Abba San
Legacy of Elijah [LoE] - Proud Grandfather
lol
State to Raise Tuition Costs by 77%
- Thread starter Odale
- Start date
nattyg
New Member
Again, entirely your choice - not mine, not the state of GA's, not the country's - it's yours.
Of course you don't. You're not at the point in life when a substantial portion of your income goes to taxes. Why do I even care if someone is going to "use" it? What guarantee do I have that you'll actually enjoy what you're doing or find sufficient financial benefit to stay in your career path? Further, what guarantee do I have that you'll complete your Master's or PhD that would allow you to really be "useful" in your chosen field?
That's good, great and wonderful...but it does nothing to make the people whole that you stole from. As a practical matter, while your choice may end up providing sufficient income to pay said taxes, there are a lot of people that spend copious amounts of money on education and don't realize a proportional salary ( my wife is one of those, i.e. I subsidize enough already
) so why should I fund this with no guarantee that a.) I'll be made whole and b.) that you'd make enough to provide the same benefit to someone else?If this choice was truly that important to you, you'd find a way to fund it - work multiple jobs, sell things you don't need to, stop living that la vida loca you live every night
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
I think the important thing to remember here as far as "to tax or not to tax", taxes should be going towards things that benefit the majority. While paying for education might seem like it only benefits the recipients, that's not the case. It's simple economics. When a society is not educated enough, you have problems. Just look to third-world countries where people can't read and you can see why it's a problem. When you are under-educated and lack professionals, everybody suffers in the long run. With educated professionals, you have progress in technical sectors.
But even if none of that were true, it doesn't matter. Here's what does: if you are living in Georgia and helping someone get a degree...most likely or not they'll be using it in Georgia. That means your $10,000 in tax money helps them make $10k more money per year. And guess what happens to that money? That's right...it gets taxed. For the rest of their life. And you benefit.
Like most everything going on right now, we're getting short term "fixes" and taking steps backwards for our children and grandchildren. Won't somebody think of the children?
But even if none of that were true, it doesn't matter. Here's what does: if you are living in Georgia and helping someone get a degree...most likely or not they'll be using it in Georgia. That means your $10,000 in tax money helps them make $10k more money per year. And guess what happens to that money? That's right...it gets taxed. For the rest of their life. And you benefit.
Like most everything going on right now, we're getting short term "fixes" and taking steps backwards for our children and grandchildren. Won't somebody think of the children?
Last edited:
nattyg
New Member
It's not simple economics - you're avoiding the point that those taxes will often go to people that don't complete degrees or end up doing something entirely not related to their degree, i.e. those dollars that were spent mean absolutely nothing.
If it were really that critical to society, then heck - we need to pay for everyone's advanced education! I can't wait to pay $75/hr / person for landscaping at that rate!
You need a balance between thinkers and doers - that's where economic incentive and personal drive come in.
That assumes a 1:1 ROI - that's pretty optomistic, particularly for people that bail out of professions that require advanced degrees. For example (again) my wife, made a $12/hr after her BS. It took a Master's (plus some) to get her in remotely a position where that claim could be made and it's still out of whack compared to the total cost of education.
shadetaker
Tribe of Judah Lead Recruiter
Frankly nattyg, I don't see why you're making so much of how (a small percentage) your tax dollars are being spent on education. Do you honestly think that even if the government eliminated education spending entirely that they would ever willingly lower your taxes?
It generally seems to me that the government's most finely honed ability is taking ever greater amounts of our money and finding ways to waste it ever more flagrantly. At least federal tax revenue spent on education (about 4% from what I can find online) goes towards something that, at least in theory, enriches society as a whole.
Surely that's better than funding someone welfare abuser's unemployment, or a fiscally irresponsible retiree's twilight years, or China's debt collection, or any number of the countless pork programs that get pushed through congress every year.
It generally seems to me that the government's most finely honed ability is taking ever greater amounts of our money and finding ways to waste it ever more flagrantly. At least federal tax revenue spent on education (about 4% from what I can find online) goes towards something that, at least in theory, enriches society as a whole.
Surely that's better than funding someone welfare abuser's unemployment, or a fiscally irresponsible retiree's twilight years, or China's debt collection, or any number of the countless pork programs that get pushed through congress every year.
Durruck
Pirate!
but does the fact that it is only 4% make it okay? What if we push it to 4.5%? 5%? At what point is enough...enough?
But similar to Natty's wife, I spent around $16k for college... to get a job that doesn't require any post-secondary education. What value to the average taxpayer is that? Fortunately, I was one of the people that got most of my schooling via student loans, work-incentives and my own blood, sweat, and tears. The remainder was paid thru a privately-funded, competitive academic scholarship.
I'll give you that the government won't likely lower our taxes. However, it's not unheard of. The "Bush Tax Cuts" lowered my taxes paid by several thousand per year. They'll likely expire this year as a means of increasing revenue to pay for other socialized services. If I had my choice, I'd gladly fund education in a meaningful way rather than pork programs (isn't education to a specific area a pork project?), assistance abusers, or the irresponsible.
I draw the line at the China-debt thing. My bank owns my house because I owe them money. We owe China money. Draw a line.... they "own" a part of us. If they stop assuming our debt, we're in BIG trouble. I'm a huge fan of governmental accountability, balanced budgets, etc. I have to pay my bills at the end of the month. Why should my government be any different?
Guess what, if I can't fund my education, I stop going to school. If I can't afford my car payments, I certainly don't buy a new car. If I can't afford my groceries, I cancel my cable internet and cell phones to make sure I get the most important things funded. Our government should have to follow the same rules.
But similar to Natty's wife, I spent around $16k for college... to get a job that doesn't require any post-secondary education. What value to the average taxpayer is that? Fortunately, I was one of the people that got most of my schooling via student loans, work-incentives and my own blood, sweat, and tears. The remainder was paid thru a privately-funded, competitive academic scholarship.
I'll give you that the government won't likely lower our taxes. However, it's not unheard of. The "Bush Tax Cuts" lowered my taxes paid by several thousand per year. They'll likely expire this year as a means of increasing revenue to pay for other socialized services. If I had my choice, I'd gladly fund education in a meaningful way rather than pork programs (isn't education to a specific area a pork project?), assistance abusers, or the irresponsible.
I draw the line at the China-debt thing. My bank owns my house because I owe them money. We owe China money. Draw a line.... they "own" a part of us. If they stop assuming our debt, we're in BIG trouble. I'm a huge fan of governmental accountability, balanced budgets, etc. I have to pay my bills at the end of the month. Why should my government be any different?
Guess what, if I can't fund my education, I stop going to school. If I can't afford my car payments, I certainly don't buy a new car. If I can't afford my groceries, I cancel my cable internet and cell phones to make sure I get the most important things funded. Our government should have to follow the same rules.
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
On a large scale, individuals mean nothing. Statistics are all that matter. As said above, it is impossible for the gov to decide who will "use" their degree.
1:1? According to the US census bureau, in 2000 the average income of someone with a high school education was $30,400. The average income of a college grad was $52,200. That's a difference of $22k per year. That will yield over $1500 dollars per year in taxes for the state of Georgia. 7 years pays school back completely. Most people work a lot longer than that...seeing as how most careers are 20 years+.
Are there exceptions? Sure. Plenty of people with degrees not making money off of them, and people making money without degrees. Some people while leave the state (while others will move in). All that matters on the large scale of things are averages.
Anyway, what it really comes down to is...out of all the things that my taxes pay for other people do to - education would probably be one of the last things you'd want to get rid of on principle. Furthermore - on average, degrees pay for themselves. Win win.
Too bad we're shooting our children in the feet to save money today.
nattyg
New Member
If you're going to cite that, you should also be aware that correlation != causation, i.e. simply having a degree doesn't mean you get a salary or that is the root cause of it. What's more common is individual motivation and that is not something government can fund. Most people get degrees for a reason. Many that don't still excel in their fields and completely buck the trend. The only thing common between the two is motivation or quite possibly dumb luck - I tend to assume the former.
I'm not sure where you're coming up with 7 years paying school back completely. Beyond that, do you think that by providing the government with more money that it will be used in whole to pay back the original program? If your answer was anything other than no, I'd like to kindly point you to our federal government for an analogue.
You're associating two classifications of education together to try to make your point. Advanced education is purely optional - there is no legislation anywhere that mandates it, so again - if it provides a financial advantage to the consumer then they should be willing to work to attain it.
Then people should be happy investing in themselves.
I would call coddling young adults to the point where they expect everything to be provided for them shooting them in the feet. Goals require dedication and sacrifice, but instead it's become the norm to raise children in a manner where they can barely fend for themselves. In a more concrete example...it's tantamount to this behavior.
Your same line of reasoning is also used to dilute the general welfare clause in the Constitution...I'd be very cautious on that line of reasoning.
Odale
Active Member
Currently, I am outlining the steps do perform an experiment on Generation-Y workers in my Experimental Psychology class as it is parallel with my interests. The research I have read thus far (there isn't much in the way of scholarly, empirical articles) states that Gen-y workers are also known as the "Gimme Generation" who appreciate instant gratification. At any rate, that article you linked states/implies that the reason Generation-Y is so messed up is because the parents couldn't parent well enough... I find that hard to agree with. Everyone's parents are different, thus it must be something else's effect on an entire generation that caused these traits. Something like media (instant entertainment), internet (instant knowledge) and other technology in general. I can hardly believe that it is all the parent's fault.
On a more related note, I want to call attention to where I stated how the HOPE scholarship works:
Odale said:
The state won't support you if you don't try - period. This means that the money will go to people who put forth the effort to maintain their grades, which is most likely correlated to working in that field or a field related to it. Performance is related to motivation, people are more motivated when they are working with things and concepts they find appealing.
If I left anything out its because it's late!
Edit: I am surprised this is 5 pages!
Last edited:
nattyg
New Member
I'm not sure why it's that hard to agree with. Who controls those technologies within a household? I encourage you to go out to a mall on a weekend and look at the way teenagers are dressed. Parents have simply become far more permissive and focused on being their child's friend rather than being their parent.
Again - if they're that motivated they should have no problem picking up an extra job to make up the difference or student loans. I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why others should pay for your education. You're perfectly capable of it on your own if it's worth that much to you.
THAT is why this is 5 pages long
Last edited:
I think you (plural) are overgeneralizing many of the issues. Generation Y is no worse than the generation before it; it's just different. You can't take the blame of a child's actions and put it on the responsibility of the parents. It's a mutual effort. Also, socialism is not always a bad thing just like capitalism is not always a good thing.
Further, placing blame on someone or something e.g. "the system" does not produce results. Those who have the information, experience, understanding, or concepts for something better should go about sharing them in a constructive way. Historically (and ideally), what has made America so great is the sometimes collaborative effort put forth by the citizens, and certainly the ability for the people to bring ideas to the table and/or contribute on an individual level to dramatic changes. Clearly, this is what America needs now not just in education, but in the economy, domestic and foreign policy, military, energy, and industry.
Odale is right on this one. A parent shouldn't and can't control their child to the extent of always developing what I will call a "socially acceptable" (or, for the sake of argument, a "nattyg acceptable") young adult. There are outside factors that do/will impact a child's upbringing a parent will have little to no control over.
Further, placing blame on someone or something e.g. "the system" does not produce results. Those who have the information, experience, understanding, or concepts for something better should go about sharing them in a constructive way. Historically (and ideally), what has made America so great is the sometimes collaborative effort put forth by the citizens, and certainly the ability for the people to bring ideas to the table and/or contribute on an individual level to dramatic changes. Clearly, this is what America needs now not just in education, but in the economy, domestic and foreign policy, military, energy, and industry.
Odale said:
nattyg said:
Odale is right on this one. A parent shouldn't and can't control their child to the extent of always developing what I will call a "socially acceptable" (or, for the sake of argument, a "nattyg acceptable") young adult. There are outside factors that do/will impact a child's upbringing a parent will have little to no control over.
Last edited:
nattyg
New Member
There's quite a bit of legislation that disagrees with you.
Completely disagree. Children will always push boundaries and establish their own identities, however permissive parenting is not the way to do so. Again, this is what leads to people thinking they have the right to take money from others for their own gain. It's what has parents calling in for their adult children because they ill equipped them for life.
It is absolutely a parent's responsibility to prepare their children for the world. That it's even open for discussion truly baffles me. That's what's being discussed here - the persistent nagging attitude that a substantial portion of said generation believes things are owed to them to the point where they're not willing to get a job or take on their own burden in order to facilitate their own success. This sense of entitlement does absolutely nothing but snowball and become progressively worse over time.
Odale
Active Member
It isn't that I or anyone else feels that we are absolutely entitled to gain a higher education. Scholarships are very hard to get and maintain, you must work for them... I don't know why you don't understand that - the HOPE is no different. When people need an education to do what they want to do for the rest of their life and when helping out the community is a side effect, then shouldn't it be made just a little easier to get? Teachers for instance, (not just professors) in many school districts are required to have a master's degree in teaching education. You cant just show up with a high school education.
I am not arguing that parents should not monitor their kids and determine what they should be exposed to. No one is arguing that with you. What I am saying is that parents are not the cause of Generation-Y's qualities - it is something else. Parents cannot watch their kids 24/7, thus they will be influenced by outside forces (entertainment, internet, ESPECIALLY peers, what they learn at school and outside the home, etc.). Since parents cannot totally control what their kids experience (note - this is not permissive parenting but instead a physical impossibility of being able to shadow their kids all day long), thus the parents clearly aren't to blame.
Durruck
Pirate!
nattyg said:
Odale said:
I think that Natty already answered this point. It's not a matter of controlling every single thing that the children experience. Rather, it's helping them figure out how they should respond in various situations.
I know it's a bit of a stretch... but if my parents never tell me about the world, and how I will be exposed to sex, drugs, and alcohol, lies and deceit, hate and lust... how will I likely respond the first time that the neighbor kid offers me weed and tells me that it doesn't hurt anyone? that it's natural to watch porn and be promiscuous? that getting smash-drunk is just a good time? that little lies are okay? that bigotry is just a fact of life?
If my parents hadn't equipped me to deal with the lies of the devil, I'd have fallen for every single one of them.
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
Lots of good things here on parenting, and I have to say I mostly agree with everything Natty said. Only thing I would say there is - a college education has nothing to do with being "prepared for the world". I certainly believe that most of the "responsibility" for getting to college is on an individual and their family, but it really doesn't have to do with child-rearing.
As for control...
0-5: Parent is basically in complete control, and the focus is on teaching right/wrong/respect for authority.
5-12: Parent is to be helping build character in that child. Much easier if the child knows right/wrong/respects authority.
12-19: Preparing that child for the world. Much easier to do if the child knows right from wrong, respects authority, and has character.
So, control is less and less as you go, but that relationship is a product of what has happened in the past.
As for control...
0-5: Parent is basically in complete control, and the focus is on teaching right/wrong/respect for authority.
5-12: Parent is to be helping build character in that child. Much easier if the child knows right/wrong/respects authority.
12-19: Preparing that child for the world. Much easier to do if the child knows right from wrong, respects authority, and has character.
So, control is less and less as you go, but that relationship is a product of what has happened in the past.
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
I understand this thinking, and it's very common...but it's also very wrong. I really hope that doesn't come off the wrong way; this is just probably the area I'm most passionate about.
So, I'll just explain. Let me first say that I understand extenuating circumstances happen...so if anyone has had a major life event that prevents what I'm about to say, I'm not talking about you, nor is this a judgment against people who have their kids in public school.It is true that if your child attends public school, you can't control what happens there. However, parents control where their children go to school. Parents control where they live. So yes, the school environment is in complete control of the parents.
That said, I'm not saying it is easy. First, many people do not budget properly...or soon enough. In my family's case, our decision of living where we are was in part to having a wonderful school here that loves Jesus and teaches character. When we purchased our house, we did so bearing in mind the cost of school for (hopefully) multiple children. We also took into consideration our plan for Brittany to stay home when we had our first child. Our cars are paid off but still run fine, and we won't be buying anything new anytime soon. I also know a family that had 10 children in a 1000sqft house so that they could send the older ones to private school while homeschooling the younger ones.
My point of all this is not to pat myself on the back, and if it comes off that way I am truly sorry. I just want to say that I know how much it hurts to set this much money. I'm guilty sometimes of thinking, "man, I'd love to have more money/nicer car/nicer house/etc." And that's wrong. However, we were fortunate enough to have some godly people in our lives when we got married that were able to talk sense into us. I also know it's much easier to prevent the spending in the first place than it is to scale back your budget at a later time to pump out money for school.
I just want to highly encourage everyone on private education, assuming it is doable (which it almost always is). I dunno, maybe this should be a new thread.
It just comes down to this: parenting is arguably the most important thing we do on this mortal coil. Even if we are perfect parents to our children (which none of us are), why on earth would we allow our children to spend more time with extremely negative influences than with godly people? I would highly encourage people to carefully consider home or private school.As for the Internet/TV influences...we can control those too. I know we can't completely "shelter" our children, but every bit helps.
Last edited:
I'm glad it has worked out for you. But, frankly, most private schools at the grade-school level are worse in nearly every way than public schools. The quality of education usually takes a hit, and so do the extra-curricular activities. Not to mention that for every good program a private school does/will have, such as a good science lab, means a higher cost on the already very expensive tuition. Academically and athletically the children suffer, and few Christian or private schools really teach ethics and morals. A "Christian" or private school (again, at the grade-school level) is, at the moment, a broken solution to an educational system already very much in need of reform.
And, with few exceptions, home school is the worst option of the three. Again, the students typically suffer academically, athletically, and socially. I'm not saying someone who is home schooled can't become a pro-player or a rocket scientist, rather that their experience and exposure to/with various academics and activities dramatically decreases.
At the college level, however, private education is very competitive. Many times they're better than state-run schools.
I think you're stretching this a bit much. First of all, we can't assume every parent's goals are the same as your family's. Which, as you stated, is raising children. Furthermore, there are so many factors that sometimes go into where a parent lives that one can't reasonably state that the quality of education in an area is the #1 reason to move there. That's just narrow-sighted.
Last edited:
Durruck
Pirate!
But I see his point. When my wife and I decided to move out of our apartment and into our first home, we considered a lot of factors, including the schools. It's almost 10 years later and we still don't have kids...but if/when we do, we pre-planned to make sure our child(ren) would have good academic, athletic and extra-curricular opportunities.
Part of what RyanB is trying to say is that parents should be mindful of what they're exposing their children to.... and there are far too many parents today that don't know and/or care.
Part of what RyanB is trying to say is that parents should be mindful of what they're exposing their children to.... and there are far too many parents today that don't know and/or care.
Odale
Active Member
Pretty sure you just contradicted yourself there.
You have the luxury of having a second person to help support your family, whether thats more money or just extra hands around your house. Not all families have that.
It isn't wrong, its human.
...I just want to highly encourage everyone on private education, assuming it is doable (which it almost always is). I dunno, maybe this should be a new thread.
When me, my brother and sister were in school my mom looked up private school for us... $50,000 a year for all of us. Completely impossible for my mom on a secretary's salary.
I don't think it needs a new thread unless someone else does
.Children will befriend who they will befriend, you can influence who they hang out with, but you cannot completely control that. You remember as a kid, who did you listen more to - your parents or your friends? Children will have influences from peers no matter where they go to school.
Homeschooling children I believe is too sheltered, they don't learn social rules at home by themselves as they would in public or private school.
EDIT!: I don't mean to piggy back on Bowser's posts, or make it seem "extra harsh" (not that I want it to be harsh haha). I agree with Bowser and he basically said what I wanted to and did say.
Last edited: