File photo/The Cougar
The longer this election season drags on, the more I hear about the merits of free college. And it’s not just Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I hear regular college students who have no interest in politics calling for tuition-free schools as well. In reality, it’s a terrible idea that makes no economic sense or really help anyone.
Let’s start with the obvious: free lunches don’t exist. Eventually, somewhere down the economic line, someone has to pay for the “free” college many so vehemently support. This can either come from higher taxes on citizens or by taxing Wall Street.
Most organizations that focus on economics estimate that free college for everyone would cost around $70 billion a year. Bernie’s financial transactions tax – the way he proposes to pay those $70 billion dollars – has one big flaw.
It’s not taxing the 1 percent, it’s placing a higher burden on middle income families investing for retirement. When you tax a mutual fund for investing, you ultimately leverage that cost on everyone, not just the rich. As the Investment Company Institute points out, you’re just hurting the middle class even more – something people like Bernie say they love to protect.
Simply speaking, if free college isn’t funded by a financial transaction tax, the costs will move on to the taxpayer, meaning everyone – and I mean every person, not just the rich – will be paying much more in taxes. Americans will have to pay for others to earn useless degrees that will never see an economic return and reinvest in the economy.
Bernie Sanders continually says that by making college free, the United States will have a more educated workforce to compete with the workers from countries. Here’s the problem with that: the top three most educated work forces in the world, according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – South Korea, Japan, and Canada – all charge tuition for college.
Students in Canada actually come out with roughly the same amount of debt as US students. So, in reality, it doesn’t matter whether college is free or not for an educated workforce; other factors have more control over matriculation and graduation rates. So, one of the main arguments for making people pay more in taxes is wholly incorrect. The statistics just don’t support it.
College has become so necessary because high school ultimately makes students non-distinguishable from each other. Bernie Sanders said in his New York Times op-ed that “a college degree is the new high school diploma,” but he didn’t recognize that high demand for a college degree is a result of supply and demand.
In the 1950s, it was completely possible to graduate from high school and get a job that gave decent pay and good benefits so you could work your way up the economic ladder to success.
But that was when going to high school actually meant something.
As high school became more readily available for everyone, which isn’t completely a bad thing, the supply of skilled labor increased because more people were well educated. Employers could no longer distinguish between the applicants, leading to employers’ requirement for college degrees.
If college becomes free for everyone, the amount of jobs that a bachelor’s degree will be able to attain will ultimately shrink. Soon, employers will start looking for graduate degrees, which means more college.
Finally, there is the important constitutional argument. The federal government has no control over higher education. The Constitution does not mention education in any form. In the context of the vital but seemingly forgotten Tenth Amendment, education – in every aspect – is left up entirely to the states; the federal government cannot touch education, even if it wanted to.
Every time the federal government interferes with education, our leaders are breaking the oath they made to uphold the Constitution and all her greatness.
In reality, free college is just not a viable option. It doesn’t make economic or constitutional sense. At the end of the day, the federal government has no business being in the business of higher education, and it does, it’s going to hurt a lot more than it’s going to help.
Opinion columnist Jorden Smith is a political science junior and may be reached at [email protected]
Many good and valid points, yet making the constitutional argument holds little weight as the feds have already usurped the educational role of the States.
The states already began neglecting their roles in funding higher education well before the federal government stepped in.
Do I think that a fed controlled loan system was the way to fix that? No. It arguably made things worse, but if the states put back in to the schools again then people wouldn’t have to take out crazy government loans just to go.
The fed usurped education long before taking over the student loan problem. The states reacted to the availability of all the guaranteed money.
I agree that continued state divestment from college funding is in part due to rampant student loaning, but you cannot begin to believe that the reason college is so much more expensive now because the fed starting doling out student loans. There’s a reason the need for loans (public or private) has become so prevalent over the last generation or two for anyone paying their own way through state school.
I absolutely assert that college costs have risen due to the availability of all the loan monies!
Affordability precludes the need for loans.
I went in the 70s, and granted, that makes me a dinosaur, but I took an 18-21hr/semester load and paid not more than $300, plus not more than $200 for all the books. Loans were little heard of then. Grants ans scholarships for the “underserved” or academic/athletic scholars were the norm, but not for your average student. My classmates found good summer jobs and made enough to pay their way as well without need of loans. The racket is in the “low interest” loans, no matter who the issuer is or was. These start the cycle of more people going, many of whom have no business going, requiring more academic space, enticing faculty to write and require use of their books, requiring evermore loan monies. Precisely why Texas scaled back what is allocated from tax dollars.
Wow…
I could up what you paid by an order of magnitude and I’m still paying more to go to school than what you did. I’m genuinely envious.
I honestly didn’t need loans either until my school schedule straight up would not allow me to work. But frankly, I don’t think anyone should have to work three part time jobs (like I did) just to go to school with or without debt.
At the end of the day though, I don’t see where this becomes the federal government’s fault. I think we’re agreed that rampant issuing of student loans isn’t a good thing, but the fed didn’t take full control of student loans until 2010, and college costs were rising at a ridiculous rate way before that.
So I disagree with your argument, but it also contains a factual error that I think the editorial board should address (and potentially discipline you for making).
You state: It’s not taxing the 1 percent, it’s placing a higher burden on middle income families investing for retirement.
The speculation tax Sanders (and Clinton) propose is not on Mutual funds, which are by necessity ‘long’ investors, it is on speculators, ie those who engage in short-term trading behavior (and more specifically it targets hedge funds and investment banks which engage in ‘flash trading’ or computer-controlled trading). Mutual funds in retirement plans don’t participate in this kind of behavior.
Robert … the 1 percent have already made their money … that’s why they advocate taxing income over accumulated wealth.
Hey bud, you’re wrong. The speculation tax taxes every stock, bond, or derivative sold. These high speed traders are indeed investors by the definition of the word. They own a share of stock that they trade quickly. The same is true of mutual fund managers who use the same high speed techniques to maximize the returns for their shareholder – the IRA’s and 401k owners.
I wouldn’t let your economics professors know you are stating facts about a hypothetical tax that hasn’t been implemented yet.
According to the only authority on the tax, the speculation tax would only apply to short term holders. I’m not sure how you can possibly know more about the tax than he does – and even if you did, all we have to go on is what he *says* the tax will effect – not your ouji-derived assertion that it will in fact not effect that, but effect other things.
What else does this tax cover, Economics Major? Life insurance policies? Microwave popcorn?
I always say Free is a very expensive word. And when it comes to college, the education is thus so cheapened. Its like that particular orifice we have .,.. everyone’s got one.
Many college students buy free college it as if it were Crack being given away by the local SocDem dealer. At some point its going cost you, and in the end you will resemble a beautiful prom queen who is strung out on crystal meth.
By dealing with the cost of a college education, it shows people that you are able to take the challenge of adversity in life and overcome it. If its free .. then any average Joe or Joetta will be able to dampen the dry cloth of available proven candidates, and will cause further havoc with human resources than it already has with the ObamaCare debacle.
Good piece.
You say that as if the pay-wall is the only thing keeping the uncouth masses out of school. You still have to have a basic education, you still have to go through admissions, you still have to go to class, you still have to pass exams, you still have to graduate.
Believe it or not the quality of an education is measured by the quality of the education, not by how much you pay for it. That would only be made more so if tuition was not an issue to consider when choosing a school.
And I don’t think anyone expects that they won’t have to pay for school in any shape or form. The general desire is to pay for it on the back end and pay it forward to the next generation of scholars in the form of a tax. That’s not a lot to ask for especially when it involves enhancing the general well-being of the population.
Organite!! Happy Library Workers Day!
Organite … I’m saying that if a poor person really wants to be educated … they will find a way, despite the cost of tuition. That’s part of the challenge of becoming educated.
“The uncouth masses” that you mentioned … they are products of worthless public schools, which is part of the Socialist system to keep them as a permanent underclass to vote SocDem their entire lives. If someone tries to break out from that system they are labeled “Uncle Thom” or some other demeaning name.
The uncouth masses are so easily bought off with crumbs. They are losing their chance to become self-sufficient and provide themselves with better lives, but as long as they receive the EBTs every month they are happy. Shameful.
Essentially, the uncouth masses are equivalent to the students who supports Sanders free education. Now is anyone mentioning who is gonna pay for that? No.
SocDems never mention how they will pay for programs, but they will call Republicans on it every time.
Organite!! The best thing for the general well-being of the population is for them to work in their self-interest, and not in the interest of government.
Losing their chances to be self-sufficient?
How can you lose that chance if you never had the chance in the first place?
Like the author of this piece points out, high school means nothing, so to get anywhere in life you have to have college, but if you can’t afford college then it’s next to impossible to get anywhere in life.
And even if you do make it through college, the average college student graduates $40K in debt. Even going straight in to a decent paying job it takes on average 15 years for people to pay back that debt if they even can. In the meantime, that’s 12 – 15 years they cannot contribute back to the economy because they are under the heavy burden of debt, which in case you need a reminder, is the highest debt in this country.
These are people who ARE trying to work for their self-interests, but it’s being made increasingly impossible every step of the way.
Organite!!
Our country, you would agree … has the fattest and richest poor … we have the stupidest ignorant … do you want the government to wipe their bottoms as well?
You see a poor man and see him as a lifetime voter for the SocDems. You give him food money, phone, housing, and yet don’t really ask anything in return.
I see the same person, and see a man with limitless possibilities. All of us that were born here all the have the same opportunities, despite being poor or rich, we all have an opportunity to make what we can out of our lives.
I seen many rich kids who blow their life opportunities, thinking that Mommy and Daddy’s money will always be around. I mean, look at GunFree UH, Alex, a man just starting out life at 57, in college. By the time I’m his age, I will have been retired for going on 8-9 years. It’s what we do with our opportunities that makes or breaks our lives.
Even in poor areas, there are still many opportunities out there for students willing to do what is required to get ahead. Environment plays a big role in their upbringing … if you are surrounded by drug dealers, you might wind up a street pharmacist; but if you really want out of the hood, you will find a way.
And its a shame that those in the hood that are trying to educate themselves are mercilessly ridiculed for improving their lives, Yet, I never really here of efforts in the poor areas encouraging anyone to stand up for themselves, pull themselves up by the boot straps. All I hear is them blaming this or that for their ills. Complaint here, complaint there. It’s someones else’s fault expect mine that I reside in an unhealthy atmosphere.
So I ask you Organite!! Do you want to teach a man to fish? Or, do you want to wipe their bottoms?
They can work two jobs to send themselves through college like my hubby did or they can go to night school for eight years like I did and have minimal debt when graduating. Don’t whine and expect others to pay your way.
I can’t say how different things were when you went to school, but it will also have taken me just shy of 8 years to get my degree. I had to work 3 part time jobs for the first half of my degree and then had to take out loans when I couldn’t work in the latter half when class times are super rigid.
So yea, I made it work, but the difference between you and I is I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. It shouldn’t take 8 years for someone to get their life going because it takes them that long to get through school because of questionable finances.
All anyone is trying to do is better themselves, and it’s people with the mentality of, “well I made it work my way, so you can too, stop complaining,” that don’t recognize that it doesn’t work for everyone, and it doesn’t work anymore.
My grandfather paid his entire tuition debt free working part time at Whataburger in Austin while he went to UT and graduated in the standard 4 year time period… Good luck finding anyone who can say the same today.
Want a free college education? There are already programs in place. For example: U.S. Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, or any National Guard. You enlist and do your duty, and they’ll give you your GI bill which will cover most of your education. Go enlist (or go to a military academy) and earn that education, it’s how every generation of my family (that has gone to college) has made it through college.
Work for something if you so desire it. There are also trade schools which can pay a lot more than many college degrees, take much less time, and have great upward mobility.
So what you’re saying is only those who join the military deserve an affordable education? Not everyone’s calling is the military. God bless those who do join and good on them for reaping the benefits of doing so, but it’s not an American “duty” to join the military.
I absolutely hate the old boy argument of, “well I made it work my way, so there’s not reason you can’t, too.” The problem is that even if you do want to work for your education you can’t. A part-time job at minimum wage or anywhere near it isn’t going to come anywhere close to paying for an education. That may have been the case 30 or so years ago, but it’s not doable anymore. It’s only more profoundly daunting when your parent’s income directly affect your ability to get Stafford loans or Pell grants until you’re 24, even if they don’t support you at all…
And offering trade schools as a viable alternative is a terrible idea. Whether a traditional college education is better than trade schooling is debatable, but what isn’t debatable is the hiring ability between them. People with Bachelor’s degrees are by and large more likely to get hired than someone with a trade school certification even if it is for the same job that they are both equally qualified for, and the degree holder will get paid more to boot.
Two words: NIGHT SCHOOL
Please elaborate on how that solves anything, because based on your other comment, you sound tremendously short-sighted.
I can’t finish my engineering degree doing night school anywhere.
And while I could take late evening classes I did because I had to work 3 part time jobs and still needed loans to pay for those classes. And I commuted to boot.
So don’t even begin to tell me that night school makes paying for college doable in this day and age because you would be sadly mistaken.
While yes, the GI Bill covers a substantial amount, it does not nearly cover all with today’s prices of college. I’ve seen more and more veterans enroll with Community College first because University’s are far too expensive for the GI Bill to cover.
And like @organite:disqus mentioned, not everyone’s calling is the military. My husband is in the Air Force. He’s working towards his degree while he serves, slowly. Me however? I couldn’t join because I previously had cancer. They wouldn’t take me even though I have great health now. The military is picky with who they choose, especially when health is involved.
For my husband to afford his 4 year degree, it’s going to take his GI Bill PLUS multiple scholarships and grants. While I agree with this article that college cannot feasibly be free, I do believe the price should be lowered.
Based on what analysis do you say that ‘college cannnot feasibly be free’ – conservatives are so quick to say things are impossible, but never quick to provide evidence.
Nothing is free. Ever. The cost has to land somewhere doesn’t it? The cost in this case lands on the government, which will lead to more national debt, more taxes, ect. High school kids already get their high school degree for free, courtesy of the government, and see how seriously half the kids in high school take it. Most couldn’t care less about their grades.
So it is feasible, it’s just a question of raising the revenue to do it. We know that people already pay to go to college, so that’s obviously possible.
As far as people not caring about their grades – unfortunately, having freedom means that some people are going to waste it. Doesn’t mean we should live in an autocracy.
Except the literal definition of feasible is possible to do easily or conveniently. I don’t think raising taxes further than they already are is feasible, personally.
Why is that? Historically, taxes were *much* higher than they are right now, with little to no economic effect. In fact, Ronald Reagan *raised* taxes on the middle class (and most Americans) and he is widely regarded as one of the best Presidents of all time. George W. Bush also raised taxes on the middle class, and though he isn’t well regarded no one claims that was controversial.
We have a $19T debt, the majority of which is due to tax cuts that were not paid for with spending cuts. I submit that if it’s easy to cut taxes (without concern for what happens), it is just as east to raise them.
The article you linked to says nothing about the costs of Bernie’s plan rolling back on to the middle class. All it talks about is that his plan would pay for 2/3 of tuition and states would have to play ball for the rest. Which, by the way, even if tuition were only 1/3 of what everyone pays now that’s still far more manageable. And the argument made in that article suggests that the states are currently doing enough when it comes to funding state schools. They aren’t. States have been rapidly divesting from education for a long time; to the point that most public institutions get the vast majority of their budget from other sources or don’t and have to make up the difference in hiking up tuition.
You make the argument that people cannot come out of grade school and get a decent job anymore because public education made it widely available, but you neglect to mention that there are several things outside of the college price tag that differentiate it from grade school: You have to have a high school diploma or equivalent, you have to meet the school’s admissions criteria, you have to go to class and pass exams, and you have to graduate. As people getting/having gotten a college education I think we can all agree that those factors aren’t always something everyone can achieve even if they didn’t have to pay their tuition. At the end of the day, college is still something you have to want to do. You still have to invest the time, the effort, and the will to make it through and all anyone is asking for is a break on the money side of it.
Lastly, the article you link to that mentions that states that countries with paid tuition are the most employed you fail to mention that Norway and Sweden, countries with free tuition, do better than us when it comes to the stat in question. Finland and Slovenia do worse than the US by a small margin. Also, South Korea may charge for their schooling, but the cost of an education there is less than half what we pay for it here.
Another thing that study doesn’t take into account is cultural differences between countries.
Take Germany for example, they have two different high schools: regular high school and what they call the Gymnasium. The Gymnasium is reserved for those who do well in lower grade levels, and after they graduate they typically go on to university, which is free. The rest, graduate earlier and either go in to the work force or go to vocational school. After vocational school, then you can go to university. So that’s two extra years of education Germans need just to get into university if they didn’t graduate from Gymnasium, and they STILL have a 30% educated workforce according to the cited stats.
I cannot see why plumbers, electricians, landscapers etc should pay for spoiled kids getting useless “studies” degrees or pay for the degrees of STEM students who will make much more over their lifetime than the average citizen. Any tax on corporations or financial institutions is ultimately born by.everyday. citizens not corporations who simply pass the cost of taxes and fees along to their customers. Have you looked at all the “fees and taxes” on your cable Bill alone???