some university somewhere will accept them and then they live with mom and dad a little longer while they go for free. They will have graduated from high school in the bottom 50% and will have no clue what they're doing. Then they will proceed not to use that education in any way whatsoever after they're done with the free part.

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What college is he getting into? What is higher education supposed to accomplish? Why are you always limiting the concept to a 4-year plan when you're trying to argue against it?

First question has been covered multiple times. You are never going to understand that new colleges will pop up once guaranteed revenue is the market reality. They will get into third rate colleges that exist only to accept the guaranteed revenue and distribute it to subpar professors and worthless administrators.

The purpose of higher education varies by degree path, student, and university. There is no universal goal that it should be striving to accomplish. What is your answer to that question?

I am limiting it to the concept of a 4-year plan because that is what started this entire conversation. We have also already been over this part of the conversation before. You're even more obtuse than I am.

 

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

My dad used to teach at a school on the south side of San Antonio and they had a cosmetology school. It was great for those who wanted to have a career in cosmetology. They could have hundreds of hours under their belt by the time they graduated.

Yeah, but it was San Antonio.  How much time did it take to teach them to draw on huge eyebrows?

[RandomIdoit 655]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, but it was San Antonio.  How much time did it take to teach them to draw on huge eyebrows?

On the other hand, there is a huge demand for it. It's called job security.

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

On the other hand, there is a huge demand for it. It's called job security.

Es la verdad, homes.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, but it was San Antonio.  How much time did it take to teach them to draw on huge eyebrows?

You can tell she's a rebel because the eye shade is supposed to match the lipstick (and the belt and the shoes.)

[Huckleberry 32694]

5 minutes ago, this said:

No, what you're saying is completely false. Forget saying it out loud, even thinking it is ridiculous. 

What he is saying is correct. Attempting to argue that all employees are paid correctly for the value they add to a company is about as stupid as it gets. Do we really need to go down the list of CEOs who have made hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies floundered, failed, and/or died?

[RandomIdoit 655]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

What he is saying is correct. Attempting to argue that all employees are paid correctly for the value they add to a company is about as stupid as it gets. Do we really need to go down the list of CEOs who have made hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies floundered, failed, and/or died?

The excuse I've always heard about the CEO pay is that they need to pay them that much and give them their golden parachute so that they can attract the best talent. I call bullshit.

[Huckleberry 32694]

3 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

The excuse I've always heard about the CEO pay is that they need to pay them that much and give them their golden parachute so that they can attract the best talent. I call bullshit.

Of course it's bullshit. The best is when you see a CEO totally suck at their job, get bailed out by a golden parachute, and then get hired as a high-ranking executive at another company.

[Brisketexan 104557]

6 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

While of course logical and reasonable, this would be considered not enough. It's discrimination, since it's all free, not to let the less-able go to UT (or flagship) and have to go to the Lower tier.

And that's something we flat-out have to reckon with.  There are only so many seats for incoming students at UT.  Not everyone who applies can get in.  BUT, everyone who wants to go to college, and can meet basic admissions criteria, should be able to go SOMEWHERE.  Sorry you got a 2.5 at Hutto High -- you aren't going to get into UT.  But you can probably get into SFA.

Kinda like how my 5.5 40 speed meant that UT didn't recruit me.

Neither did anyone else.

Because I was really fucking slow, and had shitty hands to boot.

It sucked giving up on my dream of NFL greatness.

Such is life -- I utilized the talents I DID have, and became 1) an attorney, and 2) a pretty good home chef.

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Because things like finite limitations in a world of scarcity and the idea that heuristics exist as shortcuts for general validations exist, how in the world would making something like free college education and hand-holding to make sure most people have a degree NOT just move the basic requirements for decent jobs (the basic requirement now being a BA/BS) upwards to something else? Maybe schools offer a one year add-on you have to pay a premium for for a Masters degree like a lot of the dual programs offer like you see in undergrad with accounting or you see in grad school like JD/MBA's or maybe something else is invented like a BA/BA+, but the point is when you make college free, the table stakes for the finite jobs that exist are no longer just college. And so you drive people to Masters degrees maybe, and maybe that helps because olds are keeping jobs longer and so kids need to join the labor force later.

Anyways, I don't see how free college does anything except make people who have student loan debt now feel good. But hey, whatever you guys want. If y'all want to pay for my kids college that's cool.

Free (cost) college doesn't have to equal free (everyone gets in) college.  There should still be admissions standards for 4-year colleges.  Again, the kid with the 80 IQ just isn't going to be able to go the college route.

And the free (cost) mechanism (or low cost mechanism -- we'll talk cost details at some point) should apply to more than colleges.

I want Hutto High Harry to be able to get a construction job, or learn a trade, or go to SFA, or go to UT, depending on his level of ability.  In some respects, it would be similar to the system in many European countries, although our American egalitarian everyone gets an opportunity spirit would (and probably should) prevent the wholesale application of that model.

The root problem here is that we have a system that ends at high school.....and is geared towards EVERYONE going to a four year college, or get fucked.  There's a huge gap in there.  We should fill that gap.

[this 107]

26 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

What he is saying is correct. Attempting to argue that all employees are paid correctly for the value they add to a company is about as stupid as it gets. Do we really need to go down the list of CEOs who have made hundreds of millions of dollars while their companies floundered, failed, and/or died?

Its more nuanced than that, but you already know that. 

[Huckleberry 32694]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Free (cost) college doesn't have to equal free (everyone gets in) college.  There should still be admissions standards for 4-year colleges.  Again, the kid with the 80 IQ just isn't going to be able to go the college route.

And the free (cost) mechanism (or low cost mechanism -- we'll talk cost details at some point) should apply to more than colleges.

I want Hutto High Harry to be able to get a construction job, or learn a trade, or go to SFA, or go to UT, depending on his level of ability.  In some respects, it would be similar to the system in many European countries, although our American egalitarian everyone gets an opportunity spirit would (and probably should) prevent the wholesale application of that model.

The root problem here is that we have a system that ends at high school.....and is geared towards EVERYONE going to a four year college, or get fucked.  There's a huge gap in there.  We should fill that gap.

This is what bad_teammate more likely supports, and I'm on board with it. The problem with our system is that if post-high school education is covered federally then there would have to be federal guidelines on who gets accepted into what types of schools. Welcome to another political shit show even if the concept were supported by enough people and legislators to become law.

This needs to be done at a State level somewhere. And as I said earlier, it needs to include socioeconomic and family history criteria in the admissions process.

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This needs to be done at a State level somewhere. And as I said earlier, it needs to include socioeconomic and family history criteria in the admissions process.

On board with all of that.

Although I also think that we address the socioeconomic and family history stuff (not perfectly, but better) starting WAY before senior year of high school.  Taking someone who had a shitty lower level education and trying to get them caught up to speed in year 1 of college is a shitty path.

[Huckleberry 32694]

4 minutes ago, this said:

Its more nuanced than that, but you already know that. 

Well no shit. Maybe you should have considered the nuance instead of making a terrible post to try to score points in an internet discussion. Your post certainly didn't include any nuance.

1 hour ago, this said:

And oh, you get paid for what value you create, not your time. So the wages reflect the value, not what you or they think they deserve. 

If you think wages reflect value enough to make a blanket statement like that then maybe you shouldn't be trying to throw the word nuance around.

[Huckleberry 32694]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

On board with all of that.

Although I also think that we address the socioeconomic and family history stuff (not perfectly, but better) starting WAY before senior year of high school.  Taking someone who had a shitty lower level education and trying to get them caught up to speed in year 1 of college is a shitty path.

Agreed but that brings up issues. It should probably start being addressed by sophomore year of high school at the latest but kids that age can't be expected to have any plan for the future whatsoever. I think post-high school is the best option out of practicality only. And gap years after high school should not have a negative effect on the student's application for admission if this system ever actually happened (ha). Well, there should probably be a limit, but not knowing exactly what path you want to take at 18 shouldn't be disqualifying.

[Brisketexan 104557]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Agreed but that brings up issues. It should probably start being addressed by sophomore year of high school at the latest but kids that age can't be expected to have any plan for the future whatsoever. I think post-high school is the best option out of practicality only. And gap years after high school should not have a negative effect on the student's application for admission if this system ever actually happened (ha). Well, there should probably be a limit, but not knowing exactly what path you want to take at 18 shouldn't be disqualifying.

Also agreed.  I don't think we have to nail down your future by sophomore year or senior year.  I just think that we should work to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots well before the college admission process.

And I'm all about a gap year, and not penalizing someone for it.  Hell, for my son (currently a rising sophomore), it may be a good path, whereas his sister is a born academic who is going to be college-bound right out of high school.

[Brisketexan 104557]

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

 

You’re right that free college doesn’t necessarily mean everyone gets into college.  And that is what will likely happen if government has to pay for college, at least after a few years once economic realities hit and costs have to be managed.  There will be all kinds of ways to ration and/or slot kids into more cost efficient tracks once the body that makes the laws has to actually foot the bill instead of making money off it through predatory non dischargeable lending.

 

And following on what Huck suggested above, I don't think that you should have a "you try once, and if you don't get in, that's it" approach.  If someone starts working after high school, gets some real-world experience, matures, etc., and their higher-ed application ans scores look better when they're 24 than it did when they were 18, great.  Admit them, and put them on the path to a degree.

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And following on what Huck suggested above, I don't think that you should have a "you try once, and if you don't get in, that's it" approach.  If someone starts working after high school, gets some real-world experience, matures, etc., and their higher-ed application ans scores look better when they're 24 than it did when they were 18, great.  Admit them, and put them on the path to a degree.

That should actually be encouraged.

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Instead of debating whether it’s best left to federal or state bureaucrats, I would rather just not open Pandora’s Box to begin with so we don’t have the shit show of the Department  Of Higher Education Funding deciding which kids deserve to go to college under the current appropriations dollar number.

It's already being decided by the current economics.  In large part, unless you have a good chunk of money, get fucked.

We USED to have the government deciding this -- back when the state funded our universities.  Again, see the fact that you could pay for school by working 20 hours a week, now it takes 50 hours a week.

[Huckleberry 32694]

I really do wish a State would do something like this. Obviously they'd have to limit it to applicants who have lived there for a certain number of years prior to the application or else there would be a large number of people moving there just before applying. They'd also need to require residency for a certain number of years after.

[Brisketexan 104557]

5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I think Brisket envisions way less strings being eventually attached to free higher education for all than I do.  I don’t think it stops at just subsidizing colleges while they effectively maintain independence in admissions and operations, like the example of UT having more funding in the past.  

We’re talking way more money for the new everyone goes to college free proposal.  More money than we will have and/or more than we will be willing to keep spending consistently.  Then when cost controls are implemented there will be all kinds of unintended consequences, many of which won’t be economic.

We have fully-funded education from K-12.  We used to have pretty cheap state college tuition.

And as a practical matter, I don't see all of it as "free."  I'd like things like trade school and the like to be free or close to it.  I like the cost of current community colleges.  And I'd like our four year colleges to be a good bit cheaper, and for folks who meet a certain economic threshold, free.

But my kids -- who can afford to pay for it -- should still pay for their college education.  I do think it should be a cost more commensurate with where it was 30 years ago (20 hours a week v. 50 hours a week of wages), but there should still be folks paying tuition.  But Hutto High Harry, who lives in an apartment with his single mom, shouldn't pay as much, and maybe shouldn't pay anything.  If Hutto High Harry can meet the admissions criteria of UT, he should be able to go, same as my kids, who are smart and blessed with parents who make good money.

[this 107]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Well no shit. Maybe you should have considered the nuance instead of making a terrible post to try to score points in an internet discussion. Your post certainly didn't include any nuance.

If you think wages reflect value enough to make a blanket statement like that then maybe you shouldn't be trying to throw the word nuance around.

Nothing stops you from making a strawman CEO argument why should anyone else? 

 

[SaucyJack 3487]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, but it was San Antonio.  How much time did it take to teach them to draw on huge eyebrows?

Did not know SHS grew up in SA. 

[Huckleberry 32694]

10 minutes ago, this said:

Nothing stops you from making a strawman CEO argument why should anyone else? 

 

That's not how conversations work. You made a dumb blanket statement and I disproved it with an example. You can't change the discussion chronology by implying that you made the stupid blanket statement because I used a straw man argument.

Also, that's not what a straw man fallacy is. Try again.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The "rich people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of tax revenue therefore their taxes must be too high!" argument is going to give me an aneurysm some day.

The premise that some people should not have to pay shit to live here is total crap too.  Having a negative return is even stupider.

 

IDGAF if it's $52 a year.  Everyone should pay Federal Income tax if they are a citizen.

Edited July 30, 2018 by slorch

[RayDog 682]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

 

IDGAF if it's $52 a year.  Everyone should pay Federal Income tax if they are a citizen.

As an expat I don't think I should have to pay taxes in a country where I do not reside.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

The premise that some people should not have to pay shit to live here is total crap too.  Having a negative return is even stupider.

 

IDGAF if it's $52 a year.  Everyone should pay Federal Income tax if they are a citizen.

With basic income, we could and should ditch most tax credits and maybe even the standard deduction. 

[David Dennison 18651]

3 hours ago, this said:

And oh, you get paid for what value you create, not your time. So the wages reflect the value, not what you or they think they deserve. 

You get paid for labor. If the value created by your labor is worth more than your wages, that's called surplus value.

Karl Marx out front should have told you.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, RayDog said:

As an expat I don't think I should have to pay taxes in a country where I do not reside.

Then don't.

 

Make up your own rules...

[this 107]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

That's not how conversations work. You made a dumb blanket statement and I disproved it with an example. You can't change the discussion chronology by implying that you made the stupid blanket statement because I used a straw man argument.

Also, that's not what a straw man fallacy is. Try again.

You disproved nothing, you barely have a point to make. What you tried to do is, hey look over there, there are a few CEOs who got compensated despite creating little to no value so that means the entire point where one gets compensated based on value is invalid. Nuh uh, because hey look over there, there are millions of small business owners, founders of companies who prove exactly the opposite.

 

 

[this 107]

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You get paid for labor. If the value created by your labor is worth more than your wages, that's called surplus value.

Karl Marx out front should have told you.

And that surplus value goes to the risk takers, the owners, the investors. Not the 9 to 5 clock punchers who want to run home to their bud light as soon as it hits 5.