Support NeoGAF

[soul creator]

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.

1) since it's progressive taxation, the tax increase may not necessarily be in the "this will cause my family to hurt" range.
2) If the $2000 tax increase allows them to send their kid to college, as opposed to, say, paying $3000 out of pocket, it's still a net benefit for them, and a huge benefit to piece of mind, since it's not another out of pocket cost that you have to stress over. It's instead just something that's there by virtue of being a citizen. For all intents and purposes, it's "invisible" and "free" (obviously not literally, but in the same way people usually don't stress over their taxes for other needed public services). Unless, they're planning not to go to college or not send their kid(s) to college at all. Then I guess in that case, they would stress over it. Maybe. Depends on if these same people are also stressing over paying for parks and public K-12 that they may not 100% use.
3) They'd probably have to get taxes raised on them anyway to pay for this program, so at the very least, there's a political benefit. Because you can now say "this directly benefits you as well" as opposed to saying "you're rich, so we're not gonna give this to you, but we're gonna tax you for it anyway".

In summary, making it a universal program changes the conversation. It would no longer be "do you want to pay $2000/year to help other people go to college". It's instead "do you think $2000/year is worth being able to send you and/or members of your family to college". Just on a raw self-interest appeal, the latter is much more likely to get people to buy into it. Still not a guarantee obviously, but I'd say it's a much more solid basis to start from when trying to sell a political program.

And maybe this doesn't apply to every single type of policy, but I think for things like health care and education, this makes sense.

 

[Zoe]

2) If the $2000 tax increase allows them to send their kid to college, as opposed to, say, paying $3000 out of pocket, it's still a net benefit for them, and a huge benefit to piece of mind, since it's not another out of pocket cost that you have to stress over. It's instead just something that's there by virtue of being a citizen. For all intents and purposes, it's "invisible" and "free" (obviously not literally, but in the same way people usually don't stress over their taxes for other needed public services)

It's not a one-time tax though... that argument will never work.

 

[iMAGINATION]

I think this would be better if it were merit based, if the child graduates with a 3.0 or above then college tuition is free. It would also give kids an incentive to work harder in high school.

 

[johnny956]

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)

I would basically have to make double my salary in Brooklyn compared to here in St. Louis. No way my job or my wife's job pay double that up there. That's insane

 

[Quixzlizx]

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?

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/

The Census ACS 1-year survey reports that the median household income for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island New York metro area was $68,743 in 2015

So $125k is already almost twice as high as the median household income of the most expensive area of NY.

 

[numble]

1) since it's progressive taxation, the tax increase may not necessarily be in the "this will cause my family to hurt" range.
2) If the $2000 tax increase allows them to send their kid to college, as opposed to, say, paying $3000 out of pocket, it's still a net benefit for them, and a huge benefit to piece of mind, since it's not another out of pocket cost that you have to stress over. It's instead just something that's there by virtue of being a citizen. For all intents and purposes, it's "invisible" and "free" (obviously not literally, but in the same way people usually don't stress over their taxes for other needed public services). Unless, they're planning not to go to college or not send their kid(s) to college at all. Then I guess in that case, they would stress over it. Maybe. Depends on if these same people are also stressing over paying for parks and public K-12 that they may not 100% use.
3) They'd probably have to get taxes raised on them anyway to pay for this program, so at the very least, there's a political benefit. Because you can now say "this directly benefits you as well" as opposed to saying "you're rich, so we're not gonna give this to you, but we're gonna tax you for it anyway".

In summary, making it a universal program changes the conversation. It would no longer be "do you want to pay $2000/year to help other people go to college". It's instead "do you think $2000/year is worth being able to send you and/or members of your family to college". Just on a raw self-interest appeal, the latter is much more likely to get people to buy into it. Still not a guarantee obviously, but I'd say it's a much more solid basis to start from when trying to sell a political program.

And maybe this doesn't apply to every single type of policy, but I think for things like health care and education, this makes sense.

I said a $2000/year tax, not a one time tax. The data is already available in the OP. The cost of tuition at SUNY is $6,470 per year, or $26,000. For 2 kids that would be $52,000. As a back of the envelope calculation, I think a $2000/year tax would cover it.

My back of the envelope tax calculation does make it a progressive tax. Right now, there is no tax for those under $125k. To pay for those over $125k (this is the top 15% of incomes), we charge tax on these people.

3) There are no tax raises proposed as part of this currently proposed program. There likely would need funding from somewhere (taxes) to pay for everyone.

 

[soul creator]

It's not a one-time tax though... that argument will never work.

Fair point, though one can also say that the benefits of a college-educated population isn't a one-time benefit either, and that would also outweigh the $2000/year. Some people pay more than $2000 year in student loans well after they graduate from college, so there's also that (I still pay around that much, and graduated from a relatively cheap in-state school in Texas 12 years ago). So it's not like the current system is necessarily preventing those continuous costs either. So even with a $2000/year tax, that's still coming out mostly ahead.

But sure, there's still definitely a point where some person might end up paying more for something they won't use as much when doing a pure dollar-for-dollar comparison...but I would think that's still a better starting point politically than saying "we are specifically barring you from using this, but we want you to pay anyway".

edit: I noticed you said there are no tax raises proposed for this particular program, so my apologies since my original point may not apply as much for this very specific scenario. But I think the political argument still holds regardless, universal programs are easier to sell to people.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/



So $125k is already almost twice as high as the median household income of the most expensive area of NY.

It being twice the median income indicates how horrible folks on the lower end of the spectrum have it. Not that "Hey you're doing good enough shut up!"

Once again: how does raising the cap to help middle class folks hurt those that would also get this college education for "free"?

 

[numble]

Fair point, though one can also say that the benefits of a college-educated population isn't a one-time benefit either, and that would also outweigh the $2000/year. Some people pay more than $2000 year in student loans well after they graduate from college, so there's also that (I still pay around that much, and graduated from a relatively cheap in-state school in Texas 12 years ago). So it's not like the current system is necessarily preventing those continuous costs either. So even with a $2000/year tax, that's still coming out mostly ahead.

But sure, there's still definitely a point where some person might end up paying more for something they won't use as much when doing a pure dollar-for-dollar comparison...but I would think that's still a better starting point politically than saying "we are specifically barring you from using this, but we want you to pay anyway".

Please do your calculations again. $2000/year tax for life does not come out ahead of $2000/year in student loans that will eventually be paid off.

 

[numble]

It being twice the median income indicates how horrible folks on the lower end of the spectrum have it. Not that "Hey you're doing good enough shut up!"

Once again: how does raising the cap to help middle class folks hurt those that would also get this college education for "free"?

The state is not the federal government. It cannot print dollars. It can only spend the dollars it has, which means decreasing aid to the current group to spread it out to more people, or raise taxes to get more dollars to fund it for more people. Like I said, a rough, back of the envelope calculation is $2000/year in taxes for life for someone in twice the median income group to allow their kids to go to SUNY for free.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

The state is not the federal government. It cannot print dollars. It can only spend the dollars it has, which means decreasing aid to the current group to spread it out to more people, or raise taxes to get more dollars to fund it for more people. Like I said, a rough, back of the envelope calculation is $2000/year in taxes for life for someone in twice the median income group to allow their kids to go to SUNY for free.

It's NY. They're going to raise taxes regardless.

 

[spwolf]

Please do your calculations again. $2000/year tax for life does not come out ahead of $2000/year in student loans that will eventually be paid off.

it is also per taxpayer for life, not per family... so overall it is a lot of money.

For income tax for instance, average tax for average family is a lot higher in european countries with free education, plus sales taxes in Europe are between 19% and 25%.

It is not a simple issue definitely.


These tax rates apply to single people with no children, on an average salary for their country.
Belgium- 42.80%
Germany - 39.90%
Denmark - 38.90%
Hungary- 35%
Austria -34%
Greece - 25.4%
OECD Average - 25.10%
UK - 24.90%
USA - 22.70%

The following tax rates apply to married couples with two children.
Denmark - 34.8%
Austria - 31.9%
Belgium- 31.8%
Finland -29.4%
Netherlands - 28.7%
Greece 26.7%
UK - 24.9%
Germany - 21.3%
OECD average - 19.6%
USA - 10.4%
Korea - 10.2%

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26327114

 

[soul creator]

Please do your calculations again. $2000/year tax for life does not come out ahead of $2000/year in student loans that will eventually be paid off.

Apologies, see my edit.

And as mentioned, it's not like the benefits of a college education only last for 4 years and then just stop, so even taking into account the "$2000/year for life" argument, you can say that a college education means you're more likely able to make more in your lifetime as a result of that college education than what just the tax payment shows. I (and most other people) happen to pay thousands of dollars per year for things that we can only use when we're 65+ years old, and those programs are also still politically popular, so it's not like people are inherently against the idea of paying a "tax for life". And a college education is far more directly beneficial to my current self-interest than paying for Medicare/Social Security.

(note: I'm not arguing against Medicare/Social Security, and I think those should be expanded as well)

 

[M0nochromatic]

You people are obviously not poor if you'r buying candy AT the theater itself. Everyone around here knows you smuggle that shit in there because you can buy it for less then half the price anywhere else.

If it's sufficiently chilly you can sneak in bottled drinks in a big coat, but it can be risky depending on the sound it outputs. Sodas are a no go, but a compact thermos with some hot choclate is perfect.

But yeah anyways, free college is something we should really get on.

 

[numble]

It's NY. They're going to raise taxes regardless.

There are no taxes part of this plan. This is because it isn't a really large expansion. They already provide awards of up to $5,165--this already covers the cost of CUNY. This program will raise the award to $6,470.

You were asking how raising the income cap would hurt others, so I answered.

 

[Cybit]

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/new-york/new-york/

So $125k is already almost twice as high as the median household income of the most expensive area of NY.

I think you're confusing Long Island with Brooklyn

From the same link

The ACS 1-year data shows the median family income for New York was $82,374 in 2015

Also - its' household income, and it's not average, it's the median. Don't assume that the average household has two people working in it and has two kids. Only 2/3 of households have two incomes, and I think about half of those don't have kids currently (since the population has outsized bumps in millenials and baby boomers, folks who are just starting to have kids and those who probably have adult kids who are not in the household). Otherwise, you'd be saying the average person in NYC makes 30kish a year, which means they're making $15 an hour. Pretty sure the average person living in NYC makes way more than that.

Even as someone who would be impacted by this (not planning to have kids) - I do wonder whether there needs to be a higher tax rate (outside deductions) for dual income families with no kids. Seems interesting that Europe does that.

 

[nel e nel]

I think you're confusing Long Island with Brooklyn

From the same link



Also - its' household income, and it's not average, it's the median. Don't assume that the average household has two people working in it and has two kids. Only 2/3 of households have two incomes, and I think about half of those don't have kids currently (since the population has outsized bumps in millenials and baby boomers, folks who are just starting to have kids and those who probably have adult kids who are not in the household). Otherwise, you'd be saying the average person in NYC makes 30kish a year, which means they're making $15 an hour. Pretty sure the average person living in NYC makes way more than that.

Even as someone who would be impacted by this (not planning to have kids) - I do wonder whether there needs to be a higher tax rate (outside deductions) for dual income families with no kids. Seems interesting that Europe does that.

It varies from borough to borough:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...an_and_brooklyn_are_much_poorer_than_you.html

Yet recently released census data paints a different portrait. Measured by median income, Manhattan and (especially) Brooklyn are much poorer than you think. Manhattan’s median annual household income is $66,739, while Brooklyn’s is a mere $44,850. Its less fashionable neighbor, Queens, outearns Brooklyn at $54,373 per year. New York City’s most suburban borough, Staten Island, is also its richest, with a median household income of $70,295, while the suburban counties surrounding New York are all richer than any of the boroughs

.

And for what it's worth, the areas that are seeing the sharpest gentrification are still fractions of the entire city. We're talking a handful of neighborhoods in boroughs that have dozens of them.

 

[Deleted member 284]

It varies from borough to borough:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...an_and_brooklyn_are_much_poorer_than_you.html

Ain't this the truth. Brooklyn is not all Williamsburg/hipster central. Try going to Canarsie/Brownsville/East Flatbush.

 

[Malleymal]

This should be based off of EFC which in itself is pretty shotty... but at least it shows what a family should contribute