The fact that she is NRFPT is not his fault. She is the head of a movement, and Cavuto was giving her plenty of air time to make her case for her pov and perhaps, even obtain more supporters…
@mom2collegekids in response to your question yes I think wealth should be more distributed. This would help with the economy and the financing of college educations. According to studies it is the worst it has been in about 100 years. What do you think?
I think salaries should be the same for example for women performing the same work as men. I dont think a CEO should make a 1000 times what a factory worker makes What do you think? This really brings us back to the issues that the girl and others were trying to raise. Do we as a society think schools like Northeastern should only be for the rich if they are the only ones who can afford it? Or do we believe that college educations should be more affordable to all .
Questions of college affordability for all really comes down to wages, tax rates, government grants etc just to name a few. Lets address those issues in a meaningful discussion
@mom2collegekids - if someone gets fed up with the tax rates and leaves the U.S. she/ he would have to give up citizenship to avoid U.S. taxes. Then by definition they are no longer part of our 1%. My H is our resident expert on U.S. taxes, but my understanding is that citizens and residents are taxed on worldwide income. How many of the 1% in this country are giving up their citizenship to avoid taxes? Maybe a few at best would be my guess.
And sure one can engage in all that “shady” offshore activity to shelter assets, but you do so at your own risk.
The interview became, for me, truly cringeworthy from about 1:20 onwards. We can see Ms. Mullen nodding along with most of the points Cavuto makes with a “yep” or “right” every other pause, when his line of argument is plain as day. Our school’s grade 8 debate team could see the point he’s building up to, but she apparently can’t. Later, we see the same thing when Cavuto brings up the example of Greece to highlight the dangers of public spending on colleges. That suggests, to me, that - completely unprepared for the interview - she took any fact he brought up as a lifeline, which is not a position to be in when you’re an advocate for a larger cause.
When she reached “I don’t believe that. That sounds…absolutely ludicrous to me,” I had to wince, as the parallels to some college protesters who’ve been in the news lately (Who believe others should apologize for their offense at a remark) are hardly auspicious.
Her largest problem, however, seems to be an inability to distinguish between the problem she’s trying to address (student debt) and a different issue (income inequality). Very much like the Yale students who are furious at one master, demanding that he step down, and cite a history of slights and exclusion at Yale - which has nothing to do with the master in question - in justifying their efforts, I see some misdirected rage at work. Ms. Mullen is angry about income inequality - believing that 90% taxation on the rich would be a fair solution - and seems of the opinion that student loans are a tool of the filthy capitalist 1%.
By some terrible oversight, this is a student who’s managed to survive three and some years at Northeastern and a yearlong internship with the ACLU without acquiring a basic knowledge of economics, government, or common sense. As someone who does believe in several of her ultimate goals - reducing student debt, increasing wages, and ultimately bringing about a more equitable income distribution - she hasn’t helped any of those causes by looking like a fool on TV. Such people are to center-left voters what the likes of Donald Trump (“I will be great” is not an economic policy) and Rick Perry (“Oops!”) are to centrist Republicans.
The issue of student loans is not a simple one, and there are dozens of explanations for the current situation. None of the causes are easily addressed, and the first step is for the uninformed - and, her personal experience notwithstanding, I count Ms. Mullen among that number - to clear the field.
Ah, that explains her!!
“Lets address those issues in a meaningful discussion”
And her “plan” for addressing the issues, in entirety, was to put all the blame on the 1% and basically expect them to fix the problem by being willing to release the majority of their wealth to the masses.
Within the first minute of the interview she stated that the 1% are “hoarding the wealth” and that they in fact are “causing the catastrophe that students are facing”. It’s not the students’ fault (never seems it is these days), it’s the 1% who are causing the problems. And her whole “plan” to address the issues was lean on the 1% to be more “socially responsible” and fix the problem - since, of course, they caused it.
As far as Cavuto’s handling of the interview, unless I forgot, I don’t think he ever argued with her on the moral or political implications of her “plan”. He simply pointed out how completely lacking the “plan” would be in addressing the problem, the fact she had absolutely no grounding in the economics involved, and she was completely blind to the effects of increasing tax rates on people’s behavior. Was he direct - yes, unfair - absolutely not.
People keep talking about this 90% marginal tax rate as if it were something theoretical that had never been tried. It has, and it was a disaster. Like any policy that is too extreme, it results in avoidance behavior. Prohibition is the most spectacular example. But there was so much tax avoidance back then that government revenues were dangerously low. Obviously there were lots of other issues like lack of investment capital, etc. and the country was suffering. John Kennedy took over and immediately reduced the tax rate dramatically and tax revenues shot up considerably. Not coincidentally, economic growth boomed and by 5 years later the economy was expanding at about a 6.6% rate. It is a complicated and very debatable issue of course, like everything in economics because you can never control all the variables like you can in chemistry and physics. So cause and effect become great dinner table and classroom conversation. But it is nearly inarguable that the 90% tax rate was a disaster and would be again, unless you really want to live in a country as oppressive as ours would have to be to truly enforce such a policy. I would say at that point we would have truly lost sight of our core principles.
Again, it seems to me to be an issue of individual responsibility. This young woman and her family made very poor decisions because she wanted a Lexus (at least in terms of cost) when she could only afford a lower priced car. Isn’t it really that simple in most cases of overly burdensome undergraduate debt?
@harvestmoon1 I am not an expert on taxes but it is my understanding that here are a number of strategies to avoid US taxes without giving up your citizenship. One would be to live overseas for at least 18 months or so. Another would be form an overseas corporation that makes money overseas and spend it from there.
Lots of people utilize foreign corporations including most of the major corporations such as microsoft and apple
@TomSrOfBoston Whatever one may think of the ACLU’s current stances, they were on the right side of history in cases like Korematsu v. U.S., Brown v. Board of Education, and - more recently - Lawrence v. Texas. There are people at the ACLU who have something other than rocks in their heads, though this particular student apparently avoided even a chance encounter with such figures during her time there.
@HarvestMoon1 You’re quite right. We’re one of two countries in the world (Eritrea being the other) imposing citizenship-based taxation on all citizens. A few years ago, Congress passed a law seeking to catch “tax cheats” abroad by requiring that US citizens report all foreign bank accounts. A substantial bipartisan majority passed the law as part of a larger appropriations bill, by a veto-proof margin (not that the president considered vetoing it). The results:
-More tax paperwork for 7-8 million American abroad.
-US citizens continue to pay US taxes and whatever taxes may be imposed by their country of residence
-More paperwork for any bank with American customers, with the result that…
-Many banks don’t accept US clients because the hassle is simply too much.
It’s a wrong-headed system, and anyone who’s truly determined to hide their money overseas can afford tax lawyers that have already shifted their assets to the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other such tax havens.
@tiger1307 The topic at hand is that of college loans and the minimum wage, the main issues embraced by the Million Student March. I’m sure most people here would love it if this world were safe enough for us to spend $0 on our military and put the $500 billion+ to other uses, but that’s beside the point of the thread. If it’s a wide-ranging political debate encompassing every major issue for the country that you’re looking for, you may want to try a site like www.debatepolitics.com
EDIT: In response to post #87: Living overseas for 18+ months doesn’t help you avoid taxes. My parents, among others, can attest to that. They don’t pay state or local taxes, because they aren’t living in a US state or locality, but still pay federal taxes while getting no federal benefits.
Corporations like Microsoft and Apple make billions of dollars in profits from selling their wares in the 190+ countries that are not the USA. Certainly, there’s a great deal of tax avoidance, but much of it is driven by high corporate tax rates in conjunction with infinite loopholes (like keeping foreign profits parked abroad), and raising taxes will only exacerbate that problem.
Those using shell corporations to bank their money offshore are a tiny minority of the population; the lawyers who handle such operations charge more for the work involved than most Americans make in a year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/05/08/new-un-american-record-renouncing-u-s-citizenship/
The Forbes article includes a graph.
US citizens are taxed at US rates no matter where they live in the world. Some of the people giving up their citizenship live and work in foreign countries, and are finding it difficult to hold bank accounts, given the paperwork involved.
Ms. Mullen’s parents must be part of the 1%. You need a large income to afford a house worth $1 million. I found an online mortgage calculator which recommended an income of $217,151 to qualify for a $1 million mortgage; $173,721 for an $800,000 mortgage. That doesn’t include tuition or living expenses.
There is the concept of the “Laffer Curve,” which posits that government tax receipts rise and fall with tax rates. The higher the tax, the less incentive people have to produce income. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
The marginal tax rate of 90 per cent was under Eisenhower a republican. Currently it is 39.6. What is important is not the marginal tax rate but the effective tax rate. It is generally understood that the economy prospered in the 1950s
@tiger1307 I am no expert either so maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in. But I do not think that living abroad for 18 months is going to help you. Not if you want to come back and have a family here. Under the IRS’s “substantial presence” test I don’t think you can spend more than 180 in the U.S. without triggering an obligation to file a tax return, no matter what your citizenship might be.
@Periwinkle Excellent article.
Of particular relevance IMHO:
In answer to your second question, I would say, ‘yes, absolutely’. If NEU (or any other private college) wants economic diversity, let them go raise money for scholarships.
And in response to your third sentence, I believe public college education should be affordable. I could care less about the cost of private colleges.
btw: in Ms. Mullen’s case, University of Illinois is a excellent college, and much less expensive than NEU.
[QUOTE=""]
The U.S. government has published a list of people who expatriated during the first quarter of 2015. It is a kind of naming and shaming and is required by law. The number, 1,335 during the first 90 days of the year, may seem small. Yet it is the highest quarterly number of published expatriates ever. Calendar 2014 was the highest annual total, with 3,415. The annual total for 2015 looks to be higher still as Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship hits another all-time high. <<<
[/QUOTE]
And, it may not just be renouncing citizenship. It could just be putting money in areas that the US can’t reach/touch…owning properties in other countries, owning tax free bonds, etc. Once gov’t start aggressively “redistributing wealth,” people figure out ways to move and hide money.
An expat may have to pay income taxes on income, but those who have a lot of wealth don’t just have income, they have holdings. Much of complaining that goes on about “wealth inequalities” really has to do with assets, not income.
If I had $10M to put towards vaca homes around the world, I might buy them in countries with low/no property taxes. The US wouldn’t be getting one dime from those “wealth holdings”.
@mom2collegekids - And unless you renounced your citizenship, any income generated by those properties would be taxable.
Absolutely.
And, there are a lot of REALLY good public school systems in the Chicago area so they wouldn’t have had to pay for Parker. Might they have had to move? Sure. People do that all the time and I personally know people who have. Might her father’s commute have been longer? Sure. Again, I know many people in the Chicago area whose daily commute is 4 hours roundtrip. Suck it up.
High School ALONE at Parker totals $137,510 (if she went K-12 it would have been $411,370). Looks like it was a simple choice of spending all the money earlier. I have no problem if that’s the choice they made, but then don’t complain if you have none left and need $150 in loans later on.
Does this all mean that the college system in country needs straightening out? Not at all. But there are cheaper choices in life. And, yes, some can be downright affordable.
What you are leaving out was that the marginal tax rate at the time was on income above a level of about $2,500,000 in today’s dollars. This tax rate was set in 1944 during WW II. When there are calls today to increase the income tax, it generally call for increases on the highest current bracket which is around $233,000. Big difference.
Since you want lower college costs (which I agree with), how do you fee about moving to the system similar to that in Germany? Public college is free in that country, but it is a no frills system. Some differences between Germany and the US:
Three year degrees instead of four
Students take only classes in their major specific study plan
A much lower percentage of the population attends college
No or few dorms, and the dorms are minimalist
No student unions or recreational facilities
No sports and minimal student activities
Much larger classes in lecture halls
Fewer administrators and lower faculty pay
While this may be the opposite extreme from the US, it wouldn’t hurt to freeze tuition for a few years by paring back such amenities somewhat. My mother - who attended a major US college, way back when - remarked on a recent visit to her alma mater, that the school was now more reminiscent of a luxury hotel than of a college.
In a race to continue attracting well-off kids used to certain buildings and services, many schools have been adding facilities which go far beyond what’s necessary, and passing the bill on to students, while allowing their administrative departments to grow at a staggering rate. There are now universities which cost full-pay students more than 4 years at a 5-star hotel.
Most countries with free public colleges limit access to higher education that is reserved for the better students. Or they accept everyone and weed out half during the first year.