|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 27 2013 01:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 00:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:Stratos_speAr you have a fair point that the right is quick to cut rather than find meaningful cost savings. But the left is quick to spend more without finding real cost savings. Both sides have their faults in that regard.
Other than healthcare the status quo is pretty good. Education is a bit expensive, but still a fantastic deal overall. Military spending is set to fall too, even more so with the sequester cuts.
Edit: I appreciate a nice rant from time to time How is the status quo for education good? And how is it a great deal? Aside from extremely expensive and prestigious private universities, an education in any number of European countries is just as good as an education in the U.S., and these educations are a tenth of the cost. I don't see how that's a good deal, and I don't see how we can excuse our system for charging ten times more for the same thing. Higher education in the US is more expensive but not that much more expensive. In Europe (excluding the UK) it's just financed more by the government. So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them.
The problem is that you are more likely to end up in a higher economic bracket than your parents/you were when you were young if you live/grew up in Denmark (of all places) rather than the U.S. i.e. social mobility is easier in a heavily socialized country than it is in the U.S. So no, U.S. education is not paying off.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-economic-mobility.html?ref=us
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
|
It is crazy how there's all these criticisms of Obama yet nobody on either side of the aisle seems to care that he pulled a straight up Andrew Jackson on Congress and continued the campaign in Libya on his own personal authority.
|
On July 27 2013 02:13 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote + So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. This is sorta misleading. First of all, you don't necessarily pay off your tuition in the form of taxes; you and the rest of society pay taxes and that subsidizes education. There's a pretty big difference, because even people who aren't students are contributing to the pool of money which helps to cover education. I don't think that this is in any way inferior to paying 100% out of pocket, because taxation shares the burden over all of society, and because taxation is gradual, and because taxation is relative to one's income, and because taxation funds things other than just education. Furthermore, I'd say that the difference in value between a solid European degree and a solid American degree is pretty negligible. The fact of the matter is that unless we're talking about graduate school, or something incredibly specialized (rare for a modern day 4year degree) a BA/Bsc is a BA/Bsc. As long as it's from somewhere credible, you're fine. As someone from a non-US country (Canada) I feel that the obsession over getting into a "good school" in the US really stems from the polarized situation engendered by a lack of government funding in favour of more prestigious, private universities. While these private universities are by all means some of the best (if not the best) in the world, there are also a lot of them. You have to consider that the US is a nation of over 200 million people. Most European nations are nowhere close to that. That means that there simply aren't abundantly populated "tiers" of universities in these countries. They have their best, top-of-the-line universities on one level, and then everything else on another level. In countries with small geographic size + high population density, there simply isn't as much space for low-tier, accredited-but-barely universities to survive. Finally, I don't think that your last claim is very fair: Show nested quote +So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. First of all, this claim is very difficult for any prospective or current student to evaluate. At the end of the day you'll have more money? Well, okay, but when? While it's true that a better degree (in America) improves one's chances of getting a job quickly, it also tends to mean that you're a tonne of money in debt, and that you'll be repaying loans for the foreseeable future. while repayment plans aren't usually too strenuous, they're definitely a burden to people just entering the workforce, because they limit your ability to make financial decisions, like any other loan does. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing, of course, but I think you overestimate the benefit viz. overall financial stability of taking out a massive loan upfront versus living in a country which subsidizes post-secondary education more generously. I guess it really comes down to the notion that the money you pay upfront (on loan) to go to a private university is a massive investment, but the benefit you reap from doing so is a lot less tangible, and almost certainly less massive. Conversely, while it's true that certain universities from certain European countries are considered less prestigious than certain American counterparts, we're not talking about the difference between wealth and poverty. What's more, this battle of prestige is gradually fading away as the world becomes more globalized and reliant on electronic communication. The reason for this is pretty simple: faculty from different institutions are able to share knowledge much more easily and regularly than they could in pre-digital times. And when that happens, it means that if the engineering department at some university in, say, Romania, has a significant breakthrough with respect to some relevant problem, then all the other engineering departments in the world are able to read about it pretty much immediately. Any employer worth his/her salt is going to know a thing or two about the hierarchy of faculties in his/her field. The only time I can see a US>EU distinction being made in such a superficial way is for jobs which are essentially non-specialized, but which require a BA (in no particular field) as a qualification. But then, those jobs are like lotteries to start with, so I don't think they're indicative of any success in the education system. I've always been very much in favour of heavily subsidized post-secondary education (for college/vocational school/trades, as well, mind you) because an educated population is just a straight good thing. It makes the nation more knowledgeable, more skilled, and gives them more options. The only reason to forego education should be a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude; never should it be a lack of money or an unwillingness to put oneself in fairly large debt.
All things being equal the government paying more for education will mean higher taxes. You can quibble around the edges here, but it's a very reasonable point.
For countries as a whole, higher ed in the US provides greater financial benefits for students than in other countries. This gives them greater ability to repay loans than in other countries. This is a measured fact.
As for the future and information sharing, the US will continue to do very well since we do a fantastic job of turning new research into new products, services and companies.
|
On July 27 2013 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:13 Shiori wrote: So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. This is sorta misleading. First of all, you don't necessarily pay off your tuition in the form of taxes; you and the rest of society pay taxes and that subsidizes education. There's a pretty big difference, because even people who aren't students are contributing to the pool of money which helps to cover education. I don't think that this is in any way inferior to paying 100% out of pocket, because taxation shares the burden over all of society, and because taxation is gradual, and because taxation is relative to one's income, and because taxation funds things other than just education. Furthermore, I'd say that the difference in value between a solid European degree and a solid American degree is pretty negligible. The fact of the matter is that unless we're talking about graduate school, or something incredibly specialized (rare for a modern day 4year degree) a BA/Bsc is a BA/Bsc. As long as it's from somewhere credible, you're fine. As someone from a non-US country (Canada) I feel that the obsession over getting into a "good school" in the US really stems from the polarized situation engendered by a lack of government funding in favour of more prestigious, private universities. While these private universities are by all means some of the best (if not the best) in the world, there are also a lot of them. You have to consider that the US is a nation of over 200 million people. Most European nations are nowhere close to that. That means that there simply aren't abundantly populated "tiers" of universities in these countries. They have their best, top-of-the-line universities on one level, and then everything else on another level. In countries with small geographic size + high population density, there simply isn't as much space for low-tier, accredited-but-barely universities to survive. Finally, I don't think that your last claim is very fair: So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. First of all, this claim is very difficult for any prospective or current student to evaluate. At the end of the day you'll have more money? Well, okay, but when? While it's true that a better degree (in America) improves one's chances of getting a job quickly, it also tends to mean that you're a tonne of money in debt, and that you'll be repaying loans for the foreseeable future. while repayment plans aren't usually too strenuous, they're definitely a burden to people just entering the workforce, because they limit your ability to make financial decisions, like any other loan does. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing, of course, but I think you overestimate the benefit viz. overall financial stability of taking out a massive loan upfront versus living in a country which subsidizes post-secondary education more generously. I guess it really comes down to the notion that the money you pay upfront (on loan) to go to a private university is a massive investment, but the benefit you reap from doing so is a lot less tangible, and almost certainly less massive. Conversely, while it's true that certain universities from certain European countries are considered less prestigious than certain American counterparts, we're not talking about the difference between wealth and poverty. What's more, this battle of prestige is gradually fading away as the world becomes more globalized and reliant on electronic communication. The reason for this is pretty simple: faculty from different institutions are able to share knowledge much more easily and regularly than they could in pre-digital times. And when that happens, it means that if the engineering department at some university in, say, Romania, has a significant breakthrough with respect to some relevant problem, then all the other engineering departments in the world are able to read about it pretty much immediately. Any employer worth his/her salt is going to know a thing or two about the hierarchy of faculties in his/her field. The only time I can see a US>EU distinction being made in such a superficial way is for jobs which are essentially non-specialized, but which require a BA (in no particular field) as a qualification. But then, those jobs are like lotteries to start with, so I don't think they're indicative of any success in the education system. I've always been very much in favour of heavily subsidized post-secondary education (for college/vocational school/trades, as well, mind you) because an educated population is just a straight good thing. It makes the nation more knowledgeable, more skilled, and gives them more options. The only reason to forego education should be a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude; never should it be a lack of money or an unwillingness to put oneself in fairly large debt. All things being equal the government paying more for education will mean higher taxes. You can quibble around the edges here, but it's a very reasonable point. For countries as a whole, higher ed in the US provides greater financial benefits for students than in other countries. This gives them greater ability to repay loans than in other countries. This is a measured fact. As for the future and information sharing, the US will continue to do very well since we do a fantastic job of turning new research into new products, services and companies.
In what world does the U.S. provide greater financial benefits for students? This is demonstrably false when you look at how much less education costs in other countries, but if you're referring to the fact that a degree (seemingly) has more value in the U.S. than it does elsewhere (and thus gives degree holders a big boost in earnings), well, that "boost" doesn't translate into much, as I showed in my post about the lack of social mobility in the U.S.
As to the taxes point, college costs are still incredibly unreasonable when compared to other institutions around the world even before government subsidies. Furthermore, reforming spending throughout the government would free up a hell of a lot of money to then spend on education, so it's not like we have to jack up our taxes to Denmark's 40-some-percent just to pay for a decent education system.
|
On July 27 2013 02:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 27 2013 00:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:Stratos_speAr you have a fair point that the right is quick to cut rather than find meaningful cost savings. But the left is quick to spend more without finding real cost savings. Both sides have their faults in that regard.
Other than healthcare the status quo is pretty good. Education is a bit expensive, but still a fantastic deal overall. Military spending is set to fall too, even more so with the sequester cuts.
Edit: I appreciate a nice rant from time to time How is the status quo for education good? And how is it a great deal? Aside from extremely expensive and prestigious private universities, an education in any number of European countries is just as good as an education in the U.S., and these educations are a tenth of the cost. I don't see how that's a good deal, and I don't see how we can excuse our system for charging ten times more for the same thing. Higher education in the US is more expensive but not that much more expensive. In Europe (excluding the UK) it's just financed more by the government. So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. The problem is that you are more likely to end up in a higher economic bracket than your parents/you were when you were young if you live/grew up in Denmark (of all places) rather than the U.S. i.e. social mobility is easier in a heavily socialized country than it is in the U.S. So no, U.S. education is not paying off. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/04/us/comparing-economic-mobility.html?ref=ushttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
What does that have to do with education paying off? Those in the lower income bracket probably didn't go to college. And if they did they would have gotten financial aid.
|
On July 27 2013 02:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 27 2013 02:13 Shiori wrote: So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. This is sorta misleading. First of all, you don't necessarily pay off your tuition in the form of taxes; you and the rest of society pay taxes and that subsidizes education. There's a pretty big difference, because even people who aren't students are contributing to the pool of money which helps to cover education. I don't think that this is in any way inferior to paying 100% out of pocket, because taxation shares the burden over all of society, and because taxation is gradual, and because taxation is relative to one's income, and because taxation funds things other than just education. Furthermore, I'd say that the difference in value between a solid European degree and a solid American degree is pretty negligible. The fact of the matter is that unless we're talking about graduate school, or something incredibly specialized (rare for a modern day 4year degree) a BA/Bsc is a BA/Bsc. As long as it's from somewhere credible, you're fine. As someone from a non-US country (Canada) I feel that the obsession over getting into a "good school" in the US really stems from the polarized situation engendered by a lack of government funding in favour of more prestigious, private universities. While these private universities are by all means some of the best (if not the best) in the world, there are also a lot of them. You have to consider that the US is a nation of over 200 million people. Most European nations are nowhere close to that. That means that there simply aren't abundantly populated "tiers" of universities in these countries. They have their best, top-of-the-line universities on one level, and then everything else on another level. In countries with small geographic size + high population density, there simply isn't as much space for low-tier, accredited-but-barely universities to survive. Finally, I don't think that your last claim is very fair: So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. First of all, this claim is very difficult for any prospective or current student to evaluate. At the end of the day you'll have more money? Well, okay, but when? While it's true that a better degree (in America) improves one's chances of getting a job quickly, it also tends to mean that you're a tonne of money in debt, and that you'll be repaying loans for the foreseeable future. while repayment plans aren't usually too strenuous, they're definitely a burden to people just entering the workforce, because they limit your ability to make financial decisions, like any other loan does. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing, of course, but I think you overestimate the benefit viz. overall financial stability of taking out a massive loan upfront versus living in a country which subsidizes post-secondary education more generously. I guess it really comes down to the notion that the money you pay upfront (on loan) to go to a private university is a massive investment, but the benefit you reap from doing so is a lot less tangible, and almost certainly less massive. Conversely, while it's true that certain universities from certain European countries are considered less prestigious than certain American counterparts, we're not talking about the difference between wealth and poverty. What's more, this battle of prestige is gradually fading away as the world becomes more globalized and reliant on electronic communication. The reason for this is pretty simple: faculty from different institutions are able to share knowledge much more easily and regularly than they could in pre-digital times. And when that happens, it means that if the engineering department at some university in, say, Romania, has a significant breakthrough with respect to some relevant problem, then all the other engineering departments in the world are able to read about it pretty much immediately. Any employer worth his/her salt is going to know a thing or two about the hierarchy of faculties in his/her field. The only time I can see a US>EU distinction being made in such a superficial way is for jobs which are essentially non-specialized, but which require a BA (in no particular field) as a qualification. But then, those jobs are like lotteries to start with, so I don't think they're indicative of any success in the education system. I've always been very much in favour of heavily subsidized post-secondary education (for college/vocational school/trades, as well, mind you) because an educated population is just a straight good thing. It makes the nation more knowledgeable, more skilled, and gives them more options. The only reason to forego education should be a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude; never should it be a lack of money or an unwillingness to put oneself in fairly large debt. All things being equal the government paying more for education will mean higher taxes. You can quibble around the edges here, but it's a very reasonable point. For countries as a whole, higher ed in the US provides greater financial benefits for students than in other countries. This gives them greater ability to repay loans than in other countries. This is a measured fact. As for the future and information sharing, the US will continue to do very well since we do a fantastic job of turning new research into new products, services and companies. In what world does the U.S. provide greater financial benefits for students? This is demonstrably false when you look at how much less education costs in other countries, but if you're referring to the fact that a degree (seemingly) has more value in the U.S. than it does elsewhere (and thus gives degree holders a big boost in earnings), well, that "boost" doesn't translate into much, as I showed in my post about the lack of social mobility in the U.S. As to the taxes point, college costs are still incredibly unreasonable when compared to other institutions around the world even before government subsidies. Furthermore, reforming spending throughout the government would free up a hell of a lot of money to then spend on education, so it's not like we have to jack up our taxes to Denmark's 40-some-percent just to pay for a decent education system.
I've posted this before, but the OECD does compare things like higher education from country to country. See page 33 for a comparison of private costs and benefits of higher education.
|
I think, on average, American college graduates do very well. The vast majority of the cost from not socializing is felt by professions that are traditionally over educated/underpaid. I am all for competition for admittance and prestige within your field but I am less impressed with the idea of amazing history teachers becoming "competent" lawyers because even if they never get more than an inflation raise on their starting salary they are way better off financially.
|
On July 27 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 27 2013 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 27 2013 02:13 Shiori wrote: So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. This is sorta misleading. First of all, you don't necessarily pay off your tuition in the form of taxes; you and the rest of society pay taxes and that subsidizes education. There's a pretty big difference, because even people who aren't students are contributing to the pool of money which helps to cover education. I don't think that this is in any way inferior to paying 100% out of pocket, because taxation shares the burden over all of society, and because taxation is gradual, and because taxation is relative to one's income, and because taxation funds things other than just education. Furthermore, I'd say that the difference in value between a solid European degree and a solid American degree is pretty negligible. The fact of the matter is that unless we're talking about graduate school, or something incredibly specialized (rare for a modern day 4year degree) a BA/Bsc is a BA/Bsc. As long as it's from somewhere credible, you're fine. As someone from a non-US country (Canada) I feel that the obsession over getting into a "good school" in the US really stems from the polarized situation engendered by a lack of government funding in favour of more prestigious, private universities. While these private universities are by all means some of the best (if not the best) in the world, there are also a lot of them. You have to consider that the US is a nation of over 200 million people. Most European nations are nowhere close to that. That means that there simply aren't abundantly populated "tiers" of universities in these countries. They have their best, top-of-the-line universities on one level, and then everything else on another level. In countries with small geographic size + high population density, there simply isn't as much space for low-tier, accredited-but-barely universities to survive. Finally, I don't think that your last claim is very fair: So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. First of all, this claim is very difficult for any prospective or current student to evaluate. At the end of the day you'll have more money? Well, okay, but when? While it's true that a better degree (in America) improves one's chances of getting a job quickly, it also tends to mean that you're a tonne of money in debt, and that you'll be repaying loans for the foreseeable future. while repayment plans aren't usually too strenuous, they're definitely a burden to people just entering the workforce, because they limit your ability to make financial decisions, like any other loan does. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing, of course, but I think you overestimate the benefit viz. overall financial stability of taking out a massive loan upfront versus living in a country which subsidizes post-secondary education more generously. I guess it really comes down to the notion that the money you pay upfront (on loan) to go to a private university is a massive investment, but the benefit you reap from doing so is a lot less tangible, and almost certainly less massive. Conversely, while it's true that certain universities from certain European countries are considered less prestigious than certain American counterparts, we're not talking about the difference between wealth and poverty. What's more, this battle of prestige is gradually fading away as the world becomes more globalized and reliant on electronic communication. The reason for this is pretty simple: faculty from different institutions are able to share knowledge much more easily and regularly than they could in pre-digital times. And when that happens, it means that if the engineering department at some university in, say, Romania, has a significant breakthrough with respect to some relevant problem, then all the other engineering departments in the world are able to read about it pretty much immediately. Any employer worth his/her salt is going to know a thing or two about the hierarchy of faculties in his/her field. The only time I can see a US>EU distinction being made in such a superficial way is for jobs which are essentially non-specialized, but which require a BA (in no particular field) as a qualification. But then, those jobs are like lotteries to start with, so I don't think they're indicative of any success in the education system. I've always been very much in favour of heavily subsidized post-secondary education (for college/vocational school/trades, as well, mind you) because an educated population is just a straight good thing. It makes the nation more knowledgeable, more skilled, and gives them more options. The only reason to forego education should be a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude; never should it be a lack of money or an unwillingness to put oneself in fairly large debt. All things being equal the government paying more for education will mean higher taxes. You can quibble around the edges here, but it's a very reasonable point. For countries as a whole, higher ed in the US provides greater financial benefits for students than in other countries. This gives them greater ability to repay loans than in other countries. This is a measured fact. As for the future and information sharing, the US will continue to do very well since we do a fantastic job of turning new research into new products, services and companies. In what world does the U.S. provide greater financial benefits for students? This is demonstrably false when you look at how much less education costs in other countries, but if you're referring to the fact that a degree (seemingly) has more value in the U.S. than it does elsewhere (and thus gives degree holders a big boost in earnings), well, that "boost" doesn't translate into much, as I showed in my post about the lack of social mobility in the U.S. As to the taxes point, college costs are still incredibly unreasonable when compared to other institutions around the world even before government subsidies. Furthermore, reforming spending throughout the government would free up a hell of a lot of money to then spend on education, so it's not like we have to jack up our taxes to Denmark's 40-some-percent just to pay for a decent education system. I've posted this before, but the OECD does compare things like higher education from country to country. See page 33 for a comparison of private costs and benefits of higher education.
Interesting document. I'm a little skeptical of the conclusion you're drawing from it, though, because there is evidently more to "private benefit" than the amount spent on "private cost." As an example, Portugal has a huge private benefit (almost as large as the US) but has one of the lowest private costs. If we take a look at the university rankings, we see that the best -ranked university in Portugal is #264 worldwide. Clearly, the average prestige of universities in a country doesn't necessarily imply that private earnings will be high or low in a direct sense.
That said, I think it's impossible to really account for all of this data in one post, so I'll refrain from doing so. This is an awesome document though. So much information. Thanks for posting it  .
|
On July 27 2013 04:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 27 2013 02:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 27 2013 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 27 2013 02:13 Shiori wrote: So rather than making loan repayments you pay more in taxes, which isn't necessarily a better deal either way. On the other end of things a degree in the US is more valuable than in Europe. So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. This is sorta misleading. First of all, you don't necessarily pay off your tuition in the form of taxes; you and the rest of society pay taxes and that subsidizes education. There's a pretty big difference, because even people who aren't students are contributing to the pool of money which helps to cover education. I don't think that this is in any way inferior to paying 100% out of pocket, because taxation shares the burden over all of society, and because taxation is gradual, and because taxation is relative to one's income, and because taxation funds things other than just education. Furthermore, I'd say that the difference in value between a solid European degree and a solid American degree is pretty negligible. The fact of the matter is that unless we're talking about graduate school, or something incredibly specialized (rare for a modern day 4year degree) a BA/Bsc is a BA/Bsc. As long as it's from somewhere credible, you're fine. As someone from a non-US country (Canada) I feel that the obsession over getting into a "good school" in the US really stems from the polarized situation engendered by a lack of government funding in favour of more prestigious, private universities. While these private universities are by all means some of the best (if not the best) in the world, there are also a lot of them. You have to consider that the US is a nation of over 200 million people. Most European nations are nowhere close to that. That means that there simply aren't abundantly populated "tiers" of universities in these countries. They have their best, top-of-the-line universities on one level, and then everything else on another level. In countries with small geographic size + high population density, there simply isn't as much space for low-tier, accredited-but-barely universities to survive. Finally, I don't think that your last claim is very fair: So even though you end up paying more out of pocket, at the end of the day your pockets still end up with more cash in them. First of all, this claim is very difficult for any prospective or current student to evaluate. At the end of the day you'll have more money? Well, okay, but when? While it's true that a better degree (in America) improves one's chances of getting a job quickly, it also tends to mean that you're a tonne of money in debt, and that you'll be repaying loans for the foreseeable future. while repayment plans aren't usually too strenuous, they're definitely a burden to people just entering the workforce, because they limit your ability to make financial decisions, like any other loan does. This, in itself, isn't a bad thing, of course, but I think you overestimate the benefit viz. overall financial stability of taking out a massive loan upfront versus living in a country which subsidizes post-secondary education more generously. I guess it really comes down to the notion that the money you pay upfront (on loan) to go to a private university is a massive investment, but the benefit you reap from doing so is a lot less tangible, and almost certainly less massive. Conversely, while it's true that certain universities from certain European countries are considered less prestigious than certain American counterparts, we're not talking about the difference between wealth and poverty. What's more, this battle of prestige is gradually fading away as the world becomes more globalized and reliant on electronic communication. The reason for this is pretty simple: faculty from different institutions are able to share knowledge much more easily and regularly than they could in pre-digital times. And when that happens, it means that if the engineering department at some university in, say, Romania, has a significant breakthrough with respect to some relevant problem, then all the other engineering departments in the world are able to read about it pretty much immediately. Any employer worth his/her salt is going to know a thing or two about the hierarchy of faculties in his/her field. The only time I can see a US>EU distinction being made in such a superficial way is for jobs which are essentially non-specialized, but which require a BA (in no particular field) as a qualification. But then, those jobs are like lotteries to start with, so I don't think they're indicative of any success in the education system. I've always been very much in favour of heavily subsidized post-secondary education (for college/vocational school/trades, as well, mind you) because an educated population is just a straight good thing. It makes the nation more knowledgeable, more skilled, and gives them more options. The only reason to forego education should be a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude; never should it be a lack of money or an unwillingness to put oneself in fairly large debt. All things being equal the government paying more for education will mean higher taxes. You can quibble around the edges here, but it's a very reasonable point. For countries as a whole, higher ed in the US provides greater financial benefits for students than in other countries. This gives them greater ability to repay loans than in other countries. This is a measured fact. As for the future and information sharing, the US will continue to do very well since we do a fantastic job of turning new research into new products, services and companies. In what world does the U.S. provide greater financial benefits for students? This is demonstrably false when you look at how much less education costs in other countries, but if you're referring to the fact that a degree (seemingly) has more value in the U.S. than it does elsewhere (and thus gives degree holders a big boost in earnings), well, that "boost" doesn't translate into much, as I showed in my post about the lack of social mobility in the U.S. As to the taxes point, college costs are still incredibly unreasonable when compared to other institutions around the world even before government subsidies. Furthermore, reforming spending throughout the government would free up a hell of a lot of money to then spend on education, so it's not like we have to jack up our taxes to Denmark's 40-some-percent just to pay for a decent education system. I've posted this before, but the OECD does compare things like higher education from country to country. See page 33 for a comparison of private costs and benefits of higher education. Interesting document. I'm a little skeptical of the conclusion you're drawing from it, though, because there is evidently more to "private benefit" than the amount spent on "private cost." As an example, Portugal has a huge private benefit (almost as large as the US) but has one of the lowest private costs. If we take a look at the university rankings, we see that the best -ranked university in Portugal is #264 worldwide. Clearly, the average prestige of universities in a country doesn't necessarily imply that private earnings will be high or low in a direct sense. That said, I think it's impossible to really account for all of this data in one post, so I'll refrain from doing so. This is an awesome document though. So much information. Thanks for posting it .
Yeah, Portugal is no. 1 on the list, US is no. 2 as far as private cost / benefit goes. I'm a bit dismissive of Portugal because the numbers are from 2008 and Portugal is a PIIGS.
There are some valid worries that US states will be cutting back on education spending going forward though. So maybe I should be a bit more skeptical of the US position as well. Gates gave a nice TED talk on that issue a couple years ago.
|
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education)
|
On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education)
I'd be curious as to how the tax structure of Denmark is set up and whether or not that 25% top bracket number allows for the "wiggle room" that the US structure does. I'm inclined to think that it does not.
|
On July 27 2013 04:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education) I'd be curious as to how the tax structure of Denmark is set up and whether or not that 25% top bracket number allows for the "wiggle room" that the US structure does. I'm inclined to think that it does not.
It's a VAT with exceptions for a very small selection of products and services.
|
On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education)
This simply helps my point. "Big government" isn't a problem (despite the Right absolutely refusing to consider anything that expands the size of the government). The problem is "Shitty/inefficient government".
|
The GOP push to hold government funding hostage to gutting Obamacare appears to be losing steam in Congress as a growing chorus of Republicans and conservative writers are coming out of the woodwork to urge hardliners within their party to be realistic.
“I think it’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of,” Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) told reporters in the Capitol on Thursday. “Listen, as long as Barack Obama is president, the Affordable Care Act is going to be law.”
Republicans in the House and Senate are working to corner colleagues into withholding support for keeping government open after the lights go out on Sept. 30 unless Obamacare is defunded. And a growing number of pragmatic conservatives — in and out of Congress — recognize that’s a suicide mission that threatens the GOP’s credibility as well as its electoral prospects ahead of a promising midterm election.
In recent days, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a deputy majority whip, has derided the conservative effort as a “temper tantrum” and compared it to “blackmail.” Appearing Wednesday evening on Fox News, he warned that “it is the sort of thing that creates a backlash and could cost the Republicans the majority in the House.”
Meanwhile, two well-read conservative writers — Byron York of the Washington Examiner and Ramesh Ponnuru, a columnist for Bloomberg View — put the kibosh on this plan Friday.
In an article titled “No, the GOP is not going to defund Obamacare,” York reports that Republicans privately admit they’re embarking on a fool’s errand but have to show conservatives they’re sparing no effort to fight Obamacare.
Source
|
On July 27 2013 05:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education) This simply helps my point. "Big government" isn't a problem (despite the Right absolutely refusing to consider anything that expands the size of the government). The problem is "Shitty/inefficient government".
Name a big government that is not shitty and efficient.
You can't.
A country with a smaller population than New York City does not have a big government - the only way such a country could is if it had a huge military, and Denmark, uh, does not - and has little, if anything, applicable to teach a country of 310 million on benefit spending levels. Great job Denmark, you've managed to afford about $20,000 a year worth of welfare benefits per citizen because you only have about 5.6 million citizens. Even for such a small number of people that is not easy to do, or there'd be a lot more small countries that would have achieved it. Somehow I don't think this largesse is achievable with hundreds of millions of people.
Look at countries like France and Britain which are only 1/5 the size of the US yet have significantly more and larger problems keeping their economies competitive to pay for their welfare systems, and more and larger problems with the quality of the welfare system than Denmark's.
If Denmark is so great, and it is, seriously, go live there. Not being sarcastic. If you want to see that in the US, you are going to be disappointed. It is not something that is achievable in the US. It just isn't. Not even with the smartest, most business-friendly social democrat wonks turning out tax laws and regulatory policy.
Those Countries That Are North of Germany That Are Heaven on Earth (Except Wintertime) have a total population of 25 million. I'm pretty sure that America has at least 25 million people doing at least as well as the citizens of Scandiheaven. In creating a moderately pro-financial and very pro-other business policy, and by keeping policy stability, those 25 million are able to produce enough wealth to fund their lavish welfare system that most of them don't even need. Imagine how equal income would be if all the people who didn't need their automatic state benefits didn't take them and that money was redistributed. America has had terrible policy stability (pretty much none at all other than the inevitability of almost non-stop Fed pumping and keeping interest rates very low over the last 13 years). America has consistently failed to reform, both the government and the market.
I just don't think it's possible, with 310 million people, and especially with the semi-independent status of US states, for a Scandinavian benefits system to be sustainable here.
And while Denmark would never go for American levels of state benefits or want to, Danes are beginning to wonder if maybe they went a little too far:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all
Residents of Scandiheaven are more practical about their system than American liberal admirers. And in the mid to late 1990s they all underwent reforms after some mini- and not-so-mini crises. After another crisis they are reforming again. After all, they have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Stratos, you don't.
|
On July 27 2013 06:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 05:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 27 2013 04:51 Danglars wrote:
Denmark, though very socialized, also passes the United States on the WSJ Index of Economic Freedom. Its top corporate tax rate of 25% flies past the average US figure of 39% (OECD again). It scores high on regulatory efficiency and a number of other factors. Far from a previous poster's "Denmark (of all places)," it would appear that Denmark has enough of a pro-business climate to afford its socialized government costs and gain on the mobility of incomes (and if you're talking all incomes, the availability of jobs/unemployment is definitely a factor and not just education) This simply helps my point. "Big government" isn't a problem (despite the Right absolutely refusing to consider anything that expands the size of the government). The problem is "Shitty/inefficient government". Name a big government that is not shitty and efficient. You can't. A country with a smaller population than New York City does not have a big government - the only way such a country could is if it had a huge military, and Denmark, uh, does not - and has little, if anything, applicable to teach a country of 310 million on benefit spending levels. Great job Denmark, you've managed to afford about $20,000 a year worth of welfare benefits per citizen because you only have about 5.6 million citizens. Even for such a small number of people that is not easy to do, or there'd be a lot more small countries that would have achieved it. Somehow I don't think this largesse is achievable with hundreds of millions of people. Look at countries like France and Britain which are only 1/5 the size of the US yet have significantly more and larger problems keeping their economies competitive to pay for their welfare systems, and more and larger problems with the quality of the welfare system than Denmark's. If Denmark is so great, and it is, seriously, go live there. Not being sarcastic. If you want to see that in the US, you are going to be disappointed. It is not something that is achievable in the US. It just isn't. Not even with the smartest, most business-friendly social democrat wonks turning out tax laws and regulatory policy. Those Countries That Are North of Germany That Are Heaven on Earth (Except Wintertime) have a total population of 25 million. I'm pretty sure that America has at least 25 million people doing at least as well as the citizens of Scandiheaven. In creating a moderately pro-financial and very pro-other business policy, and by keeping policy stability, those 25 million are able to produce enough wealth to fund their lavish welfare system that most of them don't even need. Imagine how equal income would be if all the people who didn't need their automatic state benefits didn't take them and that money was redistributed. America has had terrible policy stability (pretty much none at all other than the inevitability of almost non-stop Fed pumping and keeping interest rates very low over the last 13 years). America has consistently failed to reform, both the government and the market. I just don't think it's possible, with 310 million people, and especially with the semi-independent status of US states, for a Scandinavian benefits system to be sustainable here. And while Denmark would never go for American levels of state benefits or want to, Danes are beginning to wonder if maybe they went a little too far: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html?pagewanted=allhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=allResidents of Scandiheaven are more practical about their system than American liberal admirers. And in the mid to late 1990s they all underwent reforms after some mini- and not-so-mini crises. After another crisis they are reforming again. After all, they have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Stratos, you don't.
Ahh. Also don't forget that it is actually amazing that America is even close to those countries considering that this country is composed, almost entirely of poor people, and the descendants thereof. No country has pulled more people out of poverty than the United States. Its not like the immigrants coming here are Dukes and Earls.
|
Name a big government that is not shitty and efficient.
You can't.
Name a (large-scale i.e. operating over a large jurisdiction rather than 5 houses or something) government in the history of forever that was both efficient and not shitty. I'll just tell you in advance that no such government exists (or has existed) because, if one did, it would be really fucking obvious that it was amazing and nobody would have ever wanted it gone. Seriously, if you went up to someone and were like "hey, how would you like a government that's really ethical and is also really efficient?" why would anyone say "no" to such a hypothetical let alone stage a revolt against one or actively try to get rid of one?
I suspect that the problem here is that your caveat of non-shittiness is really just question begging. What is a "non shitty" government? Are there any governments that aren't shitty? What do they look like? Why did nobody under those governments seem to realize how utopian their society was (given that they voted out or revolted against these non-shitty gov'ts)? I mean, if your point is that no non-shitty+efficient big governments exist, then yeah, that's possibly true, but it's equally true that there are no non-shitty governments in general, big, small, or bite-sized. Everyone hates them. Everyone has always hated them. That's why they aren't still here today.
|
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A Republican-backed measure that would make sweeping changes to when and how North Carolinians can vote appears headed for a court fight.
The measure given final approval late Thursday night in a party-line vote in the GOP-dominated state House requires voters to present government-issued photo IDs at the polls and shortens early voting by a week, from 17 days to 10.
The measure also ends same-day registration, requiring voters to register, update their address or make any other needed changes at least 25 days ahead of the election. A popular high school civics program that registers tens of thousands of students to vote each year in advance of their 18th birthdays will be eliminated.
The bill also ends straight-ticket voting, which has been in place in the state since 1925.
Disclosure requirements intended to make clear who is underwriting campaign ads will be weakened and political parties would be enabled to rake in unlimited corporate donations. The cap on individual campaign donations will rise from $4,000 to $5,000.
Republicans claimed the changes will restore faith in elections and prevent voter fraud, which they claim is endemic and undetected. Nonpartisan voting rights groups, Democrats and Libertarians say the true goal is suppressing voter turnout among the young, the old, the poor and minorities.
The proposed changes now head to the desk of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory. His communications director, Kim Genardo, did not respond to messages Thursday night inquiring whether the governor will sign the bill.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the complexity of the tax code doesn't mean a higher corporate tax burden. the loopholes and whatnot reduce that burden for someone willing and able to take advantage of the latest tax accounting innovations.
but it is a barrier to entry against smaller competitors, and shifts tax burden onto the rest. political dynamics may even push back against this lack of tax revenue by propping up a high Corporate Tax Rate, which is not the most efficient or effective form of tax.
|
Health coverage sold on Obamacare's health insurance exchange in Maryland will be among the cheapest in the country, state officials said Friday.
A 21-year-old nonsmoker will be able to buy health insurance that costs as little as $93 a month on the Maryland Health Connection, the state's health insurance exchange, starting Oct. 1 for coverage that takes effect Jan 1, the Maryland Insurance Division revealed in a press release. Rates for insurance with richer benefits and lower deductibles will be higher and premiums will vary by age, residence location, tobacco use and whether family members enroll.
Maryland is the latest state to disclose how much health insurance actually will cost under President Barack Obama's health care reform law. The state joins California, New York and elsewhere in achieving monthly premiums below estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and others. Officials in states including Indiana have released preliminary findings suggesting health insurance costs will skyrocket as a result of the law.
Younger, healthier people who buy inexpensive, bare-bones insurance on today's market may see higher prices for more comprehensive coverage on the exchanges, while older people are expected to see lower rates. People with pre-existing conditions can't be turned down or be charged higher premiums because of their medical histories. The law also prohibits women being charged more than men.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and his administration have wholeheartedly embraced Obamacare implementation, in stark contrast to the the 34 states, mostly with Republican governors, that left the federal government to erect the health insurance exchanges that will be used by residents who don't get health benefits at work or are employed by small businesses. Maryland also exercised its regulatory authority to force health plans to curb rate increases for next year, such as the 25 percent hike initially requested by CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield in April.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
