Questions about the USA.

[Hauldren Collider]

Compared to other nations.

And my generation has a lower % of college graduates than the generation before me.

JM

So you think that optimally we should have as many college graduates as possible?

[Jon Miller]

So you think that optimally we should have as many college graduates as possible?

I think that those who have talent should be able to get an education to use that talent, irrespective of the financial circumstances they were born in.

Criminally, this is not the case, somewhat because of our expensive educational system and also somewhat because of our atrocious high school system.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If we don't want to have education paid by taxes, than we should do what the students of University of California have requested:

The university is paid 5% of all income above 30k (and below 200k) which is produced by it's graduates.

In order to be fair, we would need to make it so that the current students (and the next ~5 years) would have their education paid for by the tax payers until such a time as the income from this deal was high enough to fund the universities without tax payer involvement.

Obviously the amount that the students pay to the universities should be removed from the taxes they pay otherwise.

JM

[MikeH]

X-POSTS!

So you think that optimally we should have as many college graduates as possible?

It doesn't follow that he was implying that. He was backing up his assertion that it's not just other countries improving that have dropped you down the education rankings, he was quoting a sample measure of educatedness that has dropped in the US.

[onodera]

[QUOTE=Hauldren Collider;6102473] No...no no no. The correct answer is to reduce the licensing requirements.[/QUOTE
I'd rather be treated by a well-educated doctor that got a federal handout than a barely educated one.

[regexcellent]

Some things are a lot more efficient when the market doesn't decide.

You think they'd be more efficient with Federal government of United States deciding?

[Hauldren Collider]

[QUOTE=onodera;6102490]

No...no no no. The correct answer is to reduce the licensing requirements.[/QUOTE
I'd rather be treated by a well-educated doctor that got a federal handout than a barely educated one.

Why do doctors need to do undergrad? Why do lawyers? It doesn't make sense.

[regexcellent]

Indeed, it would seem they don't. A lot of places have 6-year med programs now. There are a few things in undergrad that they need like organic chemistry and biology, I think, hence the extra couple of years.

[The Mad Monk]

Yeah, I was wondering why the Fed wouldn't provide subsidized education in return for subsidized services.

States already do that, when they have the need. For example, Alaska will pay a med student's way in exchange for a term of service at a clinic in the more remote towns.

[The Mad Monk]

[QUOTE=Hauldren Collider;6102519]

Why do doctors need to do undergrad? Why do lawyers? It doesn't make sense.

Because they want to make sure they are serious students who can handle complex information before they let them cut into someone's dearly departed.

[Jon Miller]

You think they'd be more efficient with Federal government of United States deciding?

It is in every other country.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

[QUOTE=The Mad Monk;6102540]

Because they want to make sure they are serious students who can handle complex information before they let them cut into someone's dearly departed.

Well that's an idiotic reason to drastically raise the cost of medical educations and increase the amount of time they have to spend in school by four years. You can't determine that with an interview and high school admissions information? I'm sorry, it's just stupid.

[giblets]

If we don't want to have education paid by taxes, than we should do what the students of University of California have requested:

The university is paid 5% of all income above 30k (and below 200k) which is produced by it's graduates.

In order to be fair, we would need to make it so that the current students (and the next ~5 years) would have their education paid for by the tax payers until such a time as the income from this deal was high enough to fund the universities without tax payer involvement.

Obviously the amount that the students pay to the universities should be removed from the taxes they pay otherwise.

JM

So the marginal tax rate for someone making $90,000 in California would be:

28% (federal income tax) + 7.65% (FICA) + 9.3% (state income tax) + 5% (paid to university)
So a total marginal tax rate of roughly 50%. And with a sales tax of between 7.25% and 9.75%, around 8% of the money they spend gets taken, so the effective marginal rate could be as high as 54%. But I could be getting something wrong.

[The Mad Monk]

[QUOTE=Hauldren Collider;6102554]

Well that's an idiotic reason to drastically raise the cost of medical educations and increase the amount of time they have to spend in school by four years. You can't determine that with an interview and high school admissions information? I'm sorry, it's just stupid.

It's only idiotic if you don't mind immature twenty-somethings handling life and death situations on 40 hours without sleep in an emrgency room.

[The Mad Monk]

I am really digging the quotes, BTW.