Stop trying to trigger Greenie, its a disease.
Also I agree with Ohai, I just don’t find people spending inordinate amounts of time and energy to get by at things they aren’t well suited for all that impressive. Just seems like a suboptimal time waste, life’s too short. Unless they’re literally not meant to be good at anything and they found a way to be good at something, in that case it makes more sense. Still not really that impressive IMO unless you don’t get out much.
Yea like old people. They really shouldn’t be in the workforce cuz they are slow.
also not all chicks are gold diggers. So high chance that rich fat guy will still be rejected.
but real talk I once went to a Burger King and they had special people working. I know it’s messed up but I got grossed out. Anyways there is a law that is coming soon that requires homes that take care of special people and receive a stipend from the government to find them a productive job to continue receiving stipend. Anyhow I think many of these homes will be shut down and converted to something else. Very sad!
you child’s success depends on your success. so your children is simply a measure of your achievements in life!
Georgetown study: ‘To succeed in America, it’s better to be born rich than smart’
Specifically, the study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35.
A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same milestones.
Even if students from disadvantaged households do beat the odds and earn a college degree, they still face challenges. The Georgetown study found that kindergartners from low socioeconomic status families who scored in the top 25% and later earned college degrees had a 76% chance of reaching high socioeconomic status by the age of 25.
By comparison, their low-scoring, high socioeconomic status peers who earned college degrees compared had a 91% chance of maintaining their status.
This is why front loading funding to the 529 early is key. Time in the market, friends.
Ok interesting. When withdraws are placed from our education plans, the grant and growth is taxed in the hands of the beneficiary, initial capital can be withdrawn tax-free.
so its like a roth but the spedning for it is restricted to education only.
Well the lifetime contribution limit is $50k (per beneficiary), and the maximum grant the government will pay is $7,200. When you want to make a withdraw, you need to provide a proof of enrollment document in order to redeem the grant and growth.
^I think he’s referring to the American system.
In America, the tax treatment of 529’s is very similar to Roth IRA’s. Contributions are not deductible. Earnings are not taxed. Withdrawals are not taxed.
The only difference is–with Roths, you have to wait until age 59.5. With 529’s, you can withdraw at any time, provided that it is for “qualified tuition expenses”. (There are some other nuanced differences, but they are minor. Except to a tax accountant.)
Or you could just put a cap on university tuition fees and level the playing field
Liberal biased universities should pay everyone the same amount since they love socialism and are always talking about income inequality, from the hard working janitor, to the PhD gender studies professor, to the football coaches. They should all agree to the same wage and practice what they preach
Yeah sure, believing education should be available to a broader demographic totally equates to requiring a wage cap. Makes perfect logical sense
Tanks! 
Your two statements are not the same. Someone could agree that higher education should be accessible, but disagree with a tuition cap. You have taken an ideological stance and ignored details.
For instance, I’d support disconnecting local taxes from local high schools and instead fund them on a larger geographic budget. This would reduce quality concentration in rich areas and help kids in poor families access educational resources.
However, an explicit college tuition cap would be inefficient and would damage quality, since it would reduce funds available to universities. Poor kids who get into good schools get a lot of financial aid anyway. So, we could increase access by helping poor kids with high school attainment.
Maybe, alternatively, we should allow the individual states to cap enrollment and to come up with individual systems to see who gets in.
School #1 gets 5,000 incoming freshman every year. Students are selected purely by the amount that their parents are willing to bid to get them into school.
School #2 gets 7,000 incoming freshmen every year. At various counties throughout the state, there are jousting competitions whereby the top 7,000 are selected and get into school.
School #2 is has 10,000 incoming freshman. There is a huge jar of jellybeans in the Capitol building, and all the applicants write their names on a piece of paper and guess how many jellybeans there are. The 10,000 that are closest get admitted.
Two parents walk in. Only 1 parent 1 walks out!!!
I was being facetious but fair enough, one is theory and the other is implementation. However, your statement about a tuition cap damaging quality is also based on an ideological stance. Just look at the over representation of UK universities on global rankings.
What do you mean? You cannot make an example of UK universities without realizing that the US is even more dominant in all academic measures. We are the most expensive system, but also drive the world forward. It is not perfect, but does have major benefits. Highest risk, highest investment, highest gain. That’s how America works.
Anyway, UK gets a prestige bonus, which attracts global talent and donors; the same reason why foreign people pay millions of pounds for Mayfair apartments. However, thanks to BoJo and friends, UK seems intent on throwing this away. You can’t keep living on pride without substance. People still have this mythos about UK ruling the world, but they are starting to get wise.
Ideas and implementation are the same. No point to talk about nice goals while espousing unpractical paths towards them.
The European economic system is increasingly under its own pressure (although the US isn’t far behind) and the almost complete lack of representation of Europe in the tech industry is going to increasingly disadvantage it over the next generations as they fall behind in that sector. BlackRock has had a number of really great charts hitting on that long term thematic in their monthly Rick Rieder calls. I think a lot of that was sewn (to Ohai’s point) by their willingness to coast on prestige and brand value as well as their economic structure which is more Median oriented as opposed to the US’s orientation towards the Mean. I think both have major flaws and could benefit from adopting principals from the other.
That’s funny, you respond to the UK being used as an example to counter your statement about a tuition cap decreasing quality with a staunch defense of the US and a rant about their superiority.
Did you notice that I said over representation of the UK in rankings? I’m not saying that the UK system (or the UK in general) is better but you can’t really state that a tuition cap reduces quality as a fact when the top 2 universities in the world have capped tuition fees. Beyond the top 2 there are quite a few others in the top 20, all subject to a cap, some more prestigious than others.
The US system rides on prestige as well. The only difference is the prestige is created by the excessive cost and the fact that it’s unavailable to a huge swathe of the population. That’s how America works. Sell the population the illusion of a meritocratic dream.
BS, I agree on the broader tech point. My hope is the UK crashes out of the EU, Scotland vote for independence and we spend our oil money returning our economy to our innovative, entrepreneurial roots.