No-one should be put off going to university for financial reasons (£60k)

[Krill]

Subsidized tuition plays two roles: it is yet another giveaway to the middle class at everybody else's expense, and it provides the upper and middle classes with a stronger sense that they deserve their privileged position in society.

You know, I set up this troll last night so I had something to do whilst drinking today.

KH, you're a bastard.

[Jon Miller]

It seems to be quite obvious that having multiple states with low 'gaps' or barriers of entry is the ideal way of allowing shifting between states, where some element can shift between the lowest state and the highest by small jumps through intervening states.

I mean, just consider the two edge conditions: a two state system (everyone is extremely poor or extremely rich) and a continuum system (no barriers/etc). The one that has more social mobility is obvious.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

A strong middle class is a key component of every society with social mobility.

JM

So it's important for the poor to subsidize them? It's important to take money from poor people and give it to well-off people, to make sure that the latter are sufficiently well-off?

[Jon Miller]

How many taxes do the poor pay?

In interesting idea is that the poor don't those in the middle class to pay more taxes/be dropped down a level:

http://www.economist.com/node/21525851?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/dontlookdown

JM

[Krill]

So it's important for the poor to subsidize them? It's important to take money from poor people and give it to well-off people, to make sure that the latter are sufficiently well-off?

Exactly how do the poor subsidize the middle class in this area?

[Kuciwalker]

From the tax money that pays middle class people to go to college, obviously...

[Jon Miller]

I don't know if you will trust it, it is a right wing/pro-wealthy report: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf but this suggests that the poor (bottom 20% or bottom 40%) do not subsidize the middle class.

Now it is true that one could give the middle class less and give the poor more.

But I have learned that if you do such things it creates distortions. People will drop their income rather than save for their kid to go to college because then they will be poor and get to send their kid for free.

So what is best is to subsidize education for everyone, while taxing a similar (percentage) of everyones income. Since you are subsidizing a flat amount while taxing a percent, there is always reason to make more money while a social net + social mobility + social welfare is taken care of.

Increasing the cost of education just changes the ratio of poor/middle class who can take advantage of the subsidies. When there are increased costs, then more of the poor can not take advantage of education (and the education subsidies) and so the ratio of poor/middle class who take advantage of the subsidies decreases.

For example, Sweden has much better social mobility where university education is free and student loans are for enough to live (actually, some is given to live on without student loans for swedish citizens). Sweden then also has a very high education level, and high human capital.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Is it plausible that university educations have external benefits? For example someone with a university education might vote less stupidly.

Please try to quantify this...

You know, I set up this troll last night so I had something to do whilst drinking today.

KH, you're a bastard.

Don't get it. I am creating fireworks...should be what you want

It seems to be quite obvious that having multiple states with low 'gaps' or barriers of entry is the ideal way of allowing shifting between states, where some element can shift between the lowest state and the highest by small jumps through intervening states.

I mean, just consider the two edge conditions: a two state system (everyone is extremely poor or extremely rich) and a continuum system (no barriers/etc). The one that has more social mobility is obvious.

JM

I have no idea what question this is supposed to answer:

1) Social mobility in itself is not a goal I recognize as valuable. Already explained why.
2) The distribution of income is not an exogenous variable.
3) Having the middle class vote themselves more goodies does not make it easier for the poor to move into the middle class

[KrazyHorse]

Now it is true that one could give the middle class less and give the poor more.

But I have learned that if you do such things it creates distortions. People will drop their income ratherthan save for their kid to go to college because then they will be poor and get to send their kid for free.

????

Right now I don't see anybody suggesting that the State index tuition benefits to parental income. If we were:

1) It is true that this creates an increase in marginal rates in the phaseout region, however
2) Reducing the size of the outlay reduces the distortions caused by collecting taxes to pay for it

So what is best is to subsidize education for everyone, while taxing a similar (percentage) of everyones income. Since you are subsidizing a flat amount while taxing a percent, there is always reason to make more money while a social net + social mobility + social welfare is taken care of.

1) Marginal tax rates don't have to be > 100% to distort behaviors
2) YOU ARE MISSING THE BIGGEST POINTS HERE:
a) Subsidization of university education causes TOO MANY PEOPLE TO WASTE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY BY GOING TO UNIVERSITY
b) The benefits from subsidized tuition INCREASE up the income chain! Subsidized tuition is a REGRESSIVE POLICY. Furthermore, those among the poor who are helped by subsidized tuition are ALREADY AMONG THE BETTER-OFF POOR, as they were born smart/with good parents etc.

Subsidized tuition is a feel-good masturbatory social policy whereby the rich help a small number of poor people (the GOOD poor people that the middle class feels comfortable with) and a large number of middle-class people. Furthermore, it adds to the illusion that the poor are poor due to moral failings instead of (mostly) due to being born stupid or impatient or with parents who don't push them to succeed.

"Equality of opportunity" is the weak-minded feel-good answer to the inescapable trade-off between encouraging output and distributing that output where it will do the most good.

[Al B. Sure!]

Right now I don't see anybody suggesting that the State index tuition benefits to parental income.

But they are. You fill out a FAFSA form which uses a formula, based on your parents' income and assets, to determine an Estimated Family Contribution, the amount of which determines how large your Pell Grant is, up to the cap. It may be set up where a relatively large EFC still gives you the cap, I don't know, but it seems to have some mechanism to consider parental income.

[DaShi]

????

a) Subsidization of university education causes TOO MANY PEOPLE TO WASTE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY BY GOING TO UNIVERSITY

How is it a waste?

b) The benefits from subsidized tuition INCREASE up the income chain!

So?

Subsidized tuition is a feel-good masturbatory social policy whereby the rich help a small number of poor people (the GOOD poor people that the middle class feels comfortable with) and a large number of middle-class people. Furthermore, it adds to the illusion that the poor are poor due to moral failings instead of (mostly) due to being born stupid or impatient or with parents who don't push them to succeed.

"Equality of opportunity" is the weak-minded feel-good answer to the inescapable trade-off between encouraging output and distributing that output where it will do the most good.

What do you suggest as a better alternative?

[Al B. Sure!]

What do you suggest as a better alternative?

He's going to say straight cash, homey.

[DaShi]

But that hasn't worked anywhere.

[Al B. Sure!]

But that hasn't worked anywhere.

I just don't like it because I know how stupid people are when they get money in their hands... especially poor people. Of course, KH is from the same moral background that a crack addict can determine just how much he likes crack as opposed to every alternative better than anyone else so arguing isn't going to get anywhere without a fundamental change in an entire belief system.

[DaShi]

Certainly a poor stupid person isn't going to excel at a program at Harvard. Neither is a rich stupid person, but they can still get in.

KH is a utopian economist. The theory behind his ideas are sound, but the practice is far more limited.