That would eventually lead to STEM and other majors being over populated though which would decrease job outlooks though, correct?. I believe something similar happened in Law when it became a very popular option due to its status as a high paying field with good outlook.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NY Gov. Cuomo proposes free tuition at New York state colleges for eligible students
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
That would eventually lead to STEM and other majors being over populated though which would decrease job outlooks though, correct?. I believe something similar happened in Law when it became a very popular option due to its status as a high paying field with good outlook.
Except you said that that was the average. You said that "the average student with parent having an income between around 100k to 150k has the height debt." Which is factually false.
Yes, amongst the minority in that group that borrow, they borrow about $300 more per year compared to the lowest income group, and maybe $50-$100 more per year compared to the second lowest and highest income groups.
I don't see anything that justifies the government paying this group $300 per year, especially when 55% of the group has demonstrated that they do not need it. Think about it in public policy terms--if you had an extra $300 per student to allocate to education, do you give it to the the students in the 100k to 150k group, 55% of which would just pocket the money (maybe to spend on 1 movie and 1 baseball game), or the lowest income group? Or spread it out amongst groups?
That had more to do with an increase number of law schools and lowering admission standards than anything else. Law school was something only tops students went to, not something someone did cause they couldn't find a job.
Skellig Gra
Member
When you have multiple kids yeah it is a lot. When you are a single IT professional then no it's not. Also need to remember just because people spend that much doesn't mean they are living within their means.
Not to mention young married professionals with a child or two making these 1%-er salaries in the mid-60k range typically have student debt...yet people want these rich ass fucks not to get access to aid for their kids to perpetuate the cycle.
Which is a post tax fixed cost.
The idea is not to take from the low income but to give to everyone. 45 percent is a huge number. It's almost 50/50 chance that a student with parents in that income bracket will be fucked over. Those are not good odds and that's fucking over tens of thousands of kids a year.
Plus this is ny state schools which are not highly regarded like the uc schools. The truly rich kids wouldn't go to these schools.
Shit didn't even think of student loan repayments.
Add another 500 to 1000 a month for two people.
Zoe
Member
I don't expect to continue my DINK lifestyle after having kids, and I have no plans to let my kids live like DINKs.
I am not sure what you are talking about then? This plan is for NY state schools. There is no similar plan for UC schools.
It is an almost 50/50 chance that they will borrow $300 more per year than those in the lower income bracket. If you give additional aid to students in this group, 55% of the students would just in effect pocket the money because their families were going to pay for their education anyway.
The idea is that there are limited resources and when you give to people that do not need it, that is taking from the students in lower income brackets.
Shit, I'm going to have to default on my student loans. My biweekly Mets game is non-negotiable.
Shit is expensive in the city, a movie ticket that 10s of millions of people go see a week is like 20 bucks for a person. Parking is usually not free. The kids always freakin want snacks. Then there's dinner afterwards ( if you see the 7 showing or before if you see the 9). Even freakin McDonald's is like 30 for four if you don't mcpick 2 it.
Honestly I don't have a family of 4 yet and my household income far from 125k so this doesn't personally concern me.
I do have a sister in law that has two kids in middle school. Both the parents are public school teachers and combined they make more than this limit(which probably annoys me more than anything, how can two teachers be too rich for their kids to take advantage of this.?)
Reason I thought of movies was because I just bought the kids out to the movies since they wanted to see rogue one and so did I and they're really good to my daughter.
Total cost for 4 people including my wife? Almost two hundred for the movie and dinner.
If you're wondering the location Astoria in queens.
Mammoth Jones
Member
How dare you enjoy life! You best save that money for the increase tax this shit is gonna cost XD
DontBeThatGuy
Member
This is madness. I would have a nice cry if I spent that much on a dinner and movie.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Hate baseball wouldn't even go if it was for free just had to think of the cheapest reasonable sporting event that a family of can go to.
Yes the cheapest reasonable sporting event a family can go to in NYC on a non school night at the worst seats but together will cost you about two hundred bucks after everything (not just the starting price on a ticket you see on stubhub)
This topic has gotten extremely strange the majority of the people have somehow convinced themselves that going to the movies and a sporting event here and there is Donald trump rich.
Zoe
Member
The husband and I don't spend anywhere near the equivalent of 400 NYC dollars a month ($200/person as you said earlier).
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I'll put on a Youtube video and let them experience it vicariously through others because life is filled with disappointments and they need to know this.
(and I'm a cheap ass)
It's what you pay.
4 tickets
two drinks
Large popcorn
Candy
Parking
Total around 120
Diner around ditmars 80 after tax and tip.
Candy eh? I bet you got a large candy too, Rockefeller.
Went last summer. It's ridicules how expensive it is for how little it provides. Plus they nickel and dime you on everything. Everything is extra.
Skellig Gra
Member
Ayy 😂
Shit I didn't even get to go to the movies when I was young. I could probably count all the times I've been to a movie theater before college in one hand and when I did I went to xpect discount and sneaked in food from there.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I wouldn't be loading up all that overpriced junk if I was gonna eat an expensive dinner 90 minutes later. I'd sneak something in if we really need something to snack on that badly. (and because theater food is highway robbery)
Regardless, I can't relate.
Skellig Gra
Member
Real talk tho, I make a good salary now but that shit is a rip. I go to 9 am matinee screenings or nothing.
I make light of the situation now since I'm pretty well off now but being poor sucked when I was young. Especially as I grew older and nobody wanted to come to my house cause they were scared of my neighborhood. Being in honors level classes lead all my friends to being from the rich part of town.
I'm not gonna tell 2 middle schoolers that their uncle Is too cheap to buy them some snacks at the movies. They don't know exactly how much I make but they do know I'm the well off uncle.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
They would've known that about me long before we arrived at the cinema. I'm sure my siblings would also given them a heads up. You find a place to hide that soda and those 1 dollar gummy worms, or it's theater floor leftovers for the both of you.
Monthly unlimited metro card is $117.50. I know not everyone lives by the train, but that seems grossly over estimated.
It's the budget for a family not one person.
Multiply that by 4.
Then add maybe a car for shopping and light travel.
Or maybe one of the parents work in nj, li, or westchester so metro north.
Or an uber here and there because going from Queens to Brooklyn takes two hours by metro but 15 minutes by car.
500 is an understatement..
Mammoth Jones
Member
I pay 380$ a month for the train to get into NYC for work. Not including metro once I'm there. Not including car note. Or insurance. Or gas.
I walk from Penn to my job now. But after I got my hip replaced I took the subway for a long time. That was an extra 100+ a month.
To save money and get a little cardio in I don't do the subway unless pressed for time or the weather is atrocious.
But For a time it was 500 a month. Now it's 400 as I put 25-30 bucks a month on the subway card.
Train, two cars, insurance, gas...way more than 500 a month, lmao.
http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/
Short version; he's making the equivalent of 100k in any other super expensive city in the country. Most of the people posting in this thread would be spending more money when taking into account location + 2 kids, by far.
His total disposable income is 85 dollars a month (per person). So if you spend more than 85 dollars a month on games + dice + hobbies; you're spending more than him.
(20k - 12k for student loans - 4k for car insurance + gas = 4k a year / 1k per person per year)
Short version; he's making the equivalent of 100k in any other super expensive city in the country. Most of the people posting in this thread would be spending more money when taking into account location + 2 kids, by far.
His total disposable income is 85 dollars a month (per person). So if you spend more than 85 dollars a month on games + dice + hobbies; you're spending more than him.
(20k - 12k for student loans - 4k for car insurance + gas = 4k a year / 1k per person per year)
Mammoth Jones
Member
Holy FUCK I need to move to Raleigh NC. Christ. Now I know why my cousins still there.
It depends where you live. Riverdale, Spuyten Duyvil Have always been nice. Gentrification has worked its way through the borough. Yes, there are still some bad neighborhoods but The Bronx is not what it use to be 20-30 years ago.
Yeah, people don't realize that Brooklyn is the same cost of living as downtown San Francisco IIRC; and Manhattan is about 25% more than both of them.
I guess I'd rather pay higher rent and not have to pay for car expenses. I read an article (can't find it ATM), but this family did the math and the cost of higher rent was way offset by living closer to work and ditching their cars.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
This needs to happen everywhere and there shouldn't be a salary limit to it. People who earn $125k might be able to afford it, but they pay taxes just like everyone else. Also by focusing on the less well-to-do it makes it seem like welfare - which makes it an easy target. Besides, a rich person probably wouldn't want to go to a state school anyway, but it needs to be an option nonetheless.
It doesn't sound like there is an age limit - which is good.
Also, the administration mentions the cost without mentioning in the net gain down the road. If people get a college education they will earn more and the state will recoup the money down the road. Its less of a cost, and more of an investment. They shouldn't let that fact fall by the wayside.
It doesn't sound like there is an age limit - which is good.
Also, the administration mentions the cost without mentioning in the net gain down the road. If people get a college education they will earn more and the state will recoup the money down the road. Its less of a cost, and more of an investment. They shouldn't let that fact fall by the wayside.
soul creator
Member
how about we just keep it a universal program, and if you're really worried about "omg rich people might benefit", then just raise their taxes via progressive taxation rather than overcomplicating yet another program via means-testing and making it more politically difficult to defend.
"you should send us your w-2 to prove you're eligible for driving on this public road/visiting this public park" is mostly absurd, yet we seem to constantly apply this mindset to other public programs.
I guess our collective notion of "a common good" has atrophied so much that even liberals can only think of public programs in terms of "handouts to the poor" rather than "programs that benefit all people". It's a similar thing as the obsession with Obamacare over Medicare (even though Medicare is routinely cheaper and largely more politically popular).
And if this means rich kids end up more likely to go to college with poor kids, that seems like a benefit also, rather than further segregating society into "this area is for poors, this area is for rich people".
"you should send us your w-2 to prove you're eligible for driving on this public road/visiting this public park" is mostly absurd, yet we seem to constantly apply this mindset to other public programs.
I guess our collective notion of "a common good" has atrophied so much that even liberals can only think of public programs in terms of "handouts to the poor" rather than "programs that benefit all people". It's a similar thing as the obsession with Obamacare over Medicare (even though Medicare is routinely cheaper and largely more politically popular).
And if this means rich kids end up more likely to go to college with poor kids, that seems like a benefit also, rather than further segregating society into "this area is for poors, this area is for rich people".
Mammoth Jones
Member
Stop making sense!
Are you against affirmative action?
No joke, and Queens is on the way to becoming the new Brooklyn. This past year while housing prices in Brooklyn finally started to level off a bit, the prices in parts of Queens skyrocketed. In 10 years the Bronx will be the new Queens, Queens the new Brooklyn, and don't even bother looking at Manhattan.
If people are complaining about making ends meet on $125k, I don't see how a $2000/year tax increase would be accepted in exchange for their kids' ability to attend a CUNY/SUNY for free.
Affirmative action affects admission. This only affects tuition.
While cost is a barrier to entry for minorities, institutional racism is a way bigger one which AA attacks.
My point was that this policy would essentially be class-based AA.
And it affects admission in two ways.
1. You've already mentioned that people will be able to afford tuition that couldn't before.
2. There's a limited number of admission slots, and this policy will probably help select towards people taking advantage of the free tuition. As the annoyed affluent posters have kept repeatedly stating, state schools are "below" richer people anyway.
Mammoth Jones
Member
You really wanna go there? Fine. But then let's talk about how Black households in the US that even make as much if not more household incomes tend to have less actual wealth than White households...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forb...imes-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/?client=safari
All I'm saying is middle class folks could use this as well. Especially in a state where taxes and genera costs of living is as high as it is.
My point wasn't that AA wasn't needed, or that lower-middle class white people have it worse than black people of any income. It was that this policy can be seen as a helping hand towards people who have a bigger disadvantage than others on a certain scale (in this case, the scale is income).
For what it's worth, I am a proponent of universal basic income, so I am eventually hoping for a society that is willing to harness its economy for universal benefits.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I understand. But my point is if the goal is to help people some folks in the middle class could damn sure use help with sending their kids to college as well. The cut off household income seems ridiculous given the high as fuck taxes and the high cost of living in NY.
Instead we got snide mofos saying "we'll move somewhere else" or " get rid of your car!" Or "don't go to the movies".
How does raising that income cap to include more middle class families hurt?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked