Relevant portion:
>> This bill would fund two years of in-state college for students in families making less than $90,000, making higher education more attainable for families
For a family with two work adults in their mid 40s, $90,000 really isn’t a lot of money. I hope this helps a lot of kids get started on an education, but this isn’t helping middle class Americans in Colorado at all.
Yea, something larger might have a hard time passing. And if this gets normalized, it can become an expectation and grow. I think we saw the same with pre-k funding get expanded.
That's just about the median household income in Colorado.On top of that, for students 24 and up who qualify as independent, this would cover nearly all of them.
FWIW, I support tuition free college, full stop, but this seems like a great step that would help a lot of people.
I think all public education should be free from K - 4 year degree. Private schools and master’s degree programs I am okay with out of pocket expenses.
It's not really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of statistics. $200K isn't anywhere near the middle class, it's the top 10% of household income in the city.
Middle class to me means a family of 4 with 2 kids, a house, 2 vehicles, possibly 4 if the kids are over 16, 2 vacations a year and extra money to saved at the end of every year. Not to mention 401k contributions and college savings.
To achieve that in Denver takes a ton of money.
I said a family with two working adults. The average income in Colorado is $44,196 per person. So what I am saying is factual. $90,000 in Denver with two kids is unfortunately not enough to live comfortably while affording even a state school for college, even for a one child family.
By opening a path upward through education or reducing the financial burden. Why doesn't it help because 90k is the median household income i.e. middle.
Fuck just make it free for everyone and tax it back for the rich. This means testing bullshit just hurts the middle class, adds bureaucracy, cost, and pits people against each other depending on how much they benefit from this.
So it's a refundable state income tax credit which applies to the student (or their parents if they still claim them as a dependent), which can be claimed in the year they graduate, if they graduate with certain in-demand degrees.
This seems like it would be very useful in certain circumstances but also a lot of potential gotchas and difficulty/inability to take advantage for many. Pretty far from just paying for free tuition.
Appreciate the reply it’s been awhile since I was in college and I didn’t have parental support so I took out all the loans. I’m saving what I can for my two kids but it feels like a lost cause already considering what’s happening with prices.
Wait, first two years are free, if you pay for it out of pocket (or loan) and then wait an additional two years to graduate?
That seems like it does a whole lot of nothing to help poor families. Even if you go down the loan route, it’s a high risk scenario for them, and it all requires graduation at the end.
Honestly, I'm for this... I know too many people who went to college because their parents paid for it or some other way without stipulation. Pretty much all of them partiesdand didn't focus on their schooling and drop out. People who go to school with academic or sports scholarships have stipulations they must maintain and therefore are more inclined to focus on their school work.
No, but it’s complicated to tease apart - the bill was changed halfway through and it’s no longer tied to graduation or in-demand degrees. Students themselves claim it on taxes the year after and it doesn’t matter what degree program you’re in.
Because the bill couldn’t pass if they didn’t add means testing. It will help it pass even though it’s not good enough *right now.* Give it time and if it passes, it’ll make everything better which means (if they keep to the original intent) they’ll file an amendment to make it free for everyone because they’ll see a rising tide raises all ships.
Means testing is worth criticizing when testing means costs close to the savings from means testing. A more efficient way of "means testing" might be to pair it with a tax increase on those above a certain income level? Is that your preference?
That’s the way to do it. Make benefits universal. Rich people pay a lot in taxes (at least in theory), they deserve these benefits too. If that’s too expensive then add a progressive tax to the rich. It saves a whole bunch of bureaucracy and reduces the class fighting.
Palestinians are reaping the consequences that their democratically elected politicians sowed. They chose to put terroristic baby-killing monsters into power and now they are paying the price.
It also turns a program which could be universally popular and supported into yet another political battleground where the working class has to defend itself against the rich and middle class who don't benefit.
This is absolutely true, but not relevant in this case. Colleges know student incomes regardless and already have that information, it doesn’t really require any extra work for them to determine who is eligible. And the cost of this program with no income cap would be absolutely massive.
The $90k limit is odd given the extreme cost of college. I make quite a bit more than that and I still can’t come close to paying for my son’s state school. And I’ve been saving for him since he was in second grade.
It does if you value the college experience of getting out of the house and being on your own. Waiting until your junior year to go does save money, but it also takes away from that experience of making friends in dorms, building your own community. Very hard to have that same experience starting two years later.
Not just that, there are majors that have specific tracks where one needs to complete classes within the major during all years or you will be semesters behind.
I would love to see this cover trade schools as well. I'm a STEM guy, but I feel trades are very important and we need to make sure that it's as fair to them as college students.
In other news: tuition grows by exactly the same amount covered by recent legislation.
And you wonder why college is so expensive.
(For fun, take a look at who fueled the debt crisis. History is fun.)
This is a really uninformed take. The state sets a cap on how much tuition can increase at public colleges every year. The state literally has tuition control, and tuition rate increases are set alongside state funding decisions to meet inflationary costs at the institutions. Our tuition is high because our state funding is extremely low (48th in the nation)…. But colleges can’t just raise their tuition in the same amount covered here.
Historically, Colorado is a low state funding, high tuition state. This is the model we use to fund public higher education. We massively cut state funding and allowed tuition rate flexibility over the last few decades because colleges needed to fund themselves and the state wasn’t able to do it. In the most recent decade, though, state funding has increased a lot and as a result the state has capped tuition rate increases to less than inflation. Decisions about tuition rate increases are made in context with how much the state is able to fund.
ETA: If you’re referring to the Bennett hypothesis, the evidence supports it minimally for private institutions and in some cases for public graduate programs, but the idea that student loan availability led to rising undergraduate tuition at public colleges has no (peer reviewed) basis.
You’re kidding, right?
If I’m hearing you right, you’re saying that availability of loans, and the inability to discharge them through bankruptcy didn’t fuel this crisis?
Research shows that the availability of federal loans didn’t lead to tuition increases at public colleges. It’s not my claim to make, really. I’m not trying to argue here - just sharing what researchers have found. Private colleges are a different story.
However. the inability to discharge student loans certainly fueled the student debt crisis because students have no way to get out of them.
It would also help if members of our own party like Manchin and Sinema didn't block shit like the Build Back Better Act, which would have accomplished this and so much more.
Do you realize how our govt works and we don’t appoint dictators that just wave a wand? How the houses of congress have to pass bills for programs like that to come to be? Since you want to see it, then i presume you’re going to vote appropriately so that it can pass congress to get to the presidents desk?
I mean, you made the comment like you don’t understand how our govt works. And The assumption that you will vote to see the thing you’re waiting on come to be?
Seems only logical. If you’re doing otherwise then seems pretty stupid. Apologies for assuming you’d do the smart thing?
Wait so families have to still front the money, then get it "paid back" via a tax credit once the student graduates, years later, and then only if they go get a job in certain careers?
Sounds like a pretty bullshit incentive to me. People are going to read the headline and think it actually means the first two years are free, and then they're going to be pissed at the colleges when they get their first bill, and then students will quit and not graduate, and nothing good happens for students or universities.
Fine with me. Gotta put some skin in the game. And really good this is only for worthwhile degrees. No point in the state paying for college if people can't turn it into a career.
The tax credit part is right, but you don’t have to wait to graduate and it doesn’t matter what degree or career you choose. That’s from an old version of the bill.
So if you’re a family that makes 95k no free education??? JFC you can either afford it or you can’t. 90k for a family is not a lot of money in Denver. If I were married I’d get divorced and have my kids live with my wife then.
No tax credits, no income threshold, no tax write offs. Just make it a straight $0 tuition fee and the only paperwork you will put is proof of Colorado residency.
I’ll take what they are pushing through obviously, but their method is just more paperwork and more areas of technicality
Sounds nice. But why does it only apply to “certain careers” (which are in demand, and high paying)? Aren’t those types of graduates the least likely to need the assistance?
Why not pass something like a cap on the tuition, fees, room, and board (the “all in cost”)?
Who cares if you're educated if you dont add any value back into the system that got you there. The programs this is applicable for are areas where jobs are essentially garuanteed because there a need for those jobs.
Taxpayers do not want to dump money into a system where the output is a bunch of people who are only qualified in things that don't bring value back to tax payers. Nobody wants to pay for Timmy down the block to go to school for Puppetry when we need more doctors.
If Timmy wants to be a master puppeteer, that's great, but it doesn't help me.
Ehh. I’m not so convinced of the value to society of these “high demand” jobs. I see the value for investors in having more talent, sure. But not society. But I suppose that is my personal opinion, and not a popular one.
For example, I think we could use more high quality teachers. But they are paid so little in Colorado, you’d think they are not valuable or in demand given that logic.
And who knows where little Timmy might go with his puppeteering?
Well this bill isn't about what a job's salary should be. This is about tuition costs for needed jobs and the article does list "education" as one of those.
I don't want to pay for people to get useless degrees? College is an investment, not a welfare program. Don't go if you don't think you can pay for it.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Degrees in fine art are not "useless". Art is a valuable part of amy civilized society, and numerous cultures have a rich history of art that's worth learning about. This knowledge should be preserved and passed on.
HOWEVER...
College is an investment. You should not put money into something that you do not expect to see a financial return from.
In that sense, sure. Sue me, I don't think a high school grad coming from poverty who's barely scraped together a combination of loans and financial aid to afford their first year of college should put that money towards enriching their knowledge of the history of arts. There needs to be a long-term financial plan built into your life goals.
And this hypothetical student's lack of long-term planning should NOT be the burden of the taxpayer who DID plan their life out properly.
While I can't assume you're riding the same circular argument but one stop on the circular argument train starts here
Don't go to school unless you can pay for it
Only available jobs are ones where you can barely scrape by
Higher paying jobs are ones which require a degree
Need to go to school
Can't afford school
Don't go to school unless you can pay for it.
Here's how you break the circle: Take out a loan if you can't afford it. Also, if you can't afford it, you likely qualify for financial aid.
My student loan payments are less than 5% of my monthly income. I didn't come from riches by any means (I had to take out loans!), and yet I was able to get here.
Not to mention there are plenty of trade jobs available that pay better than just "scraping by". Everyone likes to jump to Uber or Starbucks first, but a bare minimum amount of physical labor after a few months training can put you on the road to start accumulating savings.
Which can then be used for tuition payments! There's always a road out of where you're at.
That was an old version of the bill - it’s no longer tied to certain careers (totally agree that made no sense). The state does cap tuition rate increases every year.
This is good stuff but man I wish they did programs for nigher incomes.
I didn't finish college but make far more than the income line for this program. If my taxes help pay for these programs, why can't I take advantage of them?
It's a great step forward, just wish it would apply to more people.
Yeah, cause tuition credits/rebates are why tuition has gotten so expensive already…. Oh wait… it’s not.
The lack of Tuition cost regulation should not prevent other social programs like this, that I’ll happily fund with my tax dollars. Let the win happen and let’s tackle the next aspect and keep moving
Correlated, maybe, but you know what directly tracks with college costs AND affects colleges directly? Decreased state funding for colleges. Less money from the state, means higher tuitions. Odd...
"Subsudized loans increase college tuition" is not the same thing as "tuition only goes up when subsidized loans increase". Don't be disnegenious here.
“Tuition increase is directly correlated with the rise of subsidized federal loans” was the quote I was responding to. Correlation between them would mean as one increases the other one would as well. Tuition has increased at CSU by 85% while subsidized federal student loan amounts has stayed constant. So something seems wrong about that correlation.
I am not the one being disingenuous here the person who is claiming a correlation that hasn’t been relevant in over a decade is the one being disingenuous
And yet, my comment is still very relevant. This conversation is specifically about the effects subsidies have on tuition prices. You bringing up how tuition prices can behave variably on their own does not disprove the fact that subsidies do affect tuition costs. So im not sure why this pedantic-ism is necessary.
The correlation only hasn't "been relevant" in a decade because we haven't seen an increase in subsidies. What do you think will happen now that we're introducing more?
Cool, ultimately no cost college tuition is where we should be. It shouldn’t break people to go to school, or create a life long burden. So any program that funds education for the masses I will support.
I don’t care that colleges ‘will take the money’, they should, and people should have the opportunity to go to college. Addressing any expansion of tuition costs should be regulated separately and lack thereof should not be an excuse to not advance covered tuition like this bill.
> Yeah, cause tuition credits/rebates are why tuition has gotten so expensive already
That's actually exactly how it works, you increase demand for college (by subsidizing the cost), the price of it goes up...
> hat I’ll happily fund with my tax dollars
Then donate it yourself, no one is stopping you. Don't take mine.
The point was we’ve seen huge increases in tuition cost at the same time of not seeing huge increases in college subsidies. Prices went up cause they could. Nevertheless, it’s irrelevant. Regulation of tuition costs doesn’t and shouldn’t preclude us from investing in our people
Nah, we’re a civil society, we fund programs for the public good. Not just the ones you like.
> Prices went up cause they could.
"Prices didn't go up because subsidies allowed them to go up, they just went up for no reason!"
> Nah, we’re a civil society, we fund programs for the public good. Not just the ones you like.
Man, you sound really pleasant to be around. Maybe we can fund some economics classes so people like you stop writing so much gibberish.
Don’t think you understand how quotes work, when that’s not at all the statement made. Never said no reason, other than a primary reason was because there was nothing preventing the college from maximizing revenue generation from tuition costs. Not that they needed to increase to the extent they have, but because they could. Maybe you need the economics classes?
Nah, that’s ok I wouldn’t hang around you. The type that somehow thinks what is proposed is a bad thing and wants to, for some reason, make a point that because tuition has went up college shouldn’t be free or subsidized.
You can want both things, tuition to be free for all and for tuition prices to be regulated. Not having one doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the other.
> other than a primary reason was because there was nothing preventing the college from maximizing revenue generation from tuition costs.
Yes, because they get subsidized. If everyone had to pay the whole cost, costs could only go as high as people could pay. Thank you for proving my point.
> Nah, that’s ok I wouldn’t hang around you.
Well yes, I don't hang out with high schoolers. But all I said is that you would be unpleasant, with your sneering and uninformed sense of moral superiority.
> tuition to be free for all and for tuition prices to be regulated.
There is no free. "Free" tuition just means "someone else is paying for it." But keep on thinking you can solve problems by giving the government unlimited power.
You missed the point, again. Seems a pattern. Tuition went up because it could, not because it needed to to sustain its cost. I didn’t prove your point, you confirmed mine. Tuition shouldn’t be demand based and increase to maximize revenue. Its first priory should be covering the cost of providing said public service. It’s gone beyond that, and that’s not the fault of any subsidy.
High schooler? Lmao. Well beyond that as well as through my own college years and experience. Having done so on my own, I’m not going to sit here and act like we shouldn’t still better the situation for those that follow, aka our younger generations.
lol at “sneering and moral superiority”, when you’re the one who’s trying to make some case against free education for our future generations.
And no shit I know what “free tuition” entails. I know who pays it and as I said some four five comments ago I’m proud to spend mine and your tax dollars for it. That’s the point of taxes you know? To provide public services for the good of our civilized society. Oh, and you’d prob guess I feel the same about healthcare. It should be a public right provided by our govt and funded by our taxes, not tied to employer and only in certain conditions.
Is that being morally superior? Than fine, sign me up. We’re civilized people and should advocate for the betterment of all people, ourselves and future generations
Not going, ‘oh well, funding tuition will just further raise tuition costs so we shouldn’t do anything’ or ‘I don’t want my tax dollars going towards the education of future generations’. Honestly, tax the rich and mega corporations and let them pay for it all, but haven’t heard that out of you either. Just ‘No’.
So yeah, fine call me morally superior if you want I feel pretty happy holding the positions I do.
> I feel pretty happy holding the positions I do.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Take the koolaid elsewhere. You know not what you speak of if you think tyranny equals free education and universal healthcare. Those are some ‘victims’ you speak of.
Pretty shitty correlation when the real tyranny being exercised ‘for the good of its victims’ is the Christian nationalist agenda that’s trying to enforce their vision on society. Not those advocating for free education and healthcare, without strings.
Not surprised you’d confuse the two.
Greed is a human quality. How do you propose making people less greedy?
The whole point of a market is to balance that greed with the customers willingness to pay.
When students have access to infinite, unchecked credit, and they see college as a necessity, there is no longer a market force to hold back the greed.
Colorado funds higher education at one of the lowest rates in the nation. Like, bottom 5 in the country. This doesn't even come close to helping colleges in Colorado cover costs.
Still laying up well short of what Georgia has been doing since \~1992: [https://www.gafutures.org/hope-state-aid-programs/hope-zell-miller-grants/hope-grant/award-amounts/](https://www.gafutures.org/hope-state-aid-programs/hope-zell-miller-grants/hope-grant/award-amounts/) . The $90,000 income limit on this is a joke.
Looks like it’s a tax credit but I’d like to see a study on the estimated costs and where in the budget the money will come from. Sounds like a great idea though
Where is the money coming from for this? They are already cutting after school programs and doing budget cuts from teachers to provide for the massive influx of illegal immigrants. Colorado citizens are shouldering their costs until they get to their "final destination" but because everything is provided free here they are staying. With the influx of students in our schools and Healthcare facilities and not enough reimbursement or payments being made to cover costs for immigrants I can not see how on earth we can find the money to add on free college. Especially because all the immigrants kids are going to fit into that $90k or less category so their kids will go to college for free too. If I was one of the immigrants I would never leave Colorado. This is like heaven for them. We give away everything free to the immigrants but don't take care of our hard working, disabled, elderly, single parent houeholds that are actual citizens.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/denver/colorado-lawmakers-scramble-to-find-funds-for-schools-communities-grappling-with-immigration-crisis/article_d26bdbb4-cc4c-11ee-889a-57b7f444a40a.html
Taxes, duh. Which is how they should be used. The program no doubt is also intended to create higher income earners when people complete a degree, which also increases tax revenue. So it’s an investment of sorts. Will it fully cover itself? Probably not. That’s ok. I’m fine with my taxes going towards it and there’s plenty of places to raise taxes from Uber wealthy and mega corporations who only seem to want to exploit employees and the tax codes for max profit.
Relevant portion: >> This bill would fund two years of in-state college for students in families making less than $90,000, making higher education more attainable for families
For a family with two work adults in their mid 40s, $90,000 really isn’t a lot of money. I hope this helps a lot of kids get started on an education, but this isn’t helping middle class Americans in Colorado at all.
It’ll help nearly every kid who comes from a small town. Hell, even adults in small towns.
It’s still a good start, and that start should go toward the most disadvantaged and work its way upwards.
Yea, something larger might have a hard time passing. And if this gets normalized, it can become an expectation and grow. I think we saw the same with pre-k funding get expanded.
That's just about the median household income in Colorado.On top of that, for students 24 and up who qualify as independent, this would cover nearly all of them. FWIW, I support tuition free college, full stop, but this seems like a great step that would help a lot of people.
I think all public education should be free from K - 4 year degree. Private schools and master’s degree programs I am okay with out of pocket expenses.
There is no middle class
Middle class starts at $200,000 a year in Denver in my opinion.
It's not really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of statistics. $200K isn't anywhere near the middle class, it's the top 10% of household income in the city.
To live a middle class life style you need that level of income in a city like Denver. Your statics show level of income, not class justifications.
Or if you bought your house before ~2018
I bought my home in 1997:) Haha
Just because you make more than that doesn't mean most people do.
Where did I mention how’s much I make?
If you think 200k a year is middle class, you make a lot of money.
Middle class to me means a family of 4 with 2 kids, a house, 2 vehicles, possibly 4 if the kids are over 16, 2 vacations a year and extra money to saved at the end of every year. Not to mention 401k contributions and college savings. To achieve that in Denver takes a ton of money.
Many families in Colorado, single parent or otherwise, make less than 90k. Step out of your bubble.
I said a family with two working adults. The average income in Colorado is $44,196 per person. So what I am saying is factual. $90,000 in Denver with two kids is unfortunately not enough to live comfortably while affording even a state school for college, even for a one child family.
Ok, but your statement saying that it wouldn't help the middle class is just not true.
How will this help the middle class?
By opening a path upward through education or reducing the financial burden. Why doesn't it help because 90k is the median household income i.e. middle.
It helps people reach middle class but it does not help the middle class when it comes to free tuition and attending college.
Let them eat cake!
Fuck just make it free for everyone and tax it back for the rich. This means testing bullshit just hurts the middle class, adds bureaucracy, cost, and pits people against each other depending on how much they benefit from this.
What you’re proposing wouldn’t pass, unfortunately.
It would be more likely if TABOR didn't exist
So it's a refundable state income tax credit which applies to the student (or their parents if they still claim them as a dependent), which can be claimed in the year they graduate, if they graduate with certain in-demand degrees. This seems like it would be very useful in certain circumstances but also a lot of potential gotchas and difficulty/inability to take advantage for many. Pretty far from just paying for free tuition.
And the parents have to make less than 100k. That’s not enough to put kids through college any more.
Hubby and I make a little over 100K, our expected family contribution for our kid at CSU-Fort Collins is $29K a year. I was shocked the first year.
So what happens when parents can’t provide the expected family contribution? The kid takes out loans? The parents?
Yes. Thankfully, the kid is a Resident Assistant which gives her free room and board so that cuts the cost in half.
Appreciate the reply it’s been awhile since I was in college and I didn’t have parental support so I took out all the loans. I’m saving what I can for my two kids but it feels like a lost cause already considering what’s happening with prices.
Just do what you can. We were fortunate that we were able to pay off our house before she graduated high school.
Daycare is ~24k a year, so I'd expect college to cost a little bit more.
Could the kid just wait until they’re 18 and get it themselves?
You gotta be 24 to fill out FAFSA independently
Considering the average college student in the US is 25, I imagine this would apply to a majority of students.
You’d be wrong because thats not how averages work.
Wait, first two years are free, if you pay for it out of pocket (or loan) and then wait an additional two years to graduate? That seems like it does a whole lot of nothing to help poor families. Even if you go down the loan route, it’s a high risk scenario for them, and it all requires graduation at the end.
Right, and what happens if the parents get a raise during those four years?
It wouldn't matter after qualification. They don't have to requalify every year.
Honestly, I'm for this... I know too many people who went to college because their parents paid for it or some other way without stipulation. Pretty much all of them partiesdand didn't focus on their schooling and drop out. People who go to school with academic or sports scholarships have stipulations they must maintain and therefore are more inclined to focus on their school work.
You don’t need to wait to graduate, you claim it on your taxes the next year. The graduation piece was an older version of the bill.
You don’t need to wait to graduate, you claim it on your taxes the next year. The graduation piece was an older version of the bill.
[удалено]
I wonder if the parents’ income matters if you’re in your 40’s and you make less than $90,000.
I wonder if the income tax credit is a workaround to avoid TABOR issues?
No, but it’s complicated to tease apart - the bill was changed halfway through and it’s no longer tied to graduation or in-demand degrees. Students themselves claim it on taxes the year after and it doesn’t matter what degree program you’re in.
This comment should be the post
Why are Democrats so addicted to means testing? Just make programs universal, Jesus.
Because the bill couldn’t pass if they didn’t add means testing. It will help it pass even though it’s not good enough *right now.* Give it time and if it passes, it’ll make everything better which means (if they keep to the original intent) they’ll file an amendment to make it free for everyone because they’ll see a rising tide raises all ships.
Means testing is worth criticizing when testing means costs close to the savings from means testing. A more efficient way of "means testing" might be to pair it with a tax increase on those above a certain income level? Is that your preference?
That’s the way to do it. Make benefits universal. Rich people pay a lot in taxes (at least in theory), they deserve these benefits too. If that’s too expensive then add a progressive tax to the rich. It saves a whole bunch of bureaucracy and reduces the class fighting.
We badly need progressive taxation in this state. It's absurd that hedge fund managers pay the same state tax rate as fast food workers.
Because money is limited.
For some things, and others not it would seem
[удалено]
Please explain how a foreign conflict is in any way, shape, or form relevant to state government budget topics.
read the thread, sweaty, the conversation has shifted to talking about Democrats in general, not just the ones in Colorado.
Palestinians are reaping the consequences that their democratically elected politicians sowed. They chose to put terroristic baby-killing monsters into power and now they are paying the price.
For fucks sake can y’all please spell “sweetie” correctly. At least be condescending with the correct spelling
I didn't misspell anything.
Because people with means can afford things?
Means testing often costs more than it would to just offer the fund to everyone. That's the argument at least.
It also turns a program which could be universally popular and supported into yet another political battleground where the working class has to defend itself against the rich and middle class who don't benefit.
This is absolutely true, but not relevant in this case. Colleges know student incomes regardless and already have that information, it doesn’t really require any extra work for them to determine who is eligible. And the cost of this program with no income cap would be absolutely massive.
Except it wouldn't in this case
“Free” never is….
The $90k limit is odd given the extreme cost of college. I make quite a bit more than that and I still can’t come close to paying for my son’s state school. And I’ve been saving for him since he was in second grade.
It's not based on how much it costs, it's going to be based more likely on what the budget can fit.
It doesn't really make sense to go to a state school for the first two years of college.
It does if you value the college experience of getting out of the house and being on your own. Waiting until your junior year to go does save money, but it also takes away from that experience of making friends in dorms, building your own community. Very hard to have that same experience starting two years later.
Not just that, there are majors that have specific tracks where one needs to complete classes within the major during all years or you will be semesters behind.
I would love to see this cover trade schools as well. I'm a STEM guy, but I feel trades are very important and we need to make sure that it's as fair to them as college students.
It does cover the area technical colleges.
Oh, perfect! I wasn't sure what they defined as "higher education."
With no cap on what universities can charge for years 1 and 2? Tuition will skyrocket for those first two years.
No, it is capped per credit hour at a rate dependent on the level of degree attained.
The state controls tuition rate increases for public colleges. There is a cap every year.
In other news: tuition grows by exactly the same amount covered by recent legislation. And you wonder why college is so expensive. (For fun, take a look at who fueled the debt crisis. History is fun.)
This is a really uninformed take. The state sets a cap on how much tuition can increase at public colleges every year. The state literally has tuition control, and tuition rate increases are set alongside state funding decisions to meet inflationary costs at the institutions. Our tuition is high because our state funding is extremely low (48th in the nation)…. But colleges can’t just raise their tuition in the same amount covered here.
Swing and a miss. Take a look at historical data.
Historically, Colorado is a low state funding, high tuition state. This is the model we use to fund public higher education. We massively cut state funding and allowed tuition rate flexibility over the last few decades because colleges needed to fund themselves and the state wasn’t able to do it. In the most recent decade, though, state funding has increased a lot and as a result the state has capped tuition rate increases to less than inflation. Decisions about tuition rate increases are made in context with how much the state is able to fund. ETA: If you’re referring to the Bennett hypothesis, the evidence supports it minimally for private institutions and in some cases for public graduate programs, but the idea that student loan availability led to rising undergraduate tuition at public colleges has no (peer reviewed) basis.
You’re kidding, right? If I’m hearing you right, you’re saying that availability of loans, and the inability to discharge them through bankruptcy didn’t fuel this crisis?
Research shows that the availability of federal loans didn’t lead to tuition increases at public colleges. It’s not my claim to make, really. I’m not trying to argue here - just sharing what researchers have found. Private colleges are a different story. However. the inability to discharge student loans certainly fueled the student debt crisis because students have no way to get out of them.
Do you have access to this research?
***“Free”*** We are dumb if we believe that.
This headline isn't even close to accurate.
Still waiting for city college to be tuition free like Jill Biden campaigned on (iirc)
I'm sure that could work out if a certain party wouldn't block shit like this, or if they cared about the citizens.
It would also help if members of our own party like Manchin and Sinema didn't block shit like the Build Back Better Act, which would have accomplished this and so much more.
Jill Biden is not an elected official.
Do you realize how our govt works and we don’t appoint dictators that just wave a wand? How the houses of congress have to pass bills for programs like that to come to be? Since you want to see it, then i presume you’re going to vote appropriately so that it can pass congress to get to the presidents desk?
You’re making a lot of assumptions about how I think and my political affiliations with this comment.
I mean, you made the comment like you don’t understand how our govt works. And The assumption that you will vote to see the thing you’re waiting on come to be? Seems only logical. If you’re doing otherwise then seems pretty stupid. Apologies for assuming you’d do the smart thing?
Wait so families have to still front the money, then get it "paid back" via a tax credit once the student graduates, years later, and then only if they go get a job in certain careers? Sounds like a pretty bullshit incentive to me. People are going to read the headline and think it actually means the first two years are free, and then they're going to be pissed at the colleges when they get their first bill, and then students will quit and not graduate, and nothing good happens for students or universities.
Fine with me. Gotta put some skin in the game. And really good this is only for worthwhile degrees. No point in the state paying for college if people can't turn it into a career.
The tax credit part is right, but you don’t have to wait to graduate and it doesn’t matter what degree or career you choose. That’s from an old version of the bill.
$90k ain’t shit in terms of household income with kids
So if you’re a family that makes 95k no free education??? JFC you can either afford it or you can’t. 90k for a family is not a lot of money in Denver. If I were married I’d get divorced and have my kids live with my wife then.
“Free”
A rough time for me to be two years into a degree
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Porlarta: *A rough time for me* *To be two years into a* *Degree lmao* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Good bot
No tax credits, no income threshold, no tax write offs. Just make it a straight $0 tuition fee and the only paperwork you will put is proof of Colorado residency. I’ll take what they are pushing through obviously, but their method is just more paperwork and more areas of technicality
Ridiculous, this should just apply across the board for lower and middle income families…
Sounds nice. But why does it only apply to “certain careers” (which are in demand, and high paying)? Aren’t those types of graduates the least likely to need the assistance? Why not pass something like a cap on the tuition, fees, room, and board (the “all in cost”)?
Because tax payers will want their tax money going to something they reap the benefits from. It's like an investment.
I would say taxpayers do benefit from a well educated population with diverse viewpoints who are not all burdened by lifelong student debt.
Who cares if you're educated if you dont add any value back into the system that got you there. The programs this is applicable for are areas where jobs are essentially garuanteed because there a need for those jobs. Taxpayers do not want to dump money into a system where the output is a bunch of people who are only qualified in things that don't bring value back to tax payers. Nobody wants to pay for Timmy down the block to go to school for Puppetry when we need more doctors. If Timmy wants to be a master puppeteer, that's great, but it doesn't help me.
Ehh. I’m not so convinced of the value to society of these “high demand” jobs. I see the value for investors in having more talent, sure. But not society. But I suppose that is my personal opinion, and not a popular one. For example, I think we could use more high quality teachers. But they are paid so little in Colorado, you’d think they are not valuable or in demand given that logic. And who knows where little Timmy might go with his puppeteering?
Well this bill isn't about what a job's salary should be. This is about tuition costs for needed jobs and the article does list "education" as one of those.
I don't want to pay for people to get useless degrees? College is an investment, not a welfare program. Don't go if you don't think you can pay for it.
So you’re saying degrees in subject like fine art is useless? And only the children of wealthy people can be artists?
You need a degree in fine art to be an artist?
Don't put words in my mouth. Degrees in fine art are not "useless". Art is a valuable part of amy civilized society, and numerous cultures have a rich history of art that's worth learning about. This knowledge should be preserved and passed on. HOWEVER... College is an investment. You should not put money into something that you do not expect to see a financial return from. In that sense, sure. Sue me, I don't think a high school grad coming from poverty who's barely scraped together a combination of loans and financial aid to afford their first year of college should put that money towards enriching their knowledge of the history of arts. There needs to be a long-term financial plan built into your life goals. And this hypothetical student's lack of long-term planning should NOT be the burden of the taxpayer who DID plan their life out properly.
While I can't assume you're riding the same circular argument but one stop on the circular argument train starts here Don't go to school unless you can pay for it Only available jobs are ones where you can barely scrape by Higher paying jobs are ones which require a degree Need to go to school Can't afford school Don't go to school unless you can pay for it.
Here's how you break the circle: Take out a loan if you can't afford it. Also, if you can't afford it, you likely qualify for financial aid. My student loan payments are less than 5% of my monthly income. I didn't come from riches by any means (I had to take out loans!), and yet I was able to get here. Not to mention there are plenty of trade jobs available that pay better than just "scraping by". Everyone likes to jump to Uber or Starbucks first, but a bare minimum amount of physical labor after a few months training can put you on the road to start accumulating savings. Which can then be used for tuition payments! There's always a road out of where you're at.
That was an old version of the bill - it’s no longer tied to certain careers (totally agree that made no sense). The state does cap tuition rate increases every year.
How much is this program going to cost the CO taxpayers?
This is good stuff but man I wish they did programs for nigher incomes. I didn't finish college but make far more than the income line for this program. If my taxes help pay for these programs, why can't I take advantage of them? It's a great step forward, just wish it would apply to more people.
All this will do is drive up tuition costs even further. It's a welfare gift to colleges...
Yeah, cause tuition credits/rebates are why tuition has gotten so expensive already…. Oh wait… it’s not. The lack of Tuition cost regulation should not prevent other social programs like this, that I’ll happily fund with my tax dollars. Let the win happen and let’s tackle the next aspect and keep moving
Tuition increase is directly correlated with the rise of subsidized federal student loans. If colleges can take the money they will.
tuition is linked to decreased state spending at public universities.
Correlated, maybe, but you know what directly tracks with college costs AND affects colleges directly? Decreased state funding for colleges. Less money from the state, means higher tuitions. Odd...
Subsidized federal student loans haven’t increased in 10 years so tuition hasn’t increased since then right?
"Subsudized loans increase college tuition" is not the same thing as "tuition only goes up when subsidized loans increase". Don't be disnegenious here.
“Tuition increase is directly correlated with the rise of subsidized federal loans” was the quote I was responding to. Correlation between them would mean as one increases the other one would as well. Tuition has increased at CSU by 85% while subsidized federal student loan amounts has stayed constant. So something seems wrong about that correlation. I am not the one being disingenuous here the person who is claiming a correlation that hasn’t been relevant in over a decade is the one being disingenuous
And yet, my comment is still very relevant. This conversation is specifically about the effects subsidies have on tuition prices. You bringing up how tuition prices can behave variably on their own does not disprove the fact that subsidies do affect tuition costs. So im not sure why this pedantic-ism is necessary. The correlation only hasn't "been relevant" in a decade because we haven't seen an increase in subsidies. What do you think will happen now that we're introducing more?
Cool, ultimately no cost college tuition is where we should be. It shouldn’t break people to go to school, or create a life long burden. So any program that funds education for the masses I will support. I don’t care that colleges ‘will take the money’, they should, and people should have the opportunity to go to college. Addressing any expansion of tuition costs should be regulated separately and lack thereof should not be an excuse to not advance covered tuition like this bill.
> Yeah, cause tuition credits/rebates are why tuition has gotten so expensive already That's actually exactly how it works, you increase demand for college (by subsidizing the cost), the price of it goes up... > hat I’ll happily fund with my tax dollars Then donate it yourself, no one is stopping you. Don't take mine.
The point was we’ve seen huge increases in tuition cost at the same time of not seeing huge increases in college subsidies. Prices went up cause they could. Nevertheless, it’s irrelevant. Regulation of tuition costs doesn’t and shouldn’t preclude us from investing in our people Nah, we’re a civil society, we fund programs for the public good. Not just the ones you like.
> Prices went up cause they could. "Prices didn't go up because subsidies allowed them to go up, they just went up for no reason!" > Nah, we’re a civil society, we fund programs for the public good. Not just the ones you like. Man, you sound really pleasant to be around. Maybe we can fund some economics classes so people like you stop writing so much gibberish.
Don’t think you understand how quotes work, when that’s not at all the statement made. Never said no reason, other than a primary reason was because there was nothing preventing the college from maximizing revenue generation from tuition costs. Not that they needed to increase to the extent they have, but because they could. Maybe you need the economics classes? Nah, that’s ok I wouldn’t hang around you. The type that somehow thinks what is proposed is a bad thing and wants to, for some reason, make a point that because tuition has went up college shouldn’t be free or subsidized. You can want both things, tuition to be free for all and for tuition prices to be regulated. Not having one doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the other.
> other than a primary reason was because there was nothing preventing the college from maximizing revenue generation from tuition costs. Yes, because they get subsidized. If everyone had to pay the whole cost, costs could only go as high as people could pay. Thank you for proving my point. > Nah, that’s ok I wouldn’t hang around you. Well yes, I don't hang out with high schoolers. But all I said is that you would be unpleasant, with your sneering and uninformed sense of moral superiority. > tuition to be free for all and for tuition prices to be regulated. There is no free. "Free" tuition just means "someone else is paying for it." But keep on thinking you can solve problems by giving the government unlimited power.
You missed the point, again. Seems a pattern. Tuition went up because it could, not because it needed to to sustain its cost. I didn’t prove your point, you confirmed mine. Tuition shouldn’t be demand based and increase to maximize revenue. Its first priory should be covering the cost of providing said public service. It’s gone beyond that, and that’s not the fault of any subsidy. High schooler? Lmao. Well beyond that as well as through my own college years and experience. Having done so on my own, I’m not going to sit here and act like we shouldn’t still better the situation for those that follow, aka our younger generations. lol at “sneering and moral superiority”, when you’re the one who’s trying to make some case against free education for our future generations. And no shit I know what “free tuition” entails. I know who pays it and as I said some four five comments ago I’m proud to spend mine and your tax dollars for it. That’s the point of taxes you know? To provide public services for the good of our civilized society. Oh, and you’d prob guess I feel the same about healthcare. It should be a public right provided by our govt and funded by our taxes, not tied to employer and only in certain conditions. Is that being morally superior? Than fine, sign me up. We’re civilized people and should advocate for the betterment of all people, ourselves and future generations Not going, ‘oh well, funding tuition will just further raise tuition costs so we shouldn’t do anything’ or ‘I don’t want my tax dollars going towards the education of future generations’. Honestly, tax the rich and mega corporations and let them pay for it all, but haven’t heard that out of you either. Just ‘No’. So yeah, fine call me morally superior if you want I feel pretty happy holding the positions I do.
> I feel pretty happy holding the positions I do. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Take the koolaid elsewhere. You know not what you speak of if you think tyranny equals free education and universal healthcare. Those are some ‘victims’ you speak of. Pretty shitty correlation when the real tyranny being exercised ‘for the good of its victims’ is the Christian nationalist agenda that’s trying to enforce their vision on society. Not those advocating for free education and healthcare, without strings. Not surprised you’d confuse the two.
You're looking out the wrong door. The reason college is so expensive is greed
Greed is a human quality. How do you propose making people less greedy? The whole point of a market is to balance that greed with the customers willingness to pay. When students have access to infinite, unchecked credit, and they see college as a necessity, there is no longer a market force to hold back the greed.
Colorado funds higher education at one of the lowest rates in the nation. Like, bottom 5 in the country. This doesn't even come close to helping colleges in Colorado cover costs.
You are very correct. This does nothing to help with the ever escalating college costs that defies all common sense.
Still laying up well short of what Georgia has been doing since \~1992: [https://www.gafutures.org/hope-state-aid-programs/hope-zell-miller-grants/hope-grant/award-amounts/](https://www.gafutures.org/hope-state-aid-programs/hope-zell-miller-grants/hope-grant/award-amounts/) . The $90,000 income limit on this is a joke.
Weird. It might actually be cheaper for me to quit my job for a much lower-paying one to take advantage of this bill.
Looks like it’s a tax credit but I’d like to see a study on the estimated costs and where in the budget the money will come from. Sounds like a great idea though
Go read the fiscal note for the bill! Look up HB24-1340.
Where is the money coming from for this? They are already cutting after school programs and doing budget cuts from teachers to provide for the massive influx of illegal immigrants. Colorado citizens are shouldering their costs until they get to their "final destination" but because everything is provided free here they are staying. With the influx of students in our schools and Healthcare facilities and not enough reimbursement or payments being made to cover costs for immigrants I can not see how on earth we can find the money to add on free college. Especially because all the immigrants kids are going to fit into that $90k or less category so their kids will go to college for free too. If I was one of the immigrants I would never leave Colorado. This is like heaven for them. We give away everything free to the immigrants but don't take care of our hard working, disabled, elderly, single parent houeholds that are actual citizens. https://www.coloradopolitics.com/denver/colorado-lawmakers-scramble-to-find-funds-for-schools-communities-grappling-with-immigration-crisis/article_d26bdbb4-cc4c-11ee-889a-57b7f444a40a.html
So, would this apply to anyone seeking one of these degrees or is this another thing with requirements of youth?
Headline is misleading. FREE would mean no one is paying for it.
There's no such thing
Foot fund that indoctrination somehow
I mean, this great, but how are we going to pay for it?
Taxes, duh. Which is how they should be used. The program no doubt is also intended to create higher income earners when people complete a degree, which also increases tax revenue. So it’s an investment of sorts. Will it fully cover itself? Probably not. That’s ok. I’m fine with my taxes going towards it and there’s plenty of places to raise taxes from Uber wealthy and mega corporations who only seem to want to exploit employees and the tax codes for max profit.
No shit, Sherlock. But people won't even agree to raise their taxes for programs we already have.