Cuomo gets free college up to $125K, NY 1st state to do so.

[Shadows]

Can Cuomo get Carbon Taxes & legalize Marijuana to pretend to boost his progressive credentials?

[Shadows]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

[Shadows]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

[Shadows]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

In business, there is something call OTP or "Other People's Money". Donald Trump thrived off of it.

Nothing is free. It is paid for by you, or someone pays the equivalent costs for you, which is called third party payer or other people's money.

Nothing is free. The teachers are getting paid, the building is being maintained etc. There is a per unit cost for every student, so no, it is not "free" to send anyone to college. "It is free only to extent that someone else is picking up the tab.

I went to college on pell grants, I have no problem with helping those who cannot afford college. But at no point did I consider what I was getting "free".  I considered it a subsidized education at taxpayer expense for the betterment of society and I maintained a 4.0 average every semester until I graduated.

You may consider that "free" because it is not coming out of your pocket, but I must say that is a very irresponsible narrative that will encourage people to slack off because they are not paying for it themselves, when they should be doing the exact opposite and working harder because they been given an opportunity.

I find it baffling how educated people don't know that the term free means it costs nothing to the buyer or consumer.

Whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees, whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees + some profits for the institution to make, whether you pay say 50% of your fees + State funding, is absolutely irrelevant here & is a different discussion. Saying somethings is free or costs 0$ doesn't mean it now takes magically 0$ to manufacture that good or create that service.

The Tuition free college argument has already been debated to death here - I don't want to derail the thread again - Some of the points were K-12 education 50 years ago is equivalent to a College Degree now, Importance of having an educated workforce to compete globally, most good jobs requiring a College Degree instead of K-12, massive debt creating an economic bubble, massive debt bringing down demand for goods,services & depressing GDP, high debt not allowing some people to go to college or preventing people from doing jobs they like etc which are economic losses too.

If you want to have a discussion on the usefulness of Tuition Free college, you have another thread & discuss your ideas. But to call something which costs 0$ to the consumer not free is ridiculous & frankly ignorant & is only biased ideology speaking & not the truth !

[Shadows]

Well, an argument could be made about using inherent natural resource wealth to fund X,Y, or Z as a free lunch.  That is basically how Alaska runs its government with a net outflow of funds to its citizens each year, right?  Of course, it's a highly volatile free lunch that could always be worth 3X or 1/3rd as much next year.

There's always an opportunity cost somewhere.  What's to say funding X is better for the economy or society or whatever than funding Y or saving the money for a rainy day or giving the money to the people?  What's to say natural resource wealth wouldn't be better managed by selling it to a private entity outright, who will try to maximize profit (the government has less of a reason to do that)?

So no, there's no such thing as a free lunch, even in your hypothetical.

Here, one can ask, for example, whether it is fair for non-college graduates who add to overall economic wealth - say your proverbial plumber - to subsidize college students taking classes in an economically worthless major, like most of the social sciences.  Is society better off if the plumber had the tax money devoted to this to invest in his business?  And we can ask whether overall tuition will go up for the so-called rich who aren't eligible for this "free" tuition.  Or non-tuition "fees" like room and board or activity fees will rise as a result.  Or if SUNY and CUNY schools won't be able to attract the best professors because there is less money to pay them.  And on and on and on.

Opportunity cost is a different economic concept & it is almost impossible to calculate the opportunity cost e here which will be entirely based on assumptions & one could argue the loss is much greater in not investing in education but that is a different debate altogether & would derail this thread. The other point about non-tuition fees or fees for the rich rising is also ridiculous considering the state is funding this & the cost of tuition is not being passed on to other items.

A large part of the tax revenue comes from educated folks & rich folks, while the revenue from non-college educated poor households is comparatively lower & then that is a combined pool & it is difficult to distinguish whose money is going where. But by this logic, there would be no federal spending - Why should liberals opposed to the Iraq war pay for that or the 100's of B of $ in military bases. Why should some pay taxes for foreign aid to some random country with no trade relations whose destabilization won't even cause security issues?

Why would a rich household pay taxes when part of that goes to Medicaid or food stamps whose benefits they don't enjoy. Why should a young rich person pay taxes for Meals on Wheels? Not only is this logic ridiculous & will create uber narcissistic human beings, but it will destroy the society & the country in general. Anyone would get to veto the implementation of a program, just because he/she contributed a very small portion of the tax revenue to the overall tax collection of the government.

And I am baffled & surprised how people are coming with literally "alternative" definitions for "Free" when any kid knows whether something is free or not is determined by the price the user pays !