80% have rights, and more
I can't imagine that this would be considered a partisan post.
Oregon has implemented a "free for all" tuition program for Community colleges. Sounds great! Except, that because of much higher demand than expected (they didn't budget enough), they are creating a metric to make sure the "right" people are put in the front of the line. It was correctly pointed out to me that an 80% rate is pretty good for a government program the first year. Thanks Fiona.
I said correctly, but I would point out that when they budgeted this, they should have budgeted for EVERY non college educated adult in the state to sign up, as well as an anticipation of people moving to Oregon to take advantage of this. If they didn't do this, then maybe THEY should be the ones taking remedial math. This is how every entitlement starts. They lowball the number so that it looks palatable to taxpayers on paper, they vote it in, and once people are hooked on it, there is no choice but to budget more.
Speaking of colleges, and education in general, let me pose a partial solution to college costs:
How about whenever a college student has to take some remedial courses (because of their test scores, inability to pass the basic college level course, or whatever) the school district that "Graduated" that student picks up the tab? And if the student is living on campus, the room and board as well?
This would force high schools to actually do their due diligence instead of just passing the problem to someone else. This especially impacts minorities, not because of any deficiency based on race, but because of the failing schools in minority areas.
I have argued that there are significant forces arrayed against tax reform. So, can we put aside the accounting lobby for a minute? Can I just give you one simple fact about tax PAYMENTS over the course of the last century of progressive income tax? We hear about the prosperity of the 1950s and how they had a 90% rate for the top earners. The progressives love this fact. So, here is the fact.
Over the course of the century, the median tax PAYMENT rate is right around....... 20%. Minor ups and downs during that time, but very minor. So who is vocal against tax reform?
The super rich that the current system doesn't impact. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and so on. They have structured their money to pay minimal, if any taxes. Some corporations pay NO taxes. They have the most to lose by real tax reform. Because 20% is more than 0%. It is that simple. And the tax planner/preparer lobby.
Finally. I have not been a fan of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. I won't go into why, but let me just point out why I think we need to eliminate it.
As the Senate has become just another House of Representatives (more immune from the people than the other House, because of the 6 year term), they should have the same rules as the House. A simple majority. The 17th Amendment destroyed the purpose of the filibuster. It was a great tool for Senators, (as representatives of the STATE) who spoke for the sovereign state, rather than the people. But as an elite HOUSE, it should be a simple majority.
Parting thought: To reduce the income inequality in this nation, we instituted a progressive income tax in this nation 100 years ago. Income inequality is greater now than ever. Time to rethink the model?
Oregon has implemented a "free for all" tuition program for Community colleges. Sounds great! Except, that because of much higher demand than expected (they didn't budget enough), they are creating a metric to make sure the "right" people are put in the front of the line. It was correctly pointed out to me that an 80% rate is pretty good for a government program the first year. Thanks Fiona.
I said correctly, but I would point out that when they budgeted this, they should have budgeted for EVERY non college educated adult in the state to sign up, as well as an anticipation of people moving to Oregon to take advantage of this. If they didn't do this, then maybe THEY should be the ones taking remedial math. This is how every entitlement starts. They lowball the number so that it looks palatable to taxpayers on paper, they vote it in, and once people are hooked on it, there is no choice but to budget more.
Speaking of colleges, and education in general, let me pose a partial solution to college costs:
How about whenever a college student has to take some remedial courses (because of their test scores, inability to pass the basic college level course, or whatever) the school district that "Graduated" that student picks up the tab? And if the student is living on campus, the room and board as well?
This would force high schools to actually do their due diligence instead of just passing the problem to someone else. This especially impacts minorities, not because of any deficiency based on race, but because of the failing schools in minority areas.
I have argued that there are significant forces arrayed against tax reform. So, can we put aside the accounting lobby for a minute? Can I just give you one simple fact about tax PAYMENTS over the course of the last century of progressive income tax? We hear about the prosperity of the 1950s and how they had a 90% rate for the top earners. The progressives love this fact. So, here is the fact.
Over the course of the century, the median tax PAYMENT rate is right around....... 20%. Minor ups and downs during that time, but very minor. So who is vocal against tax reform?
The super rich that the current system doesn't impact. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and so on. They have structured their money to pay minimal, if any taxes. Some corporations pay NO taxes. They have the most to lose by real tax reform. Because 20% is more than 0%. It is that simple. And the tax planner/preparer lobby.
Finally. I have not been a fan of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. I won't go into why, but let me just point out why I think we need to eliminate it.
As the Senate has become just another House of Representatives (more immune from the people than the other House, because of the 6 year term), they should have the same rules as the House. A simple majority. The 17th Amendment destroyed the purpose of the filibuster. It was a great tool for Senators, (as representatives of the STATE) who spoke for the sovereign state, rather than the people. But as an elite HOUSE, it should be a simple majority.
Parting thought: To reduce the income inequality in this nation, we instituted a progressive income tax in this nation 100 years ago. Income inequality is greater now than ever. Time to rethink the model?
Comments
Post a Comment