SB 2018-158: Free Higher Education for Atlasia Act (Passed)

[fhtagn]

I'd still like to see Former Senator cinyc and Senator Lumine's concerns addressed, because they seem to be overlooked.

Sure, a more educated populace is good, but if those degrees we are paying for are things like liberal arts degrees with no real career field to go into or degrees in fields where there are already too many people going into for the jobs actually available, it causes the economy more harm than good. 

[fhtagn]

It's terrible to think that there are those who think it's a good idea to hurt the middle/working class by charging an extra fee for housing transactions over $300k, especially since in several parts of the country, that amount gets you a very small, sometimes run down house (and in some cases you can't even get a house, but a condo or apartment) in a poor neighborhood.

I'd also have to see if I can find the source when I'm on a computer, but nationwide, the median price for a single family home based on 2016 numbers was something around $320k.

[fhtagn]

It's terrible to think that there are those who think it's a good idea to hurt the middle/working class by charging an extra fee for housing transactions over $300k, especially since in several parts of the country, that amount gets you a very small, sometimes run down house (and in some cases you can't even get a house, but a condo or apartment) in a poor neighborhood.

I'd also have to see if I can find the source when I'm on a computer, but nationwide, the median price for a single family home based on 2016 numbers was something around $320k.

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative value for housing? And how come you didn't call out LT-he also supports the same fee? Your choice whether to score political points or actually provide the leadership you promised.

I did not specifically call you out, in fact my post was worded to suggest that there was more than one person I was criticizing for this idea.

Personally I don't think that going after housing is a good idea at all since it can lead to people becoming less likely to buy a home, make it harder for those trying to sell their homes, and harm the livelihoods of those who work in real estate.

You also have ignored the concerns raised by Senator Lumine in actual debate and your amendment does nothing to address those very valid concerns.

This isn't about scoring political points, it's pointing out flaws in legislation that doesn't actually help people.

[fhtagn]

I've specifically said that I'm open to an amendment to subsidize the trades as well, and that, despite the funding concerns, the bill-once the financial transaction fee is passed(that means my amendment has to be passed) would likely be revenue neutral or even reduce the deficit.

Okay, that's great that you're open to subsidizing trades, but here are a few other concerns that were not adequately addressed in debate:

If you think banks are just going to be charged a "risk" fee without passing that on to their customers, I have a bridge to sell you.

Senators, where do we stand on this?

Much like the Atlasian Drone Regulation Act, I cannot support this bill as presented. I would necessarily have to echo several of the concerns made by cinyc in the past, particularly regarding cost and means (which I do find a bit irresponsible or too idealistic in outlook). There is also the fact that universities are far from the sole option for the future, and even further, that having ever increasing numbers of college graduates is not necessarily sound when it is rather evident there already is a significant degree of oversaturation.

I myself am not convinced it is a good idea to pursue such policies when already thousands of college graduates in Atlasia cannot find a job in what they studied for, particularly when accounting for the cost and for other priorities which might be more efficient than this particular (and rather ambitious) subsidy.

[fhtagn]

I don't think that much of the incidence of the tax would fall on consumers-and this issue is outweighed by the revenue raised from it. The fee also is intended to serve as a disincentive to risky behavior from the banks, so as well as raising revenue it helps create a healthier financial system-which would of course benefit consumers a lot more than any possible negative impact from the fee. And I take Lumine's concerns to mean we shouldn't just subsidize universities, and that's a concern that has validity, but not one that should topple the entire bill. As stated previously, universities are also beneficial and people should have the opportunity to access them-and the benefit of this approach is people have greater choice and opportunity to decide their own future.

That's fine that you don't think that, but to think that this fee wouldn't fall on the consumers is simply putting on the blinders to the truth because you want to see something you are pushing pass. And that's fine if you really feel that way, but just admit that you don't care how the banks cover it.

The fact of the matter is, if they have to shell out more money for any reason, they will find ways to ensure that the extra money spent is covered, which in most cases, means extra fees for their customers. That's how it works.

And "The banks have plenty if money and the risk fee is well targeted" (your original response) does nothing to address that fact and just proves the point that you're not thinking through the consequences of the fees and taxes that fund this bill.