Young adults today: No school, no job, living at home with mom and dad

Trite. Most people know very well that you "don't get something for nothing". Thus, the question becomes, "Whoze gonna payforit?

That question has been decided by other countries a long, long time ago. When they opted for a Social Democracy that insists that not all incomes are equal, but taxation makes total Income equitable/fair/just.

Nobody is forgotten in the mad rush to accrue Wealth in order to have their picture on the front-page of FORTUNE magazine, or their backsides kissed at overpriced French restaurants wherever.

Imagine a country (or even a group of countries) where it is considered that aside from National Defense there a two even-more-important Public Services. One is National Health Care and the other Free (or Nearly Free) Tertiary Education. Yes, Public Services that are sustained by general taxation that is fair and equitable such that ALL may avail themselves of these two key services.

Well, that country aint the US ...

 

Millennials form the backbone of the "progressive" political movement, they like socialism and big government, redistribution of wealth, and of course they want their student loans paid off by people like me - people who actually pay their debts.

 

You're just playing dumb now.

 

And so what?

That same notion is shared by at least 735 million people in the EU all very much attached to Social Democracy precepts. All they want is a more egalitarian society. No, not a one in which all revenues are "equal" - but one in which the distribution of revenues are "equitable".

You are simply behind the times with an egotistical admiration for "winner takes all" ...

 

Millennials are a huge fail across the board, from everything including being single "parents", to being massively in debt, to living in their parents basements.

This is where the bulk of liberals and anti-fa members come from.

They sit unemployed (and unemployable) in their parents basements telling us of their incredible experience and intelligence on a daily basis.

 

You are ignorant of "socialism". It no longer exists anywhere on earth, except maybe North Korea.

Socialism is a political regime in which all the means of production belong to the state. Social Democracy is this:

You should be aware of the important difference ...

 

There is no difference between revenues and distribution of revenues. Love the double-speak.

The problem is there is no fundamentally fair way to take income away from people who earned it. It all involves government theft.

 

THE PERVERSION OF UPPER-INCOME TAXATION

That in red above is just a warped mentality that exists in present day America - and it motors the Replicant Party.

We live and die in a collective - that is, a nation in which we share all a common destiny. An attachment to fairness and equitability is therefore both "vital and natural"*. Which means not "equal incomes" but "equitable incomes" obtained by means of a truly progressive system of taxation.

Unless one is born perversely selfish and egotistical - then life become all about me, me, me and my muney, muney, muney ...

*How many billionaires do you know made their Wealth on a deserted island? Shown here is the consequence of perverted upper-income taxation as instituted by Reckless Ronnie and his minions in the 1980s:
*Ratio of Total Household Wealth to Income. You are welcome to look at the date in which the perversion of upper-income taxation began - in 1980. Who had been elected PotUS? One guess.
*History, Marginal Tax Rate for Highest and Lowest Income Earners

 

You don't even know the definition of "socialism", which exists no where in the world any longer - except perhaps North Korea. Here it is for your edification:

What does exist, otoh, is Social Democracy, defined as:

No, you are not to worry. The US is NOT a social-democracy.

Not by a long-shot ...

 

Certainly it depends upon what people want from the tax base. I would argue that the individual who wants free tuition for college courtesy of the taxpayer is simply asking the older generation to insure that the next generation is prepared to compete and participate in the world we left them. By making this investment, the older tax payer creates an insurance scheme that is altruistic yet selfish at the same time. Both of us as we age will depend upon younger tax payers for transfer payments in SSI, Medicare and Medicaid at a minimum. We will also expect the next generation to continue to improve upon the economy and nation we left them. I see it as money well spent.

 

History shows us that what you claim about todays kids are also true of the early baby boomers and their adults who grew up in the 50s and 60s and benefited from very low government sponsored loans, free tuition in many states for all forms of public secondary schools, very high progressive tax rates and massive redistribution of wealth from the top to the emerging middle class. Are you claiming differently? Prior to Governor Reagan, we had virtually free community and university education in California. It can be done, it just means we have to fully cleanse our collective colons of the scourge of Ayn Rand and conservative bull.

 

Yes and no.

There are "mind sets" in each nation. The US mind-set is to earn as much money as is legally possible. That is not the same in many other nations, who prefer to be "guaranteed" certain specific services by their government.

As I've said a hundred times here: Europeans think we Americans are "damn-fools" for wanting privatized HealthCare and not having free Tertiary-education provided in each state regardless of income level.

Whyzzat?

Because, yes, life is gamble. You throw the dice often and live with the consequences. But, some want at least basic guaranties - like both government provision of HealthCare and Tertiary Education.

Amongst others, but the above would be good for starters in the US - Europe has had them for half a century ...

 

I don't disagree, Woolley. All I'm saying is that we Americans need to be realistic, (and everybody hates that). We need to quit trying to dream up some convoluted scheme to get something we want without paying for it, and just pay for it.

As for higher education, I will tell you what I think. First of all, I believe the best way to finance tuition is at the state level, not the federal level. The mechanism for doing it already exists in the states, and there is much more accountability at the state level than at the federal level. I believe the amount of money should be based upon the cost of tuition at state colleges. If a person chooses to get their education at an expensive private college, they could receive an equivalent amount of money, but they would have to pay the difference between the cost of the state college tuition and the private college tuition.

The mechanism that already exists in the states is the system that pays for K-12 public education. In my state, that money comes from property taxes. Also, in my state, that money is equalized so that all school districts in the state receive the same amount of money on a per student basis. What I am suggesting, therefore, is that we pay for 4 more years of education. Essentially, instead of just paying for K-12, we would be paying for K-16. This would mean an increase in property taxes. Another way would be through an education surcharge on state income taxes, or a general sales tax on non-food items. So, you see, there are multiple ways we could pay for it, but the bottom line is that we pay for it. We don't look to the magical, mystical "someone else", and we take responsibility like grown-ups and pay for it.

One thing our government and our economy doesn't need is yet another unfunded mandate, so let's be responsible and provide the program with a reliable, consistent source of revenue, and let's all have some skin in the game. You propose something like that, and I'll support it for all the reasons you mentioned above.

Seth

 

Our federal income tax system is among the most progressive tax systems in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...tting-more-and-more-progressive/#3bb8a35317b2

 

I don't like to blame the parents all the time. It's not always going to be the fault of the parents. Some parents don't even know how to be responsible with their money or time or whatever though either, so if they don't have that knowledge to pass onto the kids . . . well then you get the kids repeating a lot of the same mistakes their parents made.

 

The last time their was more industry jobs then service jobs was way way back in the early 1900s...it's funny You hype on education but it appears to us you have yet to pass the 8th grade when they were talking about the Constitution and stuff, because Trump won the election.



.

 

Why should a person who has gone through 12 years of state schooling come out with no skills required to get a job?

 

This is the information age. Anyone can educate herself for free. Pick any subject, and I will Google it for you, and you can drink from the fire hose.

 

No, not really.

A well-rounded education is one that an individual follows, not choses to follow. An open-mind is inquisitive and, over time, having sought information then decides what they wish to believe and what not.

But, the process is most certainly not haphazard ...

 

Because the skills they learn - like how to write - are general and not specific at the primary and secondary level. The students are far too young and inexperienced to learn to master complex chores/problems that a real job requires.

A Tertiary Education invites an individual to find a "path" and follow it. Than, if that path leads nowhere or simply does not suit them, they should be able to return to Tertiary Education to find another occupational path.

And it should not cost an arm-and-a-leg as it does in the US. There are on-going substantive changes in the way Tertiary Educational classes can be given - particularly on-line. The cost will be lower and that will help some (especially if remotely located) to better their skills from an Internet connexion ...

 

Trump will prove to be one more in a long-line of mediocre presidents ...

 

Yeah, well, then I suggest you take a trek around the world instead of hunkering down behind the three-mile limit ...

 

Nope, won't work.

In this last recession, when states were very hurt for money, they cut education courses. And the states cannot assume the cost of mastering all subjects that are teachable.

Moreover, not all states can teach all subjects. So, students can start a post-secondary program in a state-school, and after a few years (if wanted) go off to a program that specialized in a given subject. This would allow the system to be more flexible and handle aptly more students.

Central government financing would be key to having the various states "specialization" part of the program work because that is where the funding would be found. Otherwise the states wont specialize on their own hoping that local students will fill the classes ...

 

And what is the condition of California education today? Your "free education" was not free, and the bill has come due. And what is the condition of the state of California today? Your "progressive" policies were not free, and the bill has come due.

 

In the internet age, one can learn whatever one wishes to learn for free. MIT has every one of its courses online for free. That's just one example.