Bernie Sanders for President

mrussel1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

jeffbr said:

I think the answer to why this would be very difficult to implement here in the US is actually briefly touched on within the article itself. Examples are given of European countries that provide this. Another example was given regarding the University of California system. The US doesn't run these UC universities. The individual states fund the public universities within their own borders. I'm not aware of any federal public universities, although they may exist. So how do we transition the state schools to become federal schools so that we can implement something like this? Or do the Feds tax the Wall Street speculators and then provide that tax revenue to the individual states to cover the cost of providing the free tuition? Does that then mean that the Federal Dept of Education has oversight of all public universities (which will of course require growing that department)? That sounds like a decades long process fraught with politics. I'm not saying this isn't a noble goal. I'm just wondering how this actually gets implemented. I'm carrying some education debt from my kids, so I'm all too painfully aware of how ridiculously expensive higher education is, and would love to see a solution to curbing costs, so I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here.

Good points here, Jeff. Any changes of this sort will be difficult.

No matter what happens, we would be wise to make college more affordable at the very least.

Adjusting for inflation, what I paid for a full load (15 units) at San Francisco State University should today cost $323.04 But in fact, a 15 unit semester load at that school today will cost a freshman $2736.00, almost 8 1/2 times what I paid. That's simply unacceptable.

Just an FYI, here in Canada my tuition costs were nearly $8000 a year (two semesters), and that of course includes our government's assistance. That being said, I've heard the horror stories of $40-50,000 in the US and that kind of thing simply doesn't happen here.

For some schools $40-50,000 would be getting off cheap.
My girlfriend and I were recently looking through the big book of U.S. colleges ( U.S. News and World Report ) for her son to visit. Some of the more well known private colleges and universities have passed $60,000 for tuition, room/board, books, and fees. Plus travel and other related expenses and your pushing $75,000 per year.

It's obscene to say the least. It's why I'm ambivalent about Bernie. I'm glad he brought the issue of debt load for students to the forefront, but his solution only seeks to pass the costs on to those of us that are gainfully employed, without a plan for bringing down the costs. And then you see their endowment and you can tell how flush with cash they are, that is ironically sitting in the investment market.

Those schools you see at 60-65k are private, so I'd bet those are there to stay. Private institutions and all. But still, other colleges are still 20k plus. When 10 years ago they were significantly less. I live in Massachusetss, and my jaw drops each year when I see how tuition costs have changed. Not just private schools like Boston University and Harvard. But UMASS and other state schools.

Also, the financial aid tax brackets I think need to be changed. If you're parents are helping to pay 25-65k per year in college tuition, I think even the upper-middle class should get aid.

An added 25-65k per year makes a household income of even 150-250k per year seem MUCH less than what it is.

Just my two cents (no pun intended)....

mrussel1 said:

DM282158 said:

mrussel1 said:

Bentleyspop said:

benjs said:

brianlux said:

jeffbr said:

I think the answer to why this would be very difficult to implement here in the US is actually briefly touched on within the article itself. Examples are given of European countries that provide this. Another example was given regarding the University of California system. The US doesn't run these UC universities. The individual states fund the public universities within their own borders. I'm not aware of any federal public universities, although they may exist. So how do we transition the state schools to become federal schools so that we can implement something like this? Or do the Feds tax the Wall Street speculators and then provide that tax revenue to the individual states to cover the cost of providing the free tuition? Does that then mean that the Federal Dept of Education has oversight of all public universities (which will of course require growing that department)? That sounds like a decades long process fraught with politics. I'm not saying this isn't a noble goal. I'm just wondering how this actually gets implemented. I'm carrying some education debt from my kids, so I'm all too painfully aware of how ridiculously expensive higher education is, and would love to see a solution to curbing costs, so I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here.

Good points here, Jeff. Any changes of this sort will be difficult.

No matter what happens, we would be wise to make college more affordable at the very least.

Adjusting for inflation, what I paid for a full load (15 units) at San Francisco State University should today cost $323.04 But in fact, a 15 unit semester load at that school today will cost a freshman $2736.00, almost 8 1/2 times what I paid. That's simply unacceptable.

Just an FYI, here in Canada my tuition costs were nearly $8000 a year (two semesters), and that of course includes our government's assistance. That being said, I've heard the horror stories of $40-50,000 in the US and that kind of thing simply doesn't happen here.

For some schools $40-50,000 would be getting off cheap.
My girlfriend and I were recently looking through the big book of U.S. colleges ( U.S. News and World Report ) for her son to visit. Some of the more well known private colleges and universities have passed $60,000 for tuition, room/board, books, and fees. Plus travel and other related expenses and your pushing $75,000 per year.

It's obscene to say the least. It's why I'm ambivalent about Bernie. I'm glad he brought the issue of debt load for students to the forefront, but his solution only seeks to pass the costs on to those of us that are gainfully employed, without a plan for bringing down the costs. And then you see their endowment and you can tell how flush with cash they are, that is ironically sitting in the investment market.

Those schools you see at 60-65k are private, so I'd bet those are there to stay. Private institutions and all. But still, other colleges are still 20k plus. When 10 years ago they were significantly less. I live in Massachusetss, and my jaw drops each year when I see how tuition costs have changed. Not just private schools like Boston University and Harvard. But UMASS and other state schools.

Also, the financial aid tax brackets I think need to be changed. If you're parents are helping to pay 25-65k per year in college tuition, I think even the upper-middle class should get aid.

An added 25-65k per year makes a household income of even 150-250k per year seem MUCH less than what it is.

Just my two cents (no pun intended)....

My daughter is a junior and will likely be attending University of VA, state school. Tuition is 29k per year in state, and probably one of the best values in the country (sad to say..). She really wants to go to Washington and Lee which is private, small and suits her personality better. But that's 46k. I said..."negative, not unless you earn a scholarship". I'm not going to carry that debt and she should not either. It's too big of a hole to start your real life, or my life less than 20 years to retirement.

And all your points about income are dead on. If you read Bernie's single payer solution, it would raise the marginal rate on 250k incomes to 37% + 2.2% increase + 6.2% business tax (which would presumably be a payroll tax, but that's not clear). If you live on the coasts or a major US city, two, income households with kids at 250 are not rich.

That's such a great example. And I certainly wish nothing but the best for your daughter - seems like she is off to a great. Cheers to you!

I think you're spot on with that income bracket in relation to MA, CA, NY for example. Never mind the state income taxes in those states!

For raising tax revenue - im more in favor of closing loopholes than messing with income tax brackets.

You read stuff out there that major corporations have BILLIONS in cash sitting outside of the country. There NEEDS to be a way of getting that back in this country and invested - long term. Not just for stock buybacks and all that short-term crap.

I think you'd be able to raise plenty of tax revenue that way without even touching the highest earning tax bracket.

Maybe it's providing incentive or something. For example "if you invest in 250+ jobs and X amount in construction" we'll give you X tax break. That way it's more longer term. Focusing on start up research and construction. Which creates tax revenue with more jobs, corporate tax revenue long term cus the profit is not being held overseas. And you're eliminating the possibility of laying off employees and doing stock buybacks (interesting subject if you've ever researched it. It's so greedy and disgusting.)

Probably a pipe dream, but I often wonder.

mrussel1 said:

^ Agree with the prescription. Close the loopholes and even taxing capital gains like ordinary income. That would be a big step in reducing the deficit at least.

Is your issue with buybacks rooted in the fact that they are often being used to fund executive pay? If so, I'm with you. Plus they would again, not be taxed as income (thanks to Bush in 2003). As a pure economical strategy of 1. Putting excess capital to work or 2. Believing your company's shares are undervalued, it's a pretty sound strategy. However, like everything else, Capitalism is being manipulated in the case of exec comp.

Edit - and one more thing.. I totally forgot about state, local, personal property, 7% sales tax, etc. You start getting in the 40's for federal income tax rate, and that is really punitive.

I assure you I'm not defending greedy corporations, but that 40% federal bracket is tough to stomach. Although the tax write-offs are astounding.

In regards to stock buy backs, refer to this article. Fascinating and frustrating. If you care to read it. Pretty much - lay off employees and buy back their stock, they get cash in their pocket. But the corporation inflates the stock price because technically a bunch of stock is being bought. Now, they themselves own more of the stock that now has a higher value than when they bought it. AND they have less overhead - meaning better balance sheet - because they laid off employees.

I'm a small business owner myself, so I totally get controlling costs and salary. But there's a bad taste in my mouth with the above situation. Just....uughhhh....

Here's the article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/05/30/companies-pour-billions-into-buying-back-stock-but-workers-and-economy-may-paying-high-price/8vi1toy4kZBr59ykKYzdNL/story.html

^Cisco definitely seems to be the poster child of manipulating the practice. What I found interesting is the challenge to the concept of 'maximizing shareholder value'. That is such orthodoxy in the corporate world that it's taken for granted, like 'thou shall not kill', it's a Commandment.

Bernie wins Wisconsin big time! Momentum!

lolobugg said:

on to Wyoming and New York!!!!