What a foolish proposal.How about a flat tax? It is the only fair
way to tax everyone with the same percentage of their income. Close all
loopholes. End all deductions. Flat tax is a fair tax.
Nothing like a New England Democrat to come up with this dumb idea. I came from
a middle class family and had to work my way through school to appreciate
Class warfare at its finest.The problem isn't
"millionaires". The problem is universities that seem to think
there's no end to the amount of money we'll throw at them - for a
degree to "nowhere".
Never met a millionaire who I wouldn't like to tax more!But
Elizabeth, you've left out a few first steps. First, Universities charge
way too much, probably because they pay way too much to their leadership and
lightly loaded prof's. Second, a degree leads to a good paying job, so the
student with that degree must be expected to try to pay back the loan. Third,
the student's family should be tasked (taxed?) with helping to repay the
loan, it's only fair, they avoided payment in the first place.After
my 3 ideas, I'm still all for taxing millionaires, sock it to em! Anything
over 500k per year should be taken.A flat tax is the ultimate unfair tax.
A flat tax is the non thinking man's approach to income tax reform.
Deductions should be re-ordered, some scaled down, some scaled up. But NO to a
flat tax. Got more opinions, another time.
Here's a quaint idea; DON'T take on more debt than you are willing
(and able)to pay off.Problem solved.What do millionaires
have to do with YOUR bad decisions?
Since the rich have been getting all those tax breaks for the last 30 years on
the premise they were going to create jobs and prosperity for all, I think they
should now pay back the treasury for their failure to do so.
Socialists and Marxists always love to spend other people's money, and
confiscate the earnings of others.Ms. Warren has a lot of hutzpah as
a former Harvard professor demanding confiscating earnings of OTHER people who
made a lot of money, but will probably exempt liberal professors and highly paid
lawyers. Of course, taking money from them to give it to their kids to pay for
school might be seen by some as being "an Indian giver."Too
many people go to college to start with, too many study worthless subjects, and
too many borrow money when they have no real likelihood of paying it back. Fix
those problems instead of stealing money from people who work.She
could confiscate every dollar earned by working Americans and still not come
close to paying off our deficits, let alone our national debt. It's not
that taxes are too low, it is that Congress is spending WAY too much!
@Dave4197 "Never met a millionaire I wouldn't like to tax more!"
Socialist."A flat tax is the ultimate unfair tax. A flat tax is
the non thinking man's approach to income tax reform" Your's is
the non-taxpaying man's approach to having other people fund your
laziness.If we continue to penalize success and reward laziness, more
people will become lazy and make comments like you have made. The
"rich" pay more than their fair share.
Capital exploits labor so it is OK to tax the wealthy at higher marginal rates.
Just restore 1950's rates and things will improve greatly (weren't
the 1950's great years for both capital and labor?).
Hey DN Subscriber - It is called the Buffet Rule. Since when has Warren Buffet
been a Socialist or a Marxist? Bill Gates is all for it too. Doesn't that
kind of trash your "Socialist and Marxist" theory?It's
a reasonable idea, but it could be improved.I think a special tax
should be Levied against Republicans to pay for some of the immense damage they
have done to this nation.
Yea, Elizabeth get those rich people, get those white people ,get those
hetrosexuals, get those folks who want to work instead of set on their porches
and suck off of the taxpayer tax,tax,tax oh and spend,spend,spend! Liberalism
A the cost today for a university degree is ludicrous. Universities
need to be held accountable for keeping costs down. Unfortunately, they are run
like a business. Govt educational assistance has allowed these colleges to just
charge more.While it is useful for Americans to supplement higher
education, maybe we could set guidelines for schools to follow if those funds
are to be used at those colleges.The cost of higher education, like
healthcare, cannot be justified.
So, Elizabeth Warren actually thinks that the absence of confiscation is an
investment. That's pretty scary, if you think about it.I will
officially invest in you, the reader, today by not confiscating all of your
assets. Aren't you grateful that I am such a generous investor?
Continuing to raise taxes on the "rich"= Detroit!
How to make college affordable? In the 1970's it was. It was possible at
that time for a student who was living at home to work all summer and use that
money to completely pay for books and tuition the following academic year.
Between then and now something has changed. Identify in detail what those
changes are so we can go back to the way it was then.Short of doing
this, attempts to make college affordable won't succeed.
Please, let's leave the rich alone! They do so much for us and inspire us
to be such better and more successful people and they ask so little for doing
so. Some of us just have to face the fact that the rich are simply there because
they work harder and are better at keeping their noses to the grindstone than
the rest of us. If we want to be like them, we can't over tax them and then
they might say, "Well, no duh--if these Americans don't appreciate me,
I'll take my money to Canada!" Plus, lets not have all this class
warfare stuff. We are not as strong as the rich and we could never stand up to
them. Plus, we have lots of distractions like video games and shopping at
Walmart for low low prices.
Hi JoeBlow,"The cost of higher education, like healthcare,
cannot be justified."Let's examine that claim. The average
weekly earnings for someone with a Bachelor's Degree are $1,066 while the
average weekly earnings for someone with a High School Diploma are $652 (source:
BLS). That's a difference of $414 per week.Assuming that
someone works for 30 years, that's $414 x 52 weeks x 30 years, which equals
$645,840 in additional earnings due to having a Bachelor's Degree.Any investment of less than the additional earnings would be justified.
Well then, Hawkeye, they should be able to pay off their own loan,
shouldn't they? The problem is averages aren't telling the whole
story. There are many people go to college who don't graduate, and there
are many more who go to college and don't earn more than if they
hadn't gone. Those are the people who shouldn't be in college, or
shouldn't be taking out loans.The bigger problem is the more
money you throw at colleges, the more expensive they get, and less efficient
they become. Effectiveness should be measured by outputs, not by inputs, and if
colleges are graduating people that can't afford to pay off their loans
that is evidence that they are not effective and efficient.Another
problem with loans as those who take them out don't spend that efficiently.
"That which we achieve to easily we esteem too lightly."
problem isn't millionaires, i=the problem is the poor. Focus should be on
helping those that want to work hard to become millionaires. Takers continue to
want to rob the makers. Mitt was right.
Some Bachelor's degrees simply do not pay, though.I think that
was the disconnect for college students who have already graduated with all this
debt, and perhaps the same disconnect for their parents.I do keep
hearing that the newest generation of college age adults are inspecting their
choices. But I'm just not sure I believe that entirely. Any forethought
will make for an improvement, but that's their responsibility, not some
millionaire's.The longer that we coddle adolescents, the more
childlike they are when they have to make these decisions regarding debt. If the
parent is convinced that "any" degree will help their child, they aid
the justification for taking it on, when a degree in Philosophy doesn't
make much financial sense.And if you think financial sense in a
college degree doesn't matter, YOU go ahead and pay for their debts.
I'm not and I'm glad for that.
"Any investment of less than the additional earnings would be
justified."That is certainly one way to look at it? But, not
really valid.Are you sincerely suggesting that the cost of an
education should be tied to earning potential?Why would we not tie
it to the cost of providing that education?
Even a so-called flat tax is not truly a flat tax.A flat tax would
call for each citizen to pay for the govt resources they use; each person would
pay about the same in taxes.A flat tax rate still ends up with rich
people paying for the resources that I use.And that's not
right.Only a lazy person would suggest a rich person pay for my and
their share of resources used
Excellent proposal, but it doesn't go far enough. College education should
be free for all Americans.
The LDS Church has the Perpetual Education Fund, which makes student loans to
those wanting to improve their earning potential through education. In order to
take advantage of these funds, a student must take a financial management
course. I wonder what the payback rate of student loans would be if the same
were true of government student loans. What's missing in most
government programs is accountability. People are allowed to receive help, but
little to nothing is required in return. Requiring an accounting of what people
do is a great way to help those people be more responsible with what
they're given (and, often, to feel better about themselves in the process).
so, you're going to tax the rich so kids can make sure to borrow enough
money to throw raging keggers and live opulent (for a student) lifestyles? How
about reducing college costs by not requiring unnecessary classes that are only
created to give humanities graduates tenured jobs as professors.
Taking from the rich to help pay for people's education is not the way to
go. Can you go to college and graduate with no debt? Absolutely YES! This can
be easily done! I did this myself and had plenty of cash left over when I
graduated. I started saving for college when I was 12 years old. Every dollar
I made I saved and put towards college. I also invested this money in these so
called evil corporate money mongers. And thanks to these corporations, they
helped subsidize my college education. I also worked during college, and worked
my butt off during the summer. These college kids need to get jobs and learn
how to save instead of going and partying every night. Or even better, study
harder and earn a scholarship. Too many people think they deserve entitlements
and everything should be taken care of for them. If you want something badly
enough, you'll do whatever it takes to get it.
I have seen how some students spend their loans, and it's not all on
school. Also if we start paying for all these kids to go to college than their
parents can buy new cars, TV's and other luxuries that I couldn't
afford when I paid for my students college. Pay your own way, I am tired of the
government trying to figure out more and more ways to give people free things.
Work for what you want. There really are plenty of jobs. . . it's just
whether we are willing to work them. My kids worked all through college to help
pay for their education. Americans need to quit being so lazy and be
Chris B,No person lives in a vacuum. Take a look at the federal and
state budgets. How much of it are you willing to pay for? We use roads that
cost billions. Our liberty is defended by human beings, aircraft carriers and
ballistic missiles. Our economy and future income is supported by intelligent
people using private and government investments in research. So is our health.
Our future economic and physical well-being will be determined by how educated
the next generation is. The forests and national parks we recreate in are
supported with tax dollars. How do we determine what resources you use or will
The American system is amazing. I would argue that the wealthy top 1% actually
do utilize and benefit from our system MUCH more than the middle or lower
classes do. And their wealth is generally based upon the incredible human
capital found in this nation. They would never become as wealthy or maintain
that wealth and liberty so easily in other political or economic systems! They
should pay their fair share to build and support that system. It is NOT a
penalty, it IS the price of future success. And the cool part is we lift each
other in the process.
I am generally in agreement with a flat tax idea. Perhaps set a minimum income
level, say poverty line for openers, and then a flat percentage of income above
it. Deductions will be the fight, as children, mortgage and charity would be
fought over. But on the up side, it would reduce accountant and tax preparers.
The "loop holes" reside in charitable deductions such as religious,
university endowments, "cultural" entities. The rich and powerful
people and institutions know how to lobby legislatures to protect the status quo
so in reality our ranting is futile.I would propose, albeit a modest
one (apologies to Adam Smith), that all students in high school and then again
in any and all post high school education, including military service be
required to successfully complete Dave Ramsey's course, or a similar one in
personal finance management, in the first semester of college or senior year of
high school or upon graduation from basic training (their minds are too messed
up in Basic). Poor personal economic choices are the heart of debt. Stop the purchasing on whim or ignorance of consequences and you have a big
Obviously, I misread the that the Constitutional guarantee that everyone is
entitled a college education and the "rich" don't deserve to keep
what they earn. Most importantly, that a Democrat has no qualms about steeling
money from someone's pocket to pay for their pet project.
The government should not be backing student loans without regard to whether the
particular course of study will raise the particular student's earning
power enough to repay the loan. An applicant for a student loan must be able to
show a specific plan for repaying it, similar to the plan that an applicant for
a business loan must draw up. This requirement would stop students from taking
on debt for useless degrees.
The stampede of liberal progressives in loud acclamation can be heard! Leave it
up to a patronizing, corrupt politician to solve a problem they created! The
wealthy are never hurt by scheming politicians! The senator knows this, but she
also knows that people that have naively been taken advantage of are also
looking for another bailout! Picking on the wealthy is convenient, especially
in an era when no one wants to take responsibility for any mistake, especially
the politicians who love to scheme and pretend that they are servants when
master is the the right word! only the foolish and naive will be fooled by
this charade, but there will be many who will leap in with both feet!
You know, I thought we had learned our lesson in the thirties. I thought we had
learned that these ridiculous socialist ideas just don't work. The New
Deal was such a disaster and it almost completely destroyed our country. Thank
goodness the Supreme Court saved the nation by declaring it unconstitutional.I guess it's really true--the main thing we learn from history is
that nobody ever learns anything from history.
Wow, when we pay oil companies millions of dollars in subsidies, it is an
investment (according to the oil companies), but when we want to make college
more affordable, that is leaching off the rich. I would rather my tax dollars
go to promote an educated and skilled society.I would love to see
how many of you would have responded to the Savior when he told his disciples
that the widow who threw two mites into the treasury had given more than anyone
because everyone else had given out of their abundance, and she had given out of
her need, even all her living. I can just imagine what you would
say, "no, two mites isn't worth more than what the Pharisees gave,"
"Don't punish the Pharisees, they are the job creators," "Are
you against the free-market principle of the money changers?" "Do you
hate successful people?"What is sad today is that widow paid
more than many corporations today because they paid zero through using
loopholes. Instead of being upset at that fact, many on this board are upset
that somebody doesn't make enough to pay Federal Income Tax. Wow!
I'm shocked with some of the words chosen in these comments: foolish
proposal, dumb idea, class warefare, Socialists and Marxists, get the rich
people, and so on..I'm shocked because they attack the person
and don't actually debate the idea. Really is there anything wrong with
having the rich pay the same rates as the middle class? Or a bit more? I guess the rich won't like it too much, well no one likes to pay taxes,
but they will continue to be rich after paying their taxes. The others who
defend them here will continue to still not be rich as the rich keep on getting
@Oatmeal - Could you specifically explain your rationale of how the rich use
more than everyone else? Most of them pay for their kids to go to private
schools and college, and they still pay taxes which help pay for public schools.
They also spend money on things like houses, cars and other things that are made
by (surprise, surprise) people. Even when they go out to dinner and do other
things, they're usually provided service by (again) people. When the rich
spend money, it generates jobs. And more than one study has shown that the
"1%" give far more to charity than most people. When we squeeze the
rich, they spend less, the economy slows and that means less jobs. I'm all
for fairness in taxes, but if you squeeze too much, the golden goose stops
We can argue all we want about what is fair and what is not fair but I have not
read many comments that address the issue objectively. Since the 1970’s
we have decreased the maximum federal tax rate from a high of about 70%. Since
then we have also seen a decline in the financial security of our middle class
citizens. By the way, that decline does not correlate with a lack of effort of
our workers. Especially compared with most westernized countries and Japan, we
take fewer vacation days and work more days per year. Our productivity has
likewise increased significantly.Compared to the 1970’s more
households have mother and dad both working fulltime and Utah is high on that
list. This is difficult and has to be a challenge to our family values The
“trickle down” theory of allowing greater wealth to accumulate at
upper income levels has not resulted in improved situations for the middle or
working class. If the Rich are benefiting from the greater productivity and
work ethic of their employees I submit they can and should pay a greater share
of helping the rest of society.
SillyRabbit has an idea. Quit pumping out degrees for all those worthless
liberal arts social ideas such as a masters in the study of animal waste and get
back to the three R's. We don't need more shrinks we need scientists
and engineers. We also need good teachers and professors that teach the three
R's, History (as it really happened) and English.
A horrible terrible stupid proposal. I'll admit I have a fair amount of
student loan debt. But I did not bite off more than I could chew, and made sure
that I majored in something that would actually be worth it, and I am paying
back my student loans with the originally agreed to interest rates with payments
larger than the minimum payments so that I can get out of debt sooner. I knew
what I was getting in to when I got the loans, and I was not foolish enough to
get more than I could handle. Most millionaires and billionaires have earned
their money. I do not want the government to steal from them in order to try to
"help" me with my student loans. I am responsible and so I have this
under control all by myself. I don't need or want the "help" of
Senator Warren or President Obama.
@cjb " In the 1970's it was. It was possible at that time for a
student who was living at home to work all summer and use that money to
completely pay for books and tuition the following academic year. Between then
and now something has changed. Identify in detail what those changes are so we
can go back to the way it was then."It's pretty easy to
explain. Most higher ed is public. States has steadily lowered their subsidy
of higher ed. Sallie Mae, the agency which makes student loans was sold off to
commercial banks which made it a profit center. And this whole process was
compounded by a stagnant real wage from the late 1970's 'til now -
this makes the educational expense really bite. There you have it - a perfect
storm for young people. See "Inequality for All." for more details.
Whats foolish is that student loans have interest rates of at least 8% while the
government loans billions to banks at less than 1%.If anyone wants to talk
about something foolish, try to justify that.
What fools! Here is my challenge! If what all the progressive socialists say
is true, then let's just confiscate all their wealth, nationalize all
corporations and by law equalize every wage in the country! Surely, surely,
then everyone will be happy and peace will reside in the heart of every man,
women, and child, but especially the liberal progressives!
What is preventing Buffett and Gates from paying more in taxes? They should
just pay 90% of their earnings every year. Stop whining about it and do it.
All of the other liberals should raise their own taxes too. That way we
wouldn't have to hear the constant complaining from them. I say use the
same funding system as God does and tax everyone at a flat rate. Lets say 15%.
That would work. Seems to work for the LDS church.
@Al Thepal "Most millionaires and billionaires have earned their
money." They "work" at protecting and expanding their fortunes.
But they don't sweat like us of the middle class. They can hire any sort
of expertise they need to protect themselves. An interesting example is sugar.
Why do we have to put up with fructose corn syrup in our pop, while the rest of
world gets to drink real pop with sugar? The big sugar billionaires of Florida
have paid both the major parties to keep sugar tariffs high. So sugar is
artificially expensive in the U.S. This is just one example among many. It's important to understand the difference between the world of
high finance and the one most of us live in. It has a bearing on everything
including the student loan disaster.
There must be an election coming because the Democrat machine of class warfare
is ramping up again.
Let me simplify her thinking for everyone. "So we need more money to spend.
Hey, those guys have money. Let's take money from them because they have
some and I want it. We deserve their money because they have more." The
A lot of interesting responses here. If there are circumstances where
Millionaires pay less tax than middle class folks, that should be examined. So
she might have something here. Of course its a politician saying it so the
claim should be looked into.
@David "There must be an election coming because the Democrat machine of
class warfare is ramping up again." You mean we actually have
"classes," like in class struggle like in Marx?
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Warren learned the wrong lesson from Robin Hood. As Ayn
Rand put it:"It is said that [Robin Hood] fought against the
looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is
not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a
champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the
robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who
assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own,
by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the
luxury of his pity."Senator Warren, please don't use the
money that I have earned and achieved myself to pay for your pity.
I worked in the evenings during school year (2 jobs in the summer), served in
the church, and had a small family with no debt. My wife and I both graduated
the same day. Now we have a business with 300+ employees. Takes hard work and
sacrifice but can be done. Worth the effort. Frustrated with government's
proposed solutions - an indication of how far off track this country is.
Ender,What you failed to mention about Robin Hood is that he was not
stealing from the rich - he was stealing oppressive tax money back from the
oppressive government and returning it to the over taxed people. He was exactly
the opposite of a social justice crusader. He would have been throwing tea in
Boston Harbor.Marxist - Conservatives want everyone to have the
opportunity to attain any "class" in society (ie. no classes). Liberals
are trying to create the classes and keep everyone there.
To "marxist" I will agree to restore the 1950's tax rates if we can
also revert the entire tax code to teh 1950's.
@PPI agree with you. The problem is not Robin Hood, but the lesson that
Democrats have learned from him. Please reread the quote. To Elizabeth Warren,
Robin Hood was not a champion of property (as you suggest), but a champion of
need. And therein lies the problem!
Some have argued that the rich should "pay their fair share" in taxes.
What is their "fair share"?The top 10% currently pay 70% of
federal income tax, even though they earn only 45% of income. 70% isn't
fair? What is fair? 80%? 90%? Should the top 10% of earners pay all of the
taxes?Seriously, liberals keep using the term "fair share"
but never tell us what that is.
Oh, I forgot to mention. After you read this article, read the article
"Borrowers using student loans for cash, not a degree", also in
today's news.Now tell me why we should make it easier for
people to get quick cash, and then make it cheaper to pay back?
Agreed on the Flat Tax comment. This is the only real way to do taxes in the
first place. This would be a progressive tax already, and fair to the lowest
income earners (there is a poverty level income where nothing is taxed and
everything else above that is taxed at the same rate).There is a
great book on this called The Flat Tax, a must read for any serious student of
The proposal is not foolish. Millionaires get rich off of others who pay for
their products or work for them. Since the Reagan years, the trickle down theory
began and since then, prices have skyrocketed. It does NOT work. It
used to be affordable back in the 70's. Find out why and go back to those
days on how colleges were funded. Also colleges are not being built like they
used to. So many colleges are filled up and hence the reason it is costly.
It's a paradox isn't it? There is a Sales Tax where it
will be put in place and no more will we have federal taxes. It will become the
pay taxes as you go. It's a good plan and gaining momentum. The Fair Tax
Organization is pushing for this and it's looking good. Bottom
line is students are paying way too much for college on the average part. To
blame the student is illogical. The student is trying to work hard towards
graduation and looks forward to doing good work. It is hurting our nation when
our average students are forced to go into deep debt.
@AllBlack and like-minded. I believe those who are using terms like "bad
idea",etc., ARE offering up ideas. But progressives don't acknowledge
such. One such idea is to not focus on hitting the rich with more of their
"fair share" when what is "fair" has not been fully defined; and
when you actually look at it the top 10% pay %70 of the taxes already. This
student dept (or government debt) issue has multiple causes, but it is
guaranteed that further taxing the rich (however good that makes the non-rich
feel) as a means of addressing the underlying problem will not solve the
problem. In fact, Warren's proposal would actually make it worse. Part of
the problem with ever rising tuition costs is the loan program itself. You can
research that if you care. Personal responsibility and accountability (or lack
thereof) is another contributing factor. Fixing loopholes in the current tax
code would help. Pursuing degrees that don't lead to an income stream
sufficient to support oneself and pay back the loans is a problem. Gov charging
8% interest is yet another issue. Why is it that higher taxes and more spending
is usually the only progressive solution?
I think calling it the Buffet rule is appropriate, because liberals see higher
taxes as a Dinner Buffet, where they can keep funding new entitlements. First stop: Use taxes on millionaires to fund loans for higher
education.Next stop: you can choose a "public option" for
lower cost education if you go to a liberal school, or you can pay "Gold
Level" tuition rates if you go to a conservative university. Social
engineering at its finest. That would buy lots of Democrat votes.Final stop: a single payer system for education, all funded by the federal
government. Of course, the government would totally dictate what is taught.
Hey! Here's an idea why doesn't the government LOWER everyone's
tax rates to the same as the millionaire/billionaire club members? That way I
get to pay the same rate that they do.Next idea, don't get into
debt to go to college. The government didn't pay my way when I attended the
UofU. Why should others have to be forced to pay for yours?
It's not just colleges scamming degrees. Remember when a kid could earn
money bay sitting? Now we have licensed daycare that requires degrees and pays
nothing -- yet costs like crazy due to bureaucratic overhead.
I have my fair share of student loan debt, and I am paying it back myself
because I don't buy frivolous things and I live within my means. Rather
than forcing others to suffer the consequences of our actions, can't we
just learn financial management skills? I never took a class in finance but I
figured out how much I need to earn each month to cover necessities. I really
don't think it's that difficult, it's just a matter of financial
priorities, and a huge tv and a brand new car just isn't in that equation
for me. I do think it's a nice thought that Senator Warren
would like to help students, but taking the responsibility away from us is just
going to teach a bad lesson - don't prepare yourself fully and the
government will step in and force the rich to pay for it.
So colleges and universities charge an arm and a leg for tuition, fees, housing
and on-campus food (often required for freshmen who are also often mandated to
live on campus) and it's the millionaires' fault?Got
it.I'd comment more but my car is broken so to fix it I'm
going to call my plumber. It's HIS fault, after all....
@md"How about a flat tax? It is the only fair way to tax everyone with
the same percentage of their income. Close all loopholes. End all deductions.
"No, that'd help the rich and hurt the poor even more.
(Contrary to popular belief it's actually the poor that benefit more from
loopholes/deductions than the rich, after all 47% of people have so much in
those deductions that they aren't paying income taxes).
@Cats"The New Deal was such a disaster and it almost completely
destroyed our country. Thank goodness the Supreme Court saved the nation by
declaring it unconstitutional."The New Deal was pulling America
out of the ditch you conservatives drove it into under Coolidge->Hoover
policies. Then in FDRs second term a lot of it was gotten rid of by the courts
or scaled back and we lost a good chunk of the employment gains.
How many students who use financial aid go and spend on spring break?Cut out Spring Break and go straight through the semester. Let students out
earlier in Spring to Work longer during the summer and not spend frivolously on
extravagant vacations.Financial aid should be available ONLY to pay
for Tuition, books and fees and paid directly to the school. Everything else
should be the responsibility of the student or his family.Schools
should be prohibited from charging fees to raise more money for athletics such
has been done at USU or the U.
Give the money to the responsible people who knew they could not afford to pay
back a student loan, so they never took one out. They knew it was
just a loan when they took the money.
Some commenters are expanding the scope of the discussion to include overhaul of
the tax code (i.e. flat tax). Others are blaming the kids for poor decision
making and them or their parents for poor planning. Let's regain our focus
and examine how we (this is, after all, a societal issue). More importantly, if
you're critical of Sen. Warren's solution...come up with a better
one.How did we get here? An economy that can't absorb
graduates at both a rate and level that will permit them to service their debt.
The jobs available to undergrads now are the same types of jobs I held in high
school. At least the cost of the high school education was borne by the
taxpayer (private schools excepted). Let's examine the roles now. As an
example, a little north of my neck of the woods is a facility is an operation
run by Bayer. A $15 an hour production floor position requires a degree in
biology or biochem. The "foreman" may need a degree in industrial
engineering and X number of years in pharma. (continued)
(continued)An ICP chemist with a masters degree may get $20 an hour.
The cost of a public undergrad education is perhaps $50K with a graduate degree
costing perhaps another $50K. That's a 6-10 year sunk cost with a break
even probably about another 10 years out. As rapidly as economies
are changing the "projected" staring salary of $45K a year in 2005 now
commands a salary of $30K in 2014. The cost of living has gone up and what was
a viable, perhaps even attractive, option in 2005 can not justify the investment
of time or money. Now the student is addled with debt and even jobs in their
field are hard to come by. The "economic rules" of 2014 are challenging
if you can secure work. If you can't then it's impossible. You did everything right. You took a risk, ostensibly jointly shared by
"Sallie Mae". But that's a lie. You bear the full cost of time
and money. The "business" that said you need this education before
I'll hire you? "It's not my fault!" It's the market
(continued)Fairly simplistic solutions, but at least it's a
start. First would be if the education is indeed required to play in the
"job market", then reduce the cost of education. MIT started the open
courseware initiative a few years ago. At one time (maybe they still are) USU
was a participant. The drawback with OCI is no degree is conferred even though
a substantial part of the curriculum is provided at only the cost of a computer
and possibly a text. So, the time is invested by the student in gaining
knowledge, but without a degree, that knowledge has no market value. The
private sector ... perhaps the Princeton Review ... or the professions governing
the discipline (ex: CILA) could administer and exam to certify knowledge
competency. If the student still can't afford, a government grant is given
to cover the cost of the exam.What to do about the existing debt:
The repayment is indexed off the jobs available (in your neck of the woods ~
10%) with the debt retired at seven years. Who pays the outstanding principle?
If society in general benefits from education, then they should collectively
share in the cost of that benefit.
Social Security? Solution: Tax ALL income instead of having a ceiling on the
amount earned. That way, for example, people in entertainment, sports and
investment houses who make enormous amounts of money would pay the same percent
of income as I do on all their income. Income taxes? I don't care how much
the wealthy earn. I just want them to pay the same percent on their income that
I pay. Fairness, equity and simplicity. The entire tax code is a
conglomeration of special exemptions made at one time or another for rich,
influential citizens who could afford to buy the influence necessary to get such
a special exemption. Then they hire smart CPAs to figure out how to apply those
special exemptions to their clients.
I am a college student. It's expensive. I'm working paying for it
myself and graduating debt free this fall. That being said, monetary help would
be wonderful but there is something that people need to understand.. The
"1%" don't just hold on to their money. They don't pile it up
and use it in consumption spending (a terrible habit that keeps many from making
money), they use it in INVESTMENT spending. The money that Senator Warren wants
to be taken for taxation means that same money won't be used for
investment. The money they invest does more for the economy than money taken in
taxes. Letting people invest is in our best interest! I would love the
government to give me money but students CAN make it without it! It means so
much more to me that I worked for it too!
Hey look everybody! A free lunch!
To "Mont Pugmire" but then how do you tax the CEO who has a salary of $1
and earns most of his income off of dividends and exercising their stock
options? Since SS is a payroll tax, you will never touch those CEOs.
Student debt has become a huge problem in this country. The only students that
are even able to pay up are those who go to Ivy League Universities and major in
Law or Medicine. For the rest its a spotty business. My wife and I recently
toured the Baltic Countries and Germany. All of them educate their young people
THROUGH COLLEGE as an investment by the public in the future of their countries.
We, on the other hand, have the attitude that public eduction K thru 12 is
"normal" and K thru 16 is socialism. Instead we burden students with
student debt so they start life way below ground. I think the country (and the
state) need to start with a blank sheet of paper and work it out from scratch.
Meanwhile, we need to notice that foreign students studying abroad are coming
out more educated than their debt-ridden domestic students.
re:Frustrated MomA Flat Tax is essentially the law of tithing as
least as far as the economic side is concerned. Yes a Flat Tax is the answer
where EVERY CITIZEN pays the same percent. This would have the wonderful effects
of lowering the income tax percent substantially for everyone now paying and
also increasing the amount of revenue collected. The problem with the Flat Tax
is that it CAN'T exist in a Socialist country and that is where the USA is
fast approaching. The flat is the ONLY fair tax but Socialism isn't about
fairness - it is about rewarding the lazy and dysfunctional while punishing the
Forget income tax. Tax total property. And start above 10 million. If we tax
10% of property over 10 million we would really tax Buffet. His taxes would be
$2 billion a year instead of $200,000. That would be just. That's why
Buffet said go ahead and tax my income. Because for rich people income is
phony. His phony income is only $467,000 a year.
Why don't we rein in government spending and stop placing the burden of the
National Debt on the backs of future generations? Stop borrowing from our
children and grandchildren!!
If investing in student debt had good returns, millionaires would already be
funding it.That obvious point is totally overlooked by everyone in
all of these discussions.Why anyone would tie up nearly $200,000 in
student debt to get a degree from a high end university for a degree in
something like library science (yes, I know someone who did this) is totally
beyond me. The percentage of kids who go to expensive schools, tie up tens of
thousands in debt and then quit is astounding and generally that money will
hinder their progress for decades.Don't invest in things that
don't provide a commensurate return. Encourage local CC and then fund the
loans when someone is certain of their field, and not before.
If the government would not artificially increase the supply of students by easy
money( Pell grants and student loans), the cost of education would be lower.
Regardless, if students work and go to schools that are affordable then there is
no need to take on debt. I paid for my education that way. Guess I missed out
on all the parties, but I remember how hard I worked to graduate. The
politician need to quit creating problems and proposing "solutions" that
will only lead us to ruin.