Duke4.net Forums: College tuition prices rising. - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 11 Pages +
  • « First
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

College tuition prices rising.  "Are you getting sick of high-priced enrollment shit?"

#301

The 17th was bad too. The states should decide the US senators, not the voters. I meant the 16th, not the 13th. The 16th was terrible. The income tax code is tyranny by the majority.

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster

This post has been edited by Blue Lightning: 28 April 2015 - 05:41 AM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,960

#302

View PostBlue Lightning, on 28 April 2015 - 05:40 AM, said:

The income tax code is tyranny by the majority.


No, it's tyranny by the accountants who get you tax loopholes by turning your for-profit business into a 501©3 charity or claiming obscure deductions.
What sense does it make that General Electric gets a check from the IRS every year?

Deduction-free flat tax FTW. Everyone pays according to their means; no more and no less.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Comrade Major: 28 April 2015 - 06:53 AM

1

User is offline   Person of Color 

  • Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland
  • 2,742

#303

>Flat tax

Fu-hu-hu-huuuuck that.

The upper crust should pay the most.

Posted Image
There is no race, only racists.
Proud trigendered babysexual pan-Korean anarcho-transhumanist
Muslims are peaceful people oppressed by cis white males! Hillary for presidynt!
WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED BY DONALD TRUMP'S VIOLENCE!
0

#304

They do pay the most. 10% of a million is a lot more than 10% of 10,000. You must mean "pay a higher percentage"? That is where we disagree. When the majority can vote to raise the taxes of a few, but not their own...that is tyranny.

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster
0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,960

#305

View PostPerson of Color, on 28 April 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

>Flat tax

Fu-hu-hu-huuuuck that.

The upper crust should pay the most.


Right now they aren't because of aforementioned deductions and charity loopholes. Eliminate them and start clean. Then let's talk progressive taxation.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Comrade Major: 28 April 2015 - 08:21 AM

0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord
  • 767

#306

View PostBlue Lightning, on 28 April 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

They do pay the most. 10% of a million is a lot more than 10% of 10,000. You must mean "pay a higher percentage"? That is where we disagree. When the majority can vote to raise the taxes of a few, but not their own...that is tyranny.



The tax code is theoretically structured to push rich people and companies to constantly reinvest their money in the economy. Sadly it's the case that there's enough loopholes that rich folks just pocket it.

Let's put it this way: Each person only needs so many pairs of shoes, so much food in a given day, etc. After a certain point the rich aren't contributing via regular commerce anymore. They are either hording wealth (and potentially living somewhat extravagantly still depending on the amount of wealth), using that wealth to buy things such as housing or land (which could be valuable to the general population, but for a single individual is again an extravagance), or reinvesting that money in order to provide for the general economy. In the former two cases that money/land/etc is lost (there's a finite amount, believe it or not) and the result is only an increase is wage disparity and potential shifting in the power structures. In the latter we remain in a constant state of economic expansion and opportunity growth.

We tried to do things in the United States that would help avoid making things like pre 18th/19th century Europe, but apparently we decided that wasn't fun anymore.

Music: The Rejected Applications (listen now)
EDuke32 || EDuke32 Wiki || Latest EDuke32 Snapshots
I'm getting too old for this shit...
0

#307

View PostMblackwell, on 28 April 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

The tax code is theoretically structured to push rich people and companies to constantly reinvest their money in the economy.

What it does is push rich people and companies to constantly reinvest in politicians to make loopholes for them. Can't blame them for that. It is their only protection. They don't want a 90% tax like they had under the collectivist, FDR.

View PostMblackwell, on 28 April 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

Let's put it this way: Each person only needs so many pairs of shoes, so much food in a given day, etc. After a certain point the rich aren't contributing via regular commerce anymore.

I don't care what they do with their money. It's theirs. The end should never justify the means.

View PostMblackwell, on 28 April 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

They are either hording wealth

Oh savings yes...it creates credit. It is a good thing.

View PostMblackwell, on 28 April 2015 - 06:39 PM, said:

(and potentially living somewhat extravagantly still depending on the amount of wealth), using that wealth to buy things such as housing or land (which could be valuable to the general population, but for a single individual is again an extravagance),

Ok, who decides what is extravagance? Should Congress pass a bill describing "extravagance"? I thought we had freedom in this country to live extravagant. Oh well, guess not. See, as a libertarian, I believe in freedom.

Only a national sales tax makes any sense. Unless the flat tax (say 15%) was put in the Constitution so it couldn't be changed and silly brackets added.

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster

This post has been edited by Blue Lightning: 28 April 2015 - 07:59 PM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,960

#308

View PostBlue Lightning, on 28 April 2015 - 07:23 PM, said:

What it does is push rich people and companies to constantly reinvest in politicians to make loopholes for them. Can't blame them for that. It is their only protection. They don't want a 90% tax like they had under the collectivist, FDR.


It's corruption pure and simple. Using money to buy money is part and parcel corruption. Even classic libertarians like Adam Smith know this.

Quote

Oh savings yes...it creates credit. It is a good thing.


This shows you know nothing about credit. Hoarding wealth is not an indication of responsible spending and repayment. The credit agencies and banks are smart enough to know this. It's no surprise that when people win multi-million dollar lotteries tend to lose all of their winnings over the next few months, and in fact fall deeper into debt than they were before. The same principle applies to savings. You could have all the cash in the world in America, but if you declared bankruptcy at any point in your life, good luck getting any bank to agree to finance even a Kia Rio!

Quote

Ok, who decides what is extravagance? Should Congress pass a bill describing "extravagance"? I thought we had freedom in this country to live extravagant. Oh well, guess not. See, as a libertarian, I believe in freedom.


At least on this, you and I agree. We need a "reasonable person standard" for this sort of thing.

Quote

Only a national sales tax makes any sense. Unless the flat tax (say 15%) was put in the Constitution so it couldn't be changed and silly brackets added.


Again, no disagreement here, though again we need to work hard to ensure that any new taxation system created is free of loopholes and exemptions (except the "prebate" frequently associated with the FairTax).

It's a good way of making sure the rich people pay their "fair share" without actually increasing their tax burden (well, apart from the fact they are now required to pay the taxes they've been avoiding due to a convoluted deduction system).

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!
0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord
  • 767

#309

Why is it that when tax rates were much more slanted than they are now a single individual working full time could finance a family of 4 (including a house and a car)?


Here's an example of one place where it pushes reinvestment:
The more you pay your workers the less profits you generate which means the less tax you pay. (this has the side effect of improving economic activity and potentially increasing your company's revenue in the long run)


For an example of a modern company that generates a lot of revenue but has almost no profits yet does really well in the stock market and tends to pay well: Amazon.
They spend almost every dime on reinvestment.

Music: The Rejected Applications (listen now)
EDuke32 || EDuke32 Wiki || Latest EDuke32 Snapshots
I'm getting too old for this shit...
2

User is online   Mark. 

  • Honored Donor
  • 1,762

#310

Ouch. A flat tax of 15 percent? I pay just under 3 right now. Or does that 15 percent include my SS and Medicare tax too?

This post has been edited by Mark.: 29 April 2015 - 04:12 PM

0

#311

Yes. My idea is to get rid of the payroll tax altogether for employers. And the rate for the payer would be 4% for both. The remaining 7% the government would have to live on.

Actually I would purpose something that is not libertarian and goes against my grain, but only for the sake of paying down the debt....a 2 bracket system. The bottom pays 15%, the top (over 200k) pays 25%, and it would go to just one bracket for all after most of the debt is paid. I would rather see a 15% sales tax...that way no loopholes could ever be created. There would be no way to do it. Then I would want to see a balanced budget amendment so the government CANT overspend and create debt.

View PostMblackwell, on 29 April 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

Why is it that when tax rates were much more slanted than they are now a single individual working full time could finance a family of 4 (including a house and a car)?

Because back then we didn't have 20 million illegals taking high paying construction jobs and jobs in plants and mills, and driving down wages to minimum wage. Also, half of our factories were not in China. That's why. This is what Bernie Sanders FAILS to mention.

View PostComrade Major, on 29 April 2015 - 04:59 AM, said:

It's corruption pure and simple. Using money to buy money is part and parcel corruption. Even classic libertarians like Adam Smith know this.

And a 90% tax under FDR wasn't corruption and tyranny? What do you expect the rich to do, not buy politicians, and sit back and wait for the government to pop up their taxes to 90% like it used to be?

View PostComrade Major, on 29 April 2015 - 04:59 AM, said:

This shows you know nothing about credit. Hoarding wealth is not an indication of responsible spending and repayment.

No, it's a responsible stowage of money, which creates credit. Without it, there is no credit extended to anyone.

Quote

The credit agencies and banks are smart enough to know this. It's no surprise that when people win multi-million dollar lotteries tend to lose all of their winnings over the next few months, and in fact fall deeper into debt than they were before. The same principle applies to savings. You could have all the cash in the world in America, but if you declared bankruptcy at any point in your life, good luck getting any bank to agree to finance even a Kia Rio!

Someone who is bankrupt is not credit worthy. Should a bank loan money to someone who is not credit worthy?
But you lost me. I was talking about rich people who put their money in the bank or into the stock market, that is money the market or the banks use to lend credit to others. I think you went off on a tangent about lottery and lost me.

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster

This post has been edited by Blue Lightning: 29 April 2015 - 07:15 PM

0

#312

BTW, BERNIE SANDERS IS ANNOUNCING! ;D

Here we go. For 17 months we are going to hear "Millionaires and billionaires" and "fair share" over and over, at nauseam. (sorry about using a phrase from dead language, but Latin is kinda cool :P).

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster
0

User is online   Mark. 

  • Honored Donor
  • 1,762

#313

A self admitted Socialist. After hearing his message and seeing how it parallels the Democratic message how will the Dems distance themselves from the Socialist? The press will tie themselves in knots. :P
0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord
  • 767

#314

Democratic Socialist isn't the same thing but okay. People should probably try and remember what Socialism is instead of letting political hyperbole distort its meaning so much that they won't recognize it when they see it.

For example we've diminished the meaning of Fascism, but guess what the United States is turning into right now?

Music: The Rejected Applications (listen now)
EDuke32 || EDuke32 Wiki || Latest EDuke32 Snapshots
I'm getting too old for this shit...
2

#315

United States Socialist Republic?

We are indeed socialist. It's a matter of degree of course. So if the government has ONE single program, say student loans/grants, but no other programs...is it socialist? A debate could be had. But this government has welfare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, student grants, Housing and Urban development, Fannie Freddie, food stamps, Sally Mae, and the list goes on. I would say that our government does qualify as "socialist" at this point.

I believe in liberty and freedom. Freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else. Smoke pot, have sex, make Duke Nukem 3D single player maps, whatever. Keep or spend you're earnings, that sort of thing...

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster

This post has been edited by Blue Lightning: 30 April 2015 - 05:49 AM

0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord
  • 767

#316

Wrong. We are in fact Fascist.

Music: The Rejected Applications (listen now)
EDuke32 || EDuke32 Wiki || Latest EDuke32 Snapshots
I'm getting too old for this shit...
1

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,960

#317

View PostBlue Lightning, on 29 April 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

No, it's a responsible stowage of money, which creates credit. Without it, there is no credit extended to anyone.

Someone who is bankrupt is not credit worthy. Should a bank loan money to someone who is not credit worthy?
But you lost me. I was talking about rich people who put their money in the bank or into the stock market, that is money the market or the banks use to lend credit to others. I think you went off on a tangent about lottery and lost me.


Follow me for a moment:

Stowing money does not indicate responsibility. Stowing money just proves you have money. That's it!

The United States national debt is $16.3 trillion. 108% of our GDP. That's essentially a debt-to-income ratio of 108%. Most credit agencies would consider that a REALLY BAD credit utilization ratio.

The United States is spending and bailing out like someone who has won the lottery - irresponsibly and without regard for potential future financial problems. But spending is okay for a country like the U.S. if they have the revenue to compensate for it. We need to increase revenues.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!

This post has been edited by Comrade Major: 30 April 2015 - 06:05 AM

0

#318

No, the debt is 18.2 trillion
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Try to follow me a moment. Banks will not extend credit to anyone, unless they have the money to do it. They use people's savings to extend loans to others. Savings is where credit comes from. You didn't know that?

No we don't need to increase revenues. We need to seriously decrease spending.

Money = liberty. The more money you forcibly take from someone, the more of their liberty you are taking away.

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster

This post has been edited by Blue Lightning: 30 April 2015 - 06:14 AM

0

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,960

#319

View PostBlue Lightning, on 30 April 2015 - 06:12 AM, said:

Banks will not extend credit to anyone, unless they have the money to do it. They use people's savings to extend loans to others. Savings is where credit comes from. You didn't know that?


Posted Image
You are completely missing the point.

Quote

No we don't need to increase revenues. We need to seriously decrease spending.


Would be interested to know where you propose to decrease spending. I think you underestimate what these social programs do for you and millions of other Americans.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!
0

#320

I'd dump:

Dept of Education
Dept of Energy
Dept of Commerce
Dept of HUD
Dept of the Interior
Dept of Homeland Security
Dept of Labor

Just for starters. There is nearly a half a trillion a year, right there.

Here are a few of the F's I would dump:

FVA (federal voting assistance)
FMS (federal meditation service)
FCE (federal committee on education
FTC (federal trade commission)
FHF (Federal Housing Finance)
FHA (federal housing administration)
Freddie Mac
Fannie Mae

And there are hundreds more, but these for starters.

"Stunticons, merge to become...Men-a-sor..." - Motormaster

This post has been edited by Blue Lightning: 30 April 2015 - 07:50 AM

0

User is online   Mark. 

  • Honored Donor
  • 1,762

#321

I would like to see and end to the practice of baseline budgeting in government agencies.
0

User is offline   Mblackwell 

  • Evil Overlord
  • 767

#322

In terms of borrowing/spending: A country isn't your house. If a country can generate economic activity with its spending or borrowing that means a lot of future growth.

Also the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to dissolve and merge agencies under its power and hasn't for decades (congress took it away in I believe the 80s). It's pretty terrible.

Music: The Rejected Applications (listen now)
EDuke32 || EDuke32 Wiki || Latest EDuke32 Snapshots
I'm getting too old for this shit...
0

User is online   DustFalcon85 

  • 467

#323

Posted Image

This is why life is in the toilet. It's needs an overhaul and fast! Fuck this system of "Paying for school to get a job, just to get a job to pay for school." This is why capitalism sucks.


This post has been edited by DustFalcon85: 18 August 2015 - 07:38 AM

2

User is offline   EMPATHY_IS_AN_ELEPHANT 

  • Flutter Faggot
  • 941

#324

.
Or you can do good in school and get scholarships so school is free (or mostly free). Or you can get a job that has education benefits that will pay for your school. You'll always lose if you victimize yourself.

And school isn't for everybody. What you learn and know is what counts, and many people don't need school for that. The problem is that living on campus is the new american dream.

FREE ROBMAN

This post has been edited by EMPATHY_IS_AN_ELEPHANT: 18 August 2015 - 08:10 AM

1

User is online   Mark. 

  • Honored Donor
  • 1,762

#325

This big push for everybody to go to college is dumb. We will always need the skilled and unskilled laborers and machinists, etc that don't require full time college and a huge loan debt. Plus kids and parents need to smarten up on the choices the kids are making for their majors or career field. Make a wiser choice of a school that is more affordable. Don't go 80,000 dollars into debt for your ancient Greek studies degree. There are only so many museums or tomb excavations to work in. You'll end up back at your parent's house. The need to trim back the costs of education ( teacher and administrator's salaries and benefits ) is long overdue.

This post has been edited by Mark.: 18 August 2015 - 11:05 AM

2

User is offline   Inspector Lagomorf 

  • Glory To Motherland!
  • -4,960

#326

View PostEMPATHY_IS_AN_ELEPHANT, on 18 August 2015 - 07:56 AM, said:

.
Or you can do good in school and get scholarships so school is free (or mostly free).


You might as well win the lottery.

Cobrastan is not a real country.
Keep Radar away!
3

User is offline   EMPATHY_IS_AN_ELEPHANT 

  • Flutter Faggot
  • 941

#327

View PostSpastic Lagomorph, on 18 August 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

You might as well win the lottery.


That's not troo. If you at least aim to accumulate enough scholarships for a full ride, even if you don't end up covering full tuition, you'll at least get something. Right now scholarships pay for 80% of my tuition - a rough estimate, I know it's higher. And I go to a cheap school too (U of M Dearborn). No debt here.

FREE ROBMAN

This post has been edited by EMPATHY_IS_AN_ELEPHANT: 18 August 2015 - 09:20 PM

0

User is online   DustFalcon85 

  • 467

#328

I think I know why tuition prices are going up.


0

Share this topic:


  • 11 Pages +
  • « First
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners and all comments are owned by their posters. Yes, our forum uses cookies. © 2004-2017 Duke4.net and Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options