The Atlasian Universal Education Bill (Debating)

[Cranberry]

Since the main point now seems whether we can afford to pay for this, allow me to make these calculations.

Here is the Atlantic article TNF was talking about. According to Departement of Education data, public colleges in 2012 collected $62.6 billions in tuition fees in 2012. At the same time, the government had total expenditures of $69 billions for financial aid programs for students, of which around 20 millions was spent on grants for students to pay their tuition fees for public colleges or universities, which of course would not be needed anymore.

Taking in account our own budget, we have the following expenditure points in our budget that are signed to pay for such programmes:
- 40 billions "Higher Education"
- 45 billions "Tax Credits", of which I would say approx. 5-10 billions affect families that sutain students paying for tuition fees or students themselves

Taking in account, we have a budget point of approx. 45 billions, of which we can say around 15-20 billions would be void if this bill is passed. 60 billions minus 20 millions brings us to $40 billion dollars we would need to pay.
(Considering this, the US expends 100 billions for student loans, I didn't find an equivalent of such in Nix's budget - is everything such included in "Higher Education"?)

Now let's go on taking TNF's tax proposal:

According to this source, there were around 240'000 people in 2009 and around 400'000 people in 2007 that earned more than one million dollars. This Wall Street Journal Article says in 2009 there were 72 Americans making more than 50 Millions, in total 6 Billions compared to 151 in 2007 making 14 Billions. There were no real sources for people making 10 Millions or more, so we will have to speculate a bit here.
Taking again into account Nix's budget, we had revenues of 67 Billions from the 5 Million+ bracket, with a tax rate of 60%. That brings us to a total income of that bracket of around 110 Billions. Starting to speculate now, we can probably say that around half of this, 55 Billions was made by people earning more than 10 millions. They paid around 33 Billions in Nix' budget, and raising the tax rate for them to 65% would give us an additional 3 Billions in revenue.

So, to sum up, according to my calculations, this bill would cost us 62.2 Billions, of which we would save around 20 Billions in expenditures for student loans and grants and such that would become void. The proposed tax by Senator TNF would raise around 3 Billions in revenue, resulting in us needing to still find 39.2 Billion Dollars.

[Cranberry]

Now, let's come to my personal opinion here. I fully support free, or at least nearly free if it is not possible otherwise, access to higher education. Senator Yankee made a very good point here in my opinion, why should we pay for Bill Gate's son to go to college, Bill Gates can do that for himself. As such, I would propose a kind of "middle-in-the-road approach", a very similar to the one that was present in Austria for a long time. We install general tuition fees paid not to the educational instiution, but to our education fund; these fees of course need to be a lot cheaper than the ones paid now. We maybe can even double them for foreign students, if we want to. Now, we say that students from families earning less than $50'000 or any other sum a year, don't need to pay this, and just students from families earing more do. I will try to find some numbers with which we can work, and then propose numbers with which we could raise those remaining $39 billions.

[Cranberry]

According to Census data (See Table 5), 15'514'000 students were enrolled in a public college or university in 2013. If we know assumed that all these students together should pay for the $39.2 billions, we come to the sum of $2'526 that would be needed to be paid by each individual student per year. The current average tuition fee for students is $5'899 in public institution, according to the "Back to School" data of the National Center for Education Statistics.
If we now reduced this sum to install general tuition fees of $450 per student and semester, equaling $900 a year, we can generate revenues of around $14 billion.

I would now propose to install a more progressive system of general tuition fees. According to table 8 of the census link, (it is with family data) we can say that there were 429'000 students with families earning less than $20'000 a year, 2'337'000 students with families earning $20'000-$75'000 a year, and 2'709'000 students with families earning more than $75'000 a year. Keeping this distribution of income, and eypanding it to receive the total number of students in public institutions we had before, we can see the following number of students with the following family incomes:

- $20'000: 1'388'000
$20k-$75k: 6'542'000
$75'000+: 7'583'000

I would propose now a following distribuition of tuition fees:

- $20'000 (family income): 0$  (REVENUES: 0$)
$20k-$75k: 450$/semester (900$/year) (REVENUES: $5.8 Billions)
$75k-$150k: 750$/semester (1'500$/year) (REVENUES: $7.6 Billions)
+ $150'000: $1500/semester (3'000$/year) (REVENUES: $6.0 Billions)

That would generate us revenues of approx. 20 Billions, still just half of the sum we need to get togetehr somehow.
What ways are there to get us 20 Billions?

[Cranberry]

I hate doing it, but the first thing that would come to my mind would be a fourth grouping above maybe $500,000, but I doubt it would raise enough revenue to cover $20 billion.

I seriously doubt we would make probably half a million with it, as I simply doubt many people making $500'000 plus send their children to public universities.

But yes, as others said, I too would have no problem at all with running a small deficit. We have I guess a surplus of 18 billions or something like that as of this year, so that would be just 2-3 billions deficit, for this year. And Lumine also expressed he wanted to draft a 2015 budget, so we can surely add our stuff from this bill there, too.

[Cranberry]

If we're comfortable with running deficit based on this Bill because we have a very small surplus this year, is pretty short-sighted.

I said it would be a small deficit just for this year, we would have to search for a more permanent solution when discussing next year's budget. But yes, you are right, it would be pretty short-sighted just thinking for this year.

[Cranberry]

So then we just raise taxes on the rich. What's the problem?

You proposed that already, and we can't even get 10% of the sum needed from that.

Anyway, I guess I'll revoke my earlier position, and join the Senators Polnut and Yankee in their sensible opinion of finding a way to get the remaining money in somehow, and not run a deficit of it. As much as I believe free or near free universal education is imperative, we should try to keep our budget as balanced as possible, too.
So, we are probably at the point to find some other methods of funding this. I don't like it, but maybe we should raise the fees we would levy in my latest proposal by a bit? Maybe we also have a budget point from which we could transfer something to this point? I will try to come up wing a few more solutions tomorrow.

As a matter of fact, since Senator Dr Cynic is sponsor of the bill, I dare ask if I may assume co-sponsorship for this bill, for the case the Senator is sworn in as GM before we pass this act?

[Cranberry]

So we raise them higher. Not a problem.

To what amount? 80%?

[Cranberry]

To bring this back to life, I would like to offer the following amendment, including the things I have already proposed in this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I added a point for incomes of more than 500k, but I doubt that would make up for more than a billion. So the sum we would need is still twenty billions. Any ideas on how to get them in?

[Cranberry]

Thank you, Senator.
If I am allowed to, I still would like to assume co-sponsorship, just as I feel I put a good deal of work in this.

[Cranberry]

That would be good and sensible ideas, yes. Would you like to propose an amendment?

[Cranberry]

I object. If you are wanting to end tuition fees, it has to ended for all regardless of income level.

Well, I would have liked too, but it seems we don't have money for this. And a progressive system seems then more sensible for me. But let's wait for Senator Polnut's amendment, probably you can support this.


AYE

[Cranberry]

I guess I will support this.
We are not going to get full free education, that much was sure, so I'd just say we take this. It's well written, sensible, I can fully support it.

It will probably take some time, but I would start to calculate some numbers to see what much is now covered and what much we still need. As I said, that will probably take some time.

[Cranberry]

Where are we on the numbers on this with the amendment's schedule? Are the costs fully covered?

We need to start calculate all over again, since there are now completely different numbers to work with.

[Cranberry]

If there is still room and place for a few quick calucations, here we go:

It was already postulated that we would need $62,2 billions to abolish current tuition fees and replace it with whatever system there might be. The amendment does away with the safe of approx. $20 billions we saved if we did away with student loans, so $62,2 is the number to work with.

The best data I could come up with (Census, Table 5) gives sadly no numbers on the types of courses the 15 million students currently enrolled in Atlasia's public colleges and universities. As such, best I could do is to assume that in average every one of these students would have to pay the median maximum enrollment fee of $475 per course (here not taking into account out-of-state students). According to the Columbia University (FAQ 5) students take on average five courses per semester, accounting for ten a year; in our model calculation, so ten courses a là $475 per year for the average student - $4750 dollars a year. (This is about 1000 dollars less than the average student pays currently - source)

Multiplying this now to the number of 15 million students at public institutions, this sum of revenues now adds up to $73'691'500'000, or 73,7 billions - 11,5 billions more than would be needed (so we practically get without any state fundings even more than universities would need, while students have to pay a whole thousand dollars a year less)

To conclude, if you want to believe my calculations, we would need no extra-funding for our budget for Senator Polnut's model.

[Cranberry]

I oppose this bill since I don't think everyone should pursue post-secondary education. If higher education is universalized, a college diploma will likely take on the status of a high school diploma and become something nearly everyone is expected to have, which will mean that everyone will have to go to college, even if their could be better spent elsewhere.

I can understand your position, but the current system does not divide because of one's "intelligence", I'm sorry for not finding a better word, but because of one's parents income. A better way to combat universalisation of post-secondary education, if such is your wish, would be to completely cancel all expenses for students and launch stricter tests or a Numerus Clausus of some sort...

[Cranberry]

Anyway, since debate has died off here, and the bill in its current form would be covered and not need any additional funding (if you want to believe my calculations), I guess we can proceed here and finally open a final vote?

[Cranberry]

Sorry for hurrying us all into this, but I didn't see that one too
I guess an amendment to strike that clause would do?

[Cranberry]

I presented a calculation further up, which stated that we precisely would not have any remaining expenses, and no one said anything, so I thought that could be out away.

[Cranberry]

I guess we have discussed this over an over again in due time. This version is going to pass, so just let us wrap this up as soon as possible.

[Cranberry]

The 36 hours have elapsed?
Motion for a final vote

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

I guess I can support your redraft, Mr. President. It keeps the spirit of the bill, and those minor changes are not too excessive.

[Cranberry]

Aye