<p>He’s apparently introduced this in the last 4 Congresses, but they keep ignoring it until it dies. It disgusts me that those who campaign on egalitarianism, brighter futures, affordable college, etc. can’t put their money where their mouth is. What a novel concept that struggling college kids should get the same tax breaks that savvy investors take for themselves when they shelter their capital gains.</p>
<p>Whether you agree with him on everything or not, its becoming painfully clear that Ron Paul is the only Congressman with no ties to the Washington establishment, who actually cares about ordinary Americans.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>This may actually drive up the cost of education although it would shift the burden to the backs of the taxpayers. If colleges are charging $50k/yr now and this tax break effectively means that the attendee reduces their price by 33% for example, then maybe the college will simply boost the COA by 33%.</p></li>
<li><p>This deduction effectively means that taxpayers will end up subsidizing private institutions. We already do this with state colleges so why do it for privates? </p></li>
<li><p>Why should I as a taxpayer subsidize someone who CHOOSES to go to an expensive out of area college when they could just as well have gone to a local college (and lived at home if they couldn’t afford the dorm) and a state college at a lower tuition cost? </p></li>
</ul>
<p>I don’t think anyone has a ‘right’ to attend an expensive private university. If they want to spend their money to do so then more power to them but I don’t want my tax dollars to subsidize their expensive decisions.</p>
<p>I don’t think the bill makes sense (based on a cursory read of it) and am glad it was killed.</p>
<p>The department of education is an absurdly huge and inefficient bureaucracy. We need less government control of education, not more. Look at the place where the federal government has 100% control-Washington D.C. Its one of the worst school districts in the country. Around $13,000 is spent per child, and the results are some of the worst in the country.</p>
<p>Leaving education up to the whims and pockets of local taxpayers will result in inequities that we can not afford- how does Paul propose to avoid that?</p>
<p>Largely incorrect. Congress shares jurisdiction with the local council, the local board of education, and the Superintendent’s office, as well as the mayor (to some degree). Due to the various authorities that the Superintendent has to answer to (Congress and local authorities), it’s stalled any foreseeable progress in the District of Columbia, thanks to bureaucratic entanglement. It’s not an example of where federal government intervention is ruining a school district; rather, it’s a multi-car pileup on the interstate, making it unnavigable. The Department of Education, to my knowledge, has never held extensive jurisdiction (if any) over the D.C. school system, so your example doesn’t really work.</p>
<p>By letting the free market decide what we can and cant afford. If we’re financing schools with actual local tax dollars instead of asking the Federal Reserve to print more money and run up more debt, we might think twice about that new football stadium, or that research project about fruit-fly paternity. We might actually spend money on math and science curriculum like the rest of the world is doing. The USA mathematically literate and on par with the rest of the world again, imagine that.</p>
<p>We might actually spend money on math and science curriculum like the rest of the world is doing.</p>
<p>Or we might have schools in depressed communities who can barely keep going, have class sizes of 40, and the district in the next town over decide that they are going to teach science from a creationist perspective.</p>
<p>Without federal oversight I fear that special education would disappear.
When I was in school, many kids with special needs weren’t allowed to go to school depending on disability or else they just weren’t served at all.
As a parent of two kids with learning difference, I know that these kids can attend college and contribute to society, but without federal law making that possible, that will diminish the future for thousands of kids</p>
<p>There is so much wrong with your logic I don’t know where to start. As the poster above mentioned, the Fed doesn’t print money–it creates money by buying securities. When it does create money, it’s to control interest rates, not fund government spending. </p>
<p>Making educaton purely the realm of local government would reinforce the socioeconomic divides that already plauge the education system. In public education, federal funding acts as a sort of leveler. An affluent school district with high property tax revenues (and thus a huge operating budget) won’t get significantly more money than a poor one. If federal funding were cut out, the top districts would shift their municipal budgets and cover the loss, whereas the lower ones would be left with less resources. </p>
<p>“If we’re financing schools with actual local tax dollars instead of asking the Federal Reserve to print more money and run up more debt, we might think twice about that new football stadium, or that research project about fruit-fly paternity.”</p>
<p>Ok, well schools already financed by tax dollars, but I’m guessing your point is that lower operating budgets and local control will make schools operate more efficiently? The problem with that argument is that most of schools’ costs are fixed–building maintenance, salaries, etc…Schools’ can’t reduce those costs by operating more efficiently, they would be forced to eliminate teachers and increase class sizes.</p>
<p>Your opening post was talking about tax deductions for paying for college but your subsequent posts are talking about the department of education. Are you intentially shifting your discussion or do you think the two are related?</p>
<p>they are related as far as Ron Paul is concerned because he wants to do away with federal involvement in education, I suppose thats how we will pay for tax breaks.</p>
<p>but I’m guessing your point is that lower operating budgets and local control will make schools operate more efficiently?</p>
<p>ya- not having enough money has worked real well in our urban district- :rolleyes:
So we have some schools that have strong involved PTAs, who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars every year- this might go to extra staff and programs as well as supplies.
Other schools that serve lower income parents, might not even * have * a PTA because of a variety of reasons, and likewise those students don’t have the amenities at their school & I’m not talking about new football stadiums but sports teams period or calculators or enough text books for students to have in the classroom, let alone enough so that they can take them home</p>
<p>We already have substantial tax breaks for public and private college attendence. The trouble is that to find these tax breaks, you have to go to different sources. I do appreciate the upfront deduction on interest from income rather than itemization, which we no longer qualify. Borrowed a lot and should have borrowed more at 3.5%.</p>
<p>To a certain extent I feel the system we have in place is sufficient for now. If anything we shouldn’t be concerned with tax breaks, but finding a way to get students to AFFORD a college education in the first place. Sure we have loans, grants etc etc, but take into account the loss of income attending college & the cost of living while attending college & you find yourself with a staggering economic investment which many youngsters from low income families can never dream to be able to afford. Perhaps this is why the lower, middle, and upper class are not as subjected to demographic reform as one would think? But surely those who complain about tax breaks for their children’s education need to think of other besides themselves for a change. :-)</p>
<p>because the interest of the general public is at stake. Why should your son be given the opportunity to have a better life by attending a top school, while mine will not because I can not afford to send him there. Why should any child not be allowed to live up to their full potential because of economic issues? </p>
<p>We do fund state schools, but graduates of the elite private schools end up contributing more to society. It gives the opportunity for less fortunate students to make a difference. Let’s start thinking of public interest for a change, and give everyone the same opportunity. Why should a child be limited to where he/she goes to school. There are many students who can excel profusely at top universities and are restricted to local schools due to their financial situation. Not only does this give these students more opportunity and makes college more of “what school is best for me” rather than “what school can I afford,” It can attribute to overall better education to many lower income families who are not contributing enough to society.</p>
Your S doesn’t need to attend a top school (especially an expensive private college) to ‘have a better life’. Take a look at the backgrounds of many top CEOs, scientists, entrepreneurs, etc. and you’ll find many of them didn’t attend the expensive private schools.</p>
<p>
Why would you say this? Do you have anything to back it up? Graduates of all kinds of schools contribute greatly to society and many grads of ‘elite private schools’ contribute next to nothing to society - i.e. there are all types at the various schools. Take a look at the educational backgrounds of the people you feel are the greatest contributors to society and I think you’ll find many of them who didn’t attend an ‘elite private college’.</p>
<p>I think you have a skewed idea of the value of the expensive private schools.</p>
<p>Well, I’m sorry but statistics don’t lie. Graduates of top schools on average earn more money. Especially in the beginning of their career, more prestigious jobs are available to them helping them get their foot into industries that graduates of local state schools can not even dream about. I personally know many public school graduates. For example I happen to have gone to Stuyvesant HS, and have kept in touch with many students. The ones who went to Ivy league schools such as MIT, Columbia, HYP, etc ended up with much better jobs than the students who were accepted to top schools but could not afford it. </p>
<p>I personally think that this happens to be a solid reasoning behind the middle class staying in the middle class, and the upper class staying in the upper class. They have more resources available, isn’t that after all what makes a top school “top?” The education received and placement of graduates as prestigious jobs. Why should only the rich be entitled to a top tier education, while someone has to settle for a second to best education? Because the parents can not afford the tuition?</p>
<p>We may disagree but I think the numbers speak for themselves. If all are given the opportunity to attend college, why should the top education be restricted to the wealthy? Why not allow those capable of achieving success do so without overwhelming restrictions? </p>
<p>Again, The numbers don’t lie. If a child aspires to become an investment banker and be able to influence world economy on day to day actions. But that is far more difficult without having to overcome tremendous obstacles which can be lessened. </p>
<p>This is not only an issue with colleges, urban k-12 schools are sub par. I am from NYC and went to school here and know exactly how crappy a lot of the high schools are. There just aren’t enough resources. So many kids have to settle for sub-par standards while the wealthy have so much opportunity. Sure, the less fortunate still have opportunity, but they are still restricted due to seemingly impossible to overcome barriers.</p>
<p>My Ds are at state schools and I don’t consider them to be at any disadvantage at all. If you check UCLA and UCSD you’ll see that they rank very highly - above many much more expensive schools. The leading firms are routinely hiring from these schools. Higher cost doesn’t mean a better education.</p>
<p>The ‘top elite private colleges’ also tend to have very good financial aid for low income students who get accepted. Of course, if you’re referring to the Ivy league, there aren’t enough spots to accept anywhere close to the number of top students who apply there so finances often aren’t the issue - available spots are.</p>
<p>I still think it would be worthwhile for you to research the backgrounds of many leading CEOs and successful people and discover how many of them didn’t attend an expensive private school. If you’re a smart hard-working person who happend to attend a flagship state school rather than an Ivy you’ll probably still do very well in life.</p>