On 3/30/2016 9:51 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:34:34 AM UTC-6, onglet wrote:
>> On 3/30/2016 9:15 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>>> I went to a state university, lived at home except for one year, and worked throughout
>>> my entire four years. What's your problem? If college costs are rolled back,
>>> then the dollar's value in wages and salaries should match the same era. You
>>> really can't have one without the other, that I can see.
>>>
>>> N.
>>>
>>
>> Logical.
>>
>> Kinda puts the kibosh on all of Bernie's "free stuff" though...
>
> People will still be able to rack up thousands in debt to go to PRIVATE Universities if they choose to.

Can you imagine....I think it's called...wait for it...FREE WILL!

> Bernie is proposing making PUBLIC colleges tuition free!

TANSTAAFL!


http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/03/po...college-costs/

Sanders' free college plan would require states buy in big.
The Vermont senator hasn't released many details on his proposal.
However, his campaign pointed to legislation he introduced last year
that called for the federal government to cover two-thirds of the bill
for undergraduate students, with the states handling the rest. This
would cost the feds $47 billion a year, while states would be left with
a $23 billion tab, he estimated.
The price tag may turn out to be even bigger, depending on how many more
students enroll. A tuition-free degree would likely attract many takers.


> And it's not free stuff, it's getting what WE pay taxes for!

At my age I'm not "getting any" and that makes it "free stuff" I pay and
receive ZERO value for!

> And Bernie is proposing taxing Wall Street speculation as a way to pay for it!

Now what happens with any and all taxes?

They get...wait for it..PASSED DOWN!

To...ALL of US!

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/...e-will-it-work

The United States currently has the ninth-most-educated workforce in the
world, with 45 percent of young adults having earned some form of
diploma or certificate. That's according to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, which compiles detailed statistics
on developed countries. The U.S. is above the OECD average, making
modest progress over the past decade, even as tuition has risen steadily.

"The most educated workforces in the world," though, are smoking us.
They are found in South Korea, where a whopping 67 percent of adults
have some postsecondary education, and Japan and Canada (both at 58
percent).

Now, here's the problem with Sanders' claim that free tuition is necessary:

All three countries charge tuition at their universities, which are
overwhelmingly public. The numbers are roughly on par with in-state
tuition at many public universities here. In fact, Canada's recent
graduates have student loan burdens similar to those of U.S. students,
and they're not happy about it.

http://www.charismanews.com/politics...e-tuition-plan

As with most government handouts, the Sanders plan will likely cost more
and deliver less than it promises.

Let's start with the cost estimates for free public higher education.
Virtually every advocate of free tuition references an article in The
Atlantic from January 2014, which estimates the cost at roughly $62.6
billion. Sanders, factoring in his additional proposals, predicts closer
to $75 billion. Two-thirds of his plan would be federally funded via new
taxes on Wall Street speculators, with states contributing the remainder.

The problem with these calculations is that they are based on static
projections for tuition costs. If this assumption proves faulty, the
actual cost of implementing the Sanders plan will balloon. And there are
three good reasons to expect an increase in tuition costs.

First, history suggests that tuition will continue to rise. Tuition
rates have been gradually increasing over past decades, with students
now paying 3.22 times more than in 1985. [See Figure 6, p. 18.] The
Sanders plan will likely exasperate this trend because it will remove
any incentive for public institutions to slow these increases.

Second, any reduction in current sources of revenue would likely require
increases in tuition rates to cover the shortfall. For example, a large
portion of public college budgets are governmentally funded through
appropriations, grants, tax benefits, and work-study programs. In FY
2013, state aid and local taxes cumulatively contributed $78.8 billion
to public higher education. Cuts to state or local budgets could result
in less revenue for public colleges and universities, which would have
to be offset by higher tuition rates.

Most public institutions also depend on revenue from hospitals,
auxiliary enterprises, private gifts, investment income and other
educational activities. These sources contributed $80 billion—or
one-third of total revenue—to public institutions (four-year, two-year
and less than two-year) in 2012. Although these programs are generally
self-sustaining, the amount of revenue they generate is not guaranteed.
Unexpected revenue deficits in these areas could also result in tuition
hikes, costs ultimately saddled onto the taxpayer under the Sanders plan.

Third, the advent of free tuition will provide a powerful incentive for
students to enroll in public colleges and universities. Whether
motivating those who never before considered college to finally enroll,
or incentivizing private college students to switch to the public
sector, or a combination of both, the result will be the same—a
significant increase in the cost of offering free tuition, well above
estimates based on static enrollments in public institutions.

As faulty as Sanders' cost estimates appear, perhaps the more troubling
aspect of his plan is its false promise of eliminating student loan
debt. The cost of college attendance includes far more than just
tuition. In fact, fully half of public college students' expenditures
remains room and board. The College Board reports the average published
tuition rate for public four-year in-state students as $9,410, while the
corresponding price of room and board is $10,138. Textbooks are another
significant cost of attendance, with the average public undergraduate
student paying $1,200 annually.



> Did we KNOW that hedge fund managers pay NO taxes on their billions$ of ill gotten booty?

Did you think THEY are the only ones who might be forced to pay?

Oh no...

It's EVERY pension fund with stock holdings, every individual Mom and
Pop investor - ALL of US!


http://www.fastcompany.com/3055603/h...-actually-cost

Bernie Sanders argued that public college should be free during the
Democratic debate on Sunday, saying that he would finance free tuition
by "imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street
speculators," according to his campaign website.

How much would such a plan cost?

Here's a quick estimate: The College Board estimates the cost of a
four-year, in-state public college, including room and board, to be
$19,548 for the 2015-2016 school year. There were 4.85 million students
enrolled in such programs in 2013, the last year for which the College
Board calculated this number. That's about $95 billion. Without room and
board, it's about $45.6 billion.

This is an oversimplified estimate. Current tuition doesn’t necessarily
reflect the actual cost of education, and the number of people who go to
college would likely increase if it were paid through taxes. This
estimate also doesn't reflect the cost of two-year programs (Sanders has
not been specific about whether he means four-year colleges or two-year
colleges or both, but his opponent, Hillary Clinton, argued that
community colleges should be free, while four-year universities should
be "possible to attend" with "debt-free tuition").

Sanders's campaign estimates that the plan for free college would cost
$75 billion per year.

> And what about the corporations who move their billions$ out of nation to avoid paying U.S. taxes?

Goal post shift!

That has ZERO to do with "free" college!

> Make THAT illegal and get more tax income there too!
>
> John Kuthe...

You are so checked out on reality that it BOGGLES the mind!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/treasury...ons-1411421056

Updated Sept. 22, 2014

The Treasury Department tightened tax rules Monday to deter U.S.
companies from moving their legal headquarters to lower-tax countries