OT: College For All ballot measure

19,153 Views | 187 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by going4roses
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

TomBear said:

I'll take issue with you SoCal........the people I know who have left and/or plan to leave are, if not wealthy, not poor. This was once a great state......
Your anecdote is yours. However, data exists. Incomes based on most likelihood to move in / out of California

Move out:
$15k - $30k
$45k - $55k

Move in:
$200k+

California is a great state. How do I know? Because of the demand to live there as shown by real estate prices.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-losing-low-income-people-gaining-wealthy-people-per-report-20180221-htmlstory.html
Let me get this straight. You view adopting policies or allowing economic conditions that cause poor or middle class families to move out because they cannot afford to live in California as a positive? You are in favor of making this state only for rich people. Why not adopt policies to force homeless people to leave the neighborhood so that you have more space to lecture people on progressive policies and how compassionate you are. Some progressive you are.
I'm a progressive but also a capitalist. The point is not to drive out the poor. It is to increase the prosperity of the state. If the number of high paying jobs increase allowing for people that live and work here to have more wealth that is a good thing. If that prices out unskilled labor jobs, than people have a "choice". They can get skilled so they can take advantage of the prosperity or they can follow the unskilled labor market and maybe have a better quality of life living where costs are lower. I'd argue that we don't give enough opportunities for people to better themselves, but that is a different question. People are not moving out because the state is less desirable. They are moving out because people with wealth are willing to pay for desirable things.

It is like if fewer people attempt to buy Warriors tickets because they are so expensive, it doesn't mean the Warriors are worse than before.
I agree with almost everything you wrote. The wonderful weather and the nature beauty of our state are beyond question, and not everyone is entitled to live here. Not everyone is entitled to live in a safe neighborhood or join a nice country club. Not everyone is entitled to attend a great college. It is a bit callous to those who are disenfranchised, but our economy has always been about rewarding those who add value with the spoils of success and acknowledging that not everyone is entitled to equal benefits, including living in a state that is desirable.

I would however question whether, for those who are not as fortunate as we are, an economic situation in a state that prevents them from having a reasonable place to live and eat at the same time doesn't make the state less desirable. It may make it more desirable for those like you if the unskilled labor are forced out, but those who are forced out may not share your opinion.

Ultimately, I think it is worthy of an eye roll for someone like dajo9 who argues how the rich are selfish to then make an argument that pricing out the less fortunate from a beautiful state is somehow a good thing.


I have never argued the rich are selfish. I have argued rich Republicans are selfish.

Don't get me wrong about housing. I would greatly increase taxes on the wealthy and use it to pay for healthcare and education for the poor. This would lower desirable real estate prices and free up money for rent for the poor. So go ahead and roll your eyes. Have fun.
So you think the problem with California and the real estate / homeless crisis is that it is not taxing people enough? By the way, most of us are wealthy by any reasonable standard, including you. The fact that you can afford to spend so much of your time on these boards means you have more time and money than you need. So, you can afford to do with a lot less, and you don't actually need to live in the suburbs away from the common folks. You can donate more and live more humbly.
rkt88edmo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:



The argument about the SALT deduction is a red herring. I support higher taxes for myself and have voted for them. Taking away the SALT deductions, however, was a blatant transfer of wealth from blue states to red states when blue states already give to more to the Federal Government than red states and receive less, relatively speaking. Fairness matters and the continued extraction of wealth from productive, progressive blue states to fund underperforming, conservative red states is unfair and worthy of rejection.
The SALT isn't really a red herring though. Just because it hits high income blue states harder does not mean it is politically biased. Taking away SALT deductions affects individuals and fedgov, it doesn't have a by state effect directly.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Personally, I am fine with raised taxes if the money is being used for something that will actually benefit society at large. I fail to see where that happened in the latest tax bill.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
>And their options will not be as attractive as those fortunate enough to get financial aid.

Not really true. Because those getting financial aid are typically (not always as you pointed out) coming from lower economic strata and as a correlation, lower academic scores. I think what you really meant to say is that their (the top students getting no aid) options are not as attractive as a top student who does get aid. But on average - would still prefer being a top 6% student, go to UC Davis, finance with student debt and part-time jobs
than be a 50th percentile student, go to Cal State East Bay, finance with a small sliver of grants and the rest with debt. Because that's what your profile looks like, if you are lucky, coming from the working class. Hell, can a 50th percentile student even get into CSEB these days? That could be doubtful...

Sycasey wrote:

>Personally, I am fine with raised taxes if the money is being used for something that will actually benefit society at large

Exactly. But instead that money (and more via borrowing) was used to continue the pattern of Endless War, fomenting insurrection to destroy civil society in countries we dislike, or simply outright bombing innocent civilians. I object to that and yet they still take my money. Ugh.
76BearsFly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The term "education" includes the trades. Figure out the details, some people win, some lose but overall America wins with educated people. Invest. One thing I like about being from Cal, whole bunch of smart folks will quibble and figure out the details in a fairly equitable manner. Meanwhile, won't be long till Bears football. Yippee, maybe this will be the year for the Rose Bowl!! I have been saying that every summer for many decades. My wife says every year--"why do you put yourself through it?"" My answer--GO BEARS!!
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

going4roses said:

https://m.sfgate.com/business/article/The-average-millennial-has-an-average-net-worth-13909188.php
Rising income inequality and the oncoming largest voting age bracket is on the shortest end. Is anyone shocked that socialist ideas are getting more play these days?


I hated the personal tax cut, while approving of the corporate tax cut (anyone who didn't see the competitive harm in having a higher tax rate than even Europe and the potential for corporate inversion and loss of additional revenues just didn't see the picture). I would argue with some of my more reasonable liberal friends that, because I was against the personal income tax cut, I was OK with limits on SALT deduction. They claim to want more taxes until it impacted them. They hated the SALT deduction limitation. I didn't. The fact that we can afford to pay high property tax means we can do more. I shouldn't be able to pass off some of the cost of living in CA and the corresponding tax that this state imposes on to others who are not fortunate enough to live here. I don't care what the true motivation for imposing the limit was. I cared that it probably was the right result.

I am going to use the same amount of my wealth and income to help the less fortunate no matter what. Whether it's through taxes or through charity, it would not have impacted my bottom line. I just don't think paying the government and funding the coffers controlled by politicians in bed with special interest is the best or even the most efficient way for me to be a steward of money I allocate for the benefit of others.
The argument about the SALT deduction is a red herring. I support higher taxes for myself and have voted for them. Taking away the SALT deductions, however, was a blatant transfer of wealth from blue states to red states when blue states already give to more to the Federal Government than red states and receive less, relatively speaking. Fairness matters and the continued extraction of wealth from productive, progressive blue states to fund underperforming, conservative red states is unfair and worthy of rejection.
Dajo - this is such an inconsistent position from you. Yes, blue states already give more because we have more. We can afford to do more. You sound like typical conservatives who wonder why they should pay more in taxes when they already pay more than what they get back. Shouldn't rich people and rich states do more? Why is that not fair? Why is fair only when other "rich" people are taxed more?


No. Not inconsistent. The trade off is between wealthy blue staters and wealthy red staters no matter how you frame it.
American Vermin
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal84 said:

>And their options will not be as attractive as those fortunate enough to get financial aid.

Not really true. Because those getting financial aid are typically (not always as you pointed out) coming from lower economic strata and as a correlation, lower academic scores. I think what you really meant to say is that their (the top students getting no aid) options are not as attractive as a top student who does get aid. But on average - would still prefer being a top 6% student, go to UC Davis, finance with student debt and part-time jobs
than be a 50th percentile student, go to Cal State East Bay, finance with a small sliver of grants and the rest with debt. Because that's what your profile looks like, if you are lucky, coming from the working class. Hell, can a 50th percentile student even get into CSEB these days? That could be doubtful...

Sycasey wrote:

>Personally, I am fine with raised taxes if the money is being used for something that will actually benefit society at large

Exactly. But instead that money (and more via borrowing) was used to continue the pattern of Endless War, fomenting insurrection to destroy civil society in countries we dislike, or simply outright bombing innocent civilians. I object to that and yet they still take my money. Ugh.

"What I am meaning to say" (thank you) is that this thread started out as a discussion about no tuition for all. I suggested an alternative as described in a few of my posts above. You wish to diagnose either my intent or motive as it relates to some political purpose. Not so. I was wishing to discuss having a paid for elite top level system that is paid for in every case. All merit.

The current system of financial aid for need base should remain for all even as it exists if you will. But the best of the best, who will down the road abet society the greatest, should be financially supported in higher education. A suggestion, a point of discussion, not necessarily a point of argument. I even suggested the old Australian Model of a few years back as an example.

And the reason for my suggestion was that free tuition for all, although utopian possibly, is financially a deal breaker. So what alternative course could exist?
MugsVanSant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When I was at Cal, Class of 1972, tuition ("educational fee") and other fees were $212.50 per quarter. In 1972 the Consumer Price Index (1982 - 1984 = 100) stood at 41.8. At the end of 2018 it was estimated to be 250.5. That is a factor of 5.99. Therefore, by the measure of the CPI, tuition in 1972 was $3818.63 per year in 2018 dollars. Tuition and fees, per the admissions office website, is now $14184. Tuition has increased at roughly four time the rate of general inflation. In my day we were 75% closer to "college for all" than we are now.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
State contribution has decreased too, pushing more cost on to students IIRC. And schools have little incentive to control costs when fed guarantees their tuition checks by way of guaranteed loans.

And 15k (x4) = 60k isn't a life burdening debt, even at modest wages.

Moreover, if you can't pay that tuition in cash, you have no business going to a 4 year university out of HS. Go get your GE units done at a community college, then transfer. You save 25k.

The flipside is, if government cuts down that cost by half, that's 30k+ being put in consumers hands acting as a stimulus of sorts.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Finishing GE requirements at the JC level is not always an option.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

Finishing GE requirements at the JC level is not always an option.
Or a desire, but for those who cannot afford or cannot obtain need aid it may be a reality.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm speaking from experience. I attempted to finish 12 units at Alameda and was denied FA so I had to transfer early. There was no option
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

When I was at Cal, Class of 1972, tuition ("educational fee") and other fees were $212.50 per quarter. In 1972 the Consumer Price Index (1982 - 1984 = 100) stood at 41.8. At the end of 2018 it was estimated to be 250.5. That is a factor of 5.99. Therefore, by the measure of the CPI, tuition in 1972 was $3818.63 per year in 2018 dollars. Tuition and fees, per the admissions office website, is now $14184. Tuition has increased at roughly four time the rate of general inflation. In my day we were 75% closer to "college for all" than we are now.

While perhaps true, tuition increase is not relevant to those who qualify for the Blue & Gold Plan, which is quite a lot of students. Also, those with incomes under $171k -- top ~10% in the country -- may qualify for a discount under the Middle Class Scholarship Plan.

Moreover, what the simple comparison fails to acknowledge is that the last several tuition increases were actually progressive. Lower income students were protected from the increase. In fact, for every dollar that went to increase UC tuition, 33 cents was added to financial aid. Thus, the full payors are supporting those with financial need.

Isn't that a Win-win? (Why would anyone want to make college free for the 1%'ers or the 5%'ers?)
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://slate.com/business/2019/05/california-housing-crisis-boomer-gerontocracy.html
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.