Friday, January 12, 2018

Economics of Service Hours

The philosophy of 'objectivism' promotes the hard work of individuals to support a group. For high school students, it is important that they learn to serve their community in some way. A community service hours requirement for BHS students could beneficial to our awareness of society. "Teens develop an increased sense of social responsibility—a global view of society and a heart for "giving back" and helping others." (Camille Heidebrecht,, 2015) The benefits of service branch out from students to the people around them. If we want to make the youth of our community have an understanding of doing good things for others, then high school volunteer work would be a good option to promote this perspective.

Service requirements do pose as a red flag to some views. Why should high school students be subjected to mandatory work? This just adds another requirement that students have to complete, regardless of their current workload. "Volunteering lies in an individual's will and drive to help others and enforcing it eliminates that drive. By forcing students to do community service, school officials are essentially doing the equivalent of the mandatory system practiced in penitentiaries." (Melanie Hibbert,, 2011) Students currently have a good balance of schoolwork, and mandatory service would be an inconvenience to most students. High school required community service may make the students more socially aware, but it is unfair to be put upon students that don't want to be doing it. 

I believe that community service should be strongly suggested for high school students, but not required. It is unfair to force students to work, but those who are willing to volunteer on their own will benefit the community. If this was implemented at BHS, our students would become more motivated to be better people. People could even be inspired to volunteer after seeing their peers do it. As long as students can be flexible with their commitments, promoting community service would greatly impact our community.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Tuition Subsidies

A positive for the government funding colleges is that, with the extra revenue coming in, students will have a smaller amount of debt due to college and they wont have to worry about spending their hard earned money managing their debt and trying living. "The real finance struggle for lower-class students does not come from paying for their tuition, but rather from living expenses. Every semester, the price to buy my textbooks for fifteen credit hours ranges from $300 to $800. For students who are eligible for the Federal Pell Grants, the costs cover their tuition and does not cover huge wallet-crunchers, like textbooks. " (Rachael Caffery,

A negative of the government funding college is that, in order for the college to be paid for, the cost is that taxes would have to increase in order for money to be distributed since our taxes have already been divided up to fund other programs such as Public schooling, Social Security etc.  Lindsey Burke from says that "Colleges that provide poor education shouldn’t be protected by a captive market of students with federally provided cash if you can’t provide an education in an open market, you shouldn’t be propped up by the feds" (

My Final thought: I do not believe the government should pay / help pay for college because, college is not a necessary thing as many people have succeeded as much or as more than people that have finished college. Also if the rate of college drop out increase and the debt decreases, we still don't know how this person will benefit the economy or the country from their gained knowledge, a  lot of people still with a degree still have a hard time having a job despite having the right qualifications. 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

government subsidizing colleges

People think that the government should use the money that the taxpayers pay because it is for kids to get a higher education. “My experience as a higher education researcher tells me that the way this question is answered depends on who you think benefits. If you think individuals capture most of the benefits of higher education, then it is reasonable to ask individuals to pay the costs. On the other hand, if you think society shares in the benefits of college, then you might favor public support for higher education.” ( If kids are in college they will receive a better education which will get them a better job and have them receiving more money to hopefully put back into medicare and such. So it all balances out.

On the other hand people think that the colleges should not be paid for by taxpayers because they feel as if why should they pay for kids to go and party. “Colleges and universities shouldn’t be responsible for the state of the job market or for fledgling students who spend more time partying than studying, but they should be held accountable for promises they make and be made to pay up if fraud is proven. However, the Department of Education’s proposal is clearly not the right way to go about this.” ( When students go to college they often have the usual college life and party all the time. So it makes sense why these people would not want to pay for kids to go to college to party and such.

I feel as if taxpayers should have to pay for college. Al though college students do party, they also leave with a higher education and with a better education comes more money. Therefore the people can pay more taxes when they grow up and it will go back to the older people through medicare and such.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

I will be going over the argument in favor of the government subsidizing college tuition. First it could prevent students from being in debt. It will also help the places that the student owe by solving the problem before it starts. My second point  is if they provide subsidizing for college students it will better the future. By buying for the tuition the students won’t be focus on debt and  more on their work.this is why it's good for the government to do this.

Here’s a link to what they do

I will be going over the argument against the government subsidizing college tuition. First the government can’t pay for all of the students tuition will it’s bad for them to do it because. The government will be spending money they don’t have. This will put the government into even more debt.So there is no way for the government to provide for all of the students.this is why it's bad for them to do it.

Here’s a link to what they do

I’m in the middle ground for the government subsidizing college tuition. Because it could help out students with their debt But. The government will be getting more and more into debt themselfs. It goes with the argument that the government spends money they don’t have. But if they were to somehow fix every students debt then it could will be making it easier for students to get throw school. This could also help them if they fail the class because they will be able to do it again.

College subsidy- Zweifel

There are many advantages of the government partially subsidizing or entirely subsidizing college. One advantage is that more people have access to higher education. A higher educated populus is a better populus. Another advantage is that student will not be crushing people like it is some today. Some people have to work decades to pay off student loans so no one would complain with less student loans. A final advantage is that more people would go to college. Tying into the first advantage, more people going to a college means a higher access to higher education ( 2017).
    However, many of these advantages have negatives that come along with them. First, subsidies for colleges have to come from somewhere, specifically the taxpayers. Increasing college subsidies means an increase in taxes. Second, more people graduating with 4 year degrees devalues a college degree. This means people have to do more to stand out by getting a masters, doctorate or phd ( 2017).
    In my opinion, college should not be subsidized anymore than it already is. Perhaps even lowering the current subsidies. This is because someone has to pay these subsidies and the people who pay are the taxpayers. I don’t want to have to pay for others college education. The other reason it shouldn’t be is because if many more people go to college and graduate the value of a degree go down.

Pollution Gas Tax

Sarah West and Roberton Williams ( say that "higher gas prices encourages work and that the optimal gasoline tax is substantially higher than previous research has suggested. Since these costs are imposed on others, people don't have enough incentive to conserve gas. Taxing gasoline forces drivers to take that cost into account when making driving decisions. If the gas tax equals marginal damage(pollution, accidents, noise, and traffic congestion), then the cost of gasoline to the driver is the same as the cost to society, thus providing the proper incentives."  In theory this would work because if you notice how expensive gas is you would either work more to get more money to work and if you dont' want to work that hard you will drive less to conserve less gas.

But raising the pollution gas is a regressive tax, Christopher Knittel and Ryan Sandler say that "drivers of dirtier vehicles would be more affected by fuel prices than drivers of clean vehicles", this means that drivers of dirtier vehicles usually either don't have enough money to pay for a car wash and usually have a low end car and job unlike a driver of a cleaner car, someone who has money and a nicer car. They also say that "The dirtiest vehicles, which are most responsive to an emissions tax, would not be taxed enough while some clean vehicles would be over-taxed.".(

My opinion is that  although the pollution may be drastically lowered if people save up their gas and dont drive as often, but gas is already very expensive and and raising that amount would be bad economically, but you could argue like Sarah West and Roberton Williams said, and that more expensive gas would force people to work harder if they want to drive around a lot, but this wont happen because the people with nicer cars already have money and the tax wont affect people too much compared to poorer people.

College tuition is a thing that causes many people not to go to college, either because they can't afford the tuition. But if there was no college tuition would eliminate the reason for not graduating, this would also improve the college graduation rate, as few students would feel the need to drop out to part time status or take a break from education for financial reasons (, Ellen Anderson, 2017). The benefits of no tuition, would increase the amount of confidence in students and the willingness to incease there education, because there's no fear of tuition.

If college tuition was nonexistent, where would the money come from, the short and simple answer is taxes. Who gets taxed seems to vary based on how's talking, but it seems certain that the upper of American society will see on increased taxes if this is passed (, Ellen Anderson, 2017). This would raise everyone taxes causing the amount you own more, nut how much a lot. Everyone that is out of college would have to pay play for the people in college how do you make money. If college was free people would take advantage of the system, and not not care about school.

I believe that there should be a college tuition, because it's what keeps everyone in check, there's a amount of pride, and happiness when expected into the college you want to go to, or getting that scholarship you wanted hard for. If college tuition was free that won't happen. Why would you try in school if you know you can get into college. Therefore if college tuition was free it would be nothing but harm.

Tuition Subsidies - Zachary Hawes

"...the aim of student aid programs is to help students..." (Higher Education Subsidies, by Chris Edwards and Neil McCluskey" which means that the overall purpose of this is to make college somewhat affordable. It aims to help students in achieving a higher education that isn't federally supported in the same way that high school is, and that is ultimately good, it can't be denied that wanting a higher standard of education, or increasing the overall intelligence of the nation is a bad thing to do. Simply put, it's not. 

"...the programs also transfer wealth from taxpayers to academic institutions." 
(Higher Education Subsidies, by Chris Edwards and Neil McCluskey). What this means, is essentially, it can be abused. While you can look at it as a positive, it's truly a negative, as history has shown. With the implementation of the G.I bill, which payed for the majority, if not all of your tuition, was abused when it was introduced in 1944. College would up the prices on tuition for veterans, for everyone, and in turn they received money for it, as most veterans took the opportunity to seize the opportunity. While they themselves were now swindled out of money, the Government was, and with raise of tuition, others were as well. 

I think college tuition subsidies have a place in our world, and in our education system. The socialization of college doesn't seem too bad, but a I don't want it too taxing on the workers. It's handled on a state level currently, which is fantastic it adds for more bendable regulation, and they can proper adjust it to what suits the community and local economy. I'm all for it, if it means people getting better paying jobs and paying back the community.

government college subsidies

Many people say that college is too expensive, and the government should subsidize the costs that young men and women often have to pay in order to further their education. This would result in a more educated population, which could increase the efficiency and quality of the workforce. And, people who go to college earn exponentially more in their lifetime. And college is a very important step in a person's lifetime, and should be more accessible to the young adults looking to go.

However, subsidizing college isn't all a good thing. First, it obviously increases the amount that people would have to pay in taxes. Many people will think "why should I pay for someone to go to college?" When they themselves may not have gone to college. Second, it would dilute the value of a degree. If everyone has a degree, then does a degree really matter?

I believe that we should not subsidize college education, as it would dilute the value of a college degree, and people shouldn't be forced to pay for other peoples' education.

Green, Richard. “Richard's Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog.” Should College Be Subsidized?, 1 Jan. 1970

Skorup, Jarrett. “Five Reasons The Government Shouldn't Subsidize Higher Education.”Five Reasons The State Shouldn't Subsidize Higher Education [Michigan Capitol Confidential], 13 Feb. 2013,
I think we should have college for free. "The college tution has raise 1,122 percent since 1978"( College tuition is too much money for a lot of the people in the us and some don't get the chance to get a higher education because of the money issue.
We shouldnt have free college, "At age nineteen, only around 20 percent of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent of families, the same number is around 90 percent." (New Saying the richer you are more likely you are to go to college so they might as well pay for college.
I think we should have free college but have to pay for living expensive like room and board and books and all the stuff we need for school. School is a lot of people and some people can't afford to pay all of it. If we want more people to attend college and get a higher education we need to make it free or a more reasonable cost.

Should the government subsidize college?

College is a very important part of a person's life. It is something that we work for and if we get the chance to be involved in it the government should pay for it. This part of our education is very effective with our future lives, such as jobs. It is very costly and we should not have to pay for school after already going through the number of years we have done it. We worked for it and it should be given as a good job or a gift in order to show our accomplishment. We could have funds and other things to help pay for this. We could low something else to get more money for this kind of thing. (Martha Kanter,, 2013)
The money factor of this could also severely hurt our economy. If we do not find a way to pay for it, it's going to be hard and going to cause our economy and government stance to struggle. If we made it so we had to raise the taxes on people to pay for this I do think people would not be happy with this at all and it would cause an even bigger problem . W would have to find a way that makes everyone happy. (Jessica, Schmidt Jan, 20 2014)
I do think that the government should find some way to pay for people's college education. It is beneficial for students and I think that if you made it, it shows that you worked for it and you should be awarded.

Should college tuition be subsidized? - McConnell

Increased college subsidies has its benefits for both the people and the economy. For one, cheaper, subsidized college would lead to more lower-income students to go to college (Ellen Andersen, College Raptor, Oct. 17, 2017), as more would be able to afford four years of tuition. Another benefit is that more people would go to college. With a more well-educated working force, the economy can prosper. Students could also have more choice in what major they pursue, instead of being steered towards STEM. Subsidized would certainly be good for the people.
    However, one must look at the cons as well. An immediate problem would be that the value of a college education would go down (Charles Lane, Washington Post, May 21, 2015). Another problem would be that the influx of students would require greater administration, and could lead to further subsidization. College subsidization could become a furthering spiral of federal funding. One of the biggest problems is that it leads to student entitlement - students don’t have to worry about paying for their education so why should they care? The last thing a young student needs is indifference.

     I think tuition ought to be subsidized. I don’t believe it should be fully free, as it devalues a college education. However, a young student shouldn’t be completely saddled with debt for a majority of their lives because they decided to get a higher education.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Should the government subsidize college? - Tyler Wellman

One good reason for the government subsidizing college tuition is that it will keep kids from dropping out if they can't afford it. "Some students drop out because they do not have the ability to pay for tuition all four years." ( Anderson 2017). If we keep subsidizing college tuition it help keep schools in school, so they can learn. Some kids that don't have as much money as others should not be prohibited to go to school because they don't have enough money to afford it. With having this it well help the kids get an education which can benefit the future of America. 

One negative affect of subsidizing college tuition is that the money has to come from somewhere. "Where would the money come from? The short and simple answer is taxes." ( Anderson 2017). If we want to subsidize college tuition then taxes will increase. Since a lot of money is needed for the tax payers to pay for some of the tuition the demand is going to increase which means more money out of our paychecks. People wouldn't be happy that more taxes will be taken out of their paycheck even though their kids are the ones benefiting from the tax payers paying for most of their tuition. 

I think the government should subsidize college tuition. There are so many benefits from doing so. We can help cut down the student debt which hurts so many people right now. Also kids will be able to stay in school which would benefit the future of America. If kids can't afford college and have to drop out they won't be able to get an education which will result in a decrease of their chances at getting a well paid job. 

College Subsidies? - Jake Bayles, Block 1

Going back to the presidential race of 2016, you might remember candidate Bernie Sanders proposing an act in his campaign that would declare free college for all. This act was brought back into view of the Democratic party back in April of this year by Senator Sanders, and research has found the possible pros of what free college could bring. According to the finding, The College For All act would take away the government’s ability to turn a profit off of student loans, as well as allow students to refinance their existing loans at smaller rates (George Zornick,, 2017). There are definitely some positives from this proposal, it just depends on how you look at how the rest of the world will either benefit or lose on the proposal.

The opposing argument on this deal, is most certainly the cost. The big question that was on a lot of people’s mind when Senator Sander’s was running the presidential race was how his proposed free college act would be paid for. According to research, this act would cost around $47 billion dollars a year, and it is said that putting a tax on Wall Street would be the primary source of income for the deal (Mitchell Wellman,, 2017). One question that comes into mind is how this proposal would affect others that are paying for people to attend college. One might argue that money that they’re making and working for, should not be spent on people they don’t even know, to attend college.  

My position on this deal is that the government should not pay for college tuition. The only reason I say this is considering the cost for free college, taxes for Americans only have the potential to go up. I understand that a tax reform has just recently been signed into law, but it would be hard for taxes to stay low if billions of dollars are being put into free college. I guess another thing for me is that I know some people have to work to pay for their tuition, and they might believe that you have to work for your best interest, and achieve something of the American dream.


College is a critical piece of individuals' expert instruction. To keep this training open, the legislature ought to finance educational cost. “It would also allow students to refinance existing loans at low rates and would cut the government lending rate for new undergraduate borrowers to 1.88 percent” (Zornick,, 2017). Advanced education is essential for building up a profession, and it is ending up more costly. With a specific end goal to keep this open door accessible for decided people, the administration needs to give endowments to educational cost. Instruction prompts development, making the estimation of sponsorships justified, despite all the trouble.

     While government endowments enable understudies to pay for college, they are really hurtful in the way that educational cost is expanded when appropriations are expanded. "The suggestion is the government is energizing an endless loop of higher costs and government help that at last could cost citizens and value a few Americans out of advanced education, like what a few market analysts battle occurred with the lodging bubble."(Jessica, Schmidt Jan, 20 2014).The measure of appropriations connects to the cost of college educational cost. To accomplish the coveted impact, which is low educational cost value, sponsorships ought to be limited. This would bring about an emotional change that would impact the nature of college instruction.

     I trust that the government ought to finance college. Nonetheless, this framework ought not depend close by outs, yet rather concentrate on understudies that exhibit their capacities and requirements. At the end of the day, government appropriations ought to be utilized as an approach to offset the open doors that a few understudies may not get because of their life circumstances. On the off chance that this objective was centered around and kept for the most part saved, at that point educational cost would have the capacity to cost less, and lesser-advantaged understudies would have the capacity to get a college instruction.

Should the government subsidize college?

College is an important part of people's professional education. To keep this education accessible, the government should subsidize tuition. "We need more colleges and universities to keep college affordable while delivering a high quality education, not only for students who are first in line, but for all, especially students who are first in their families to enter college, students from disadvantaged circumstances" (Martha Kanter,, 2013) Higher education is important for establishing a career, and it is becoming more expensive. In order to keep this opportunity available for determined individuals, the government needs to provide subsidies for tuition. Education leads to innovation, making the value of subsidies worth it.

While government subsidies help students pay for college, they are actually harmful in the fact that tuition is increased when subsidies are increased. "The implication is the federal government is fueling a vicious cycle of higher prices and government aid that ultimately could cost taxpayers and price some Americans out of higher education, similar to what some economists contend happened with the housing bubble." (Tim Worstall,, 2015) The amount of subsidies correlates to the price of college tuition. To achieve the desired effect, which is low tuition price, subsidies should be minimized. This would result in a dramatic change that would definitely influence the quality of college education.

I believe that the government should subsidize college. However, this system should not rely on hand-outs, but rather focus on students that demonstrate their abilities and needs. In other words, government subsidies should be used as a way to balance out the opportunities that some students may not get due to their life situations. If this goal was focused on and kept generally reserved, then tuition would be able to cost less, and lesser-privileged students would be able to get a college education.

Tuition subsidy- berg

A pro to having tuition subsidy mean that students won’t have as much debt once they leave the school. Having a lot of debt can hurt someone’s plan for a long time. So having a subsidy on College will help the students out (Becker,, 2017).

A con to having a tuition subsidy is that no matter how much they subsidize the student will still be in debt. So the government even giving a little doesn’t do as much as they’d like to think. The student will still be leaving college with debt and a lot of work to do to get out of debt (Becker,, 2017).

I believe that the government should subsidize college because the debt you leave with could have been more if they didn’t subsidize the tuition. Not having debt after college would be a miracle so the subsidy will help lower the amount of debt you have.

Tuition- Newton

The government paying for tuition is helpful in the fact that student loans won’t be so severe. With the subsidy more education can be afforded and people can get a degree in order to get a job. Bernie Sanders had a plan and said it would be beneficial to the Country if the tuition was paid for. “It would also allow students to refinance existing loans at low rates, and would cut the government lending rate for new undergraduate borrowers to 1.88 percent” (Zornick,, 2017). More people going to college can help the government and society we live in. Higher education higher pedestal to stand on from a societal standpoint.

Although, some may argue and say that it does not increase the job market and some workers may just need an apprenticeship and not a degree. Pushing for college does not make everyone graduate ready. If the subsidy was in place it would lead to more high school dropouts in the hopes that the slacker can get to college scott free. (Skorup,, 2013).

Subsidies for tuition are useless. People need to know what awaits after graduation and working for the college education from scholarships would be better than getting the government to pay for it through taxpayers. Subsidies may be good for some people but are useless to taxpayers who had to work for their degrees.

Gas tax - Zweifel

Raising the gas tax has its merits. One of these merits is an increase in the gas tax is more money to spend elsewhere. President Trump has proposed a gas tax to increase the budget for infrastructure, specifically highways and bridges ( 2017). Increasing the infrastructure budget in America would be a big plus because many roads, interstates and bridges need to be repaired. It would also increase the incentive to get more fuel efficient or electric cars.
     However, an increase in the gas tax does have a couple of negatives. First, an increase in the gas tax would mean an increase in the price of gasoline. I already don’t like how much I have to pay for gas and I don’t want to pay more for it. Second, because gasoline is a necessity for so many Americans, raising the price doesn’t seem plausible. Other necessities such as food don’t have sales tax on it at all, but gas already has a tax so there shouldn’t be a new increase ( 2017).
     I believe there shouldn’t be an increase in the gas tax. Gas is such a necessity to so many Americans, I don’t think there could be a justification to raising the price.

Assignment: Should the government subsidize college? (Due Tues, Dec 5)

Image result for iowa universitiesImage result for iowa universitiesImage result for hawkeye logo

The Economics of Funding College Education:

Currently, the state government and taxpayers of Iowa pay for about 2/3 of any resident's tuition if he or she attends one of the state's three public universities (shown above).

-In one paragraph, analyze one argument in favor of the government subsidizing college tuition.  Be sure to evaluate one outside 'expert' source in support, using in-text citation.

-In one paragraph, analyze one argument against the government subsidizing college tuition.  Be sure to evaluate one outside 'expert' source in support, using in-text citation.

-In a final paragraph, defend your position on the government funding college education.

This assignment is due by 8:25 am on Tuesday, December 5.

Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline?

Some people believe that the government should increase the pollution tax on gasoline. According to David Blackmon from Forbes, the pollution tax should be raised to increase the standard of money available that we have for public infrastructure. "Think about it: raising a user fee as a means of actually paying for improvements to the nation's highways and bridges. What a novel concept!" (David Blackmon,, 2017) The position to increase the tax is simply based off of the factor that many pieces of transportation infrastructure need to be improved or repaired; anybody who drives has to pay for gas, and the tax goes directly back into what is necessary for public transportation. This idea is pretty solid, as it could result in extra jobs being created, higher quality transportation, and cleaner air.

On the other hand, some people think that the pollution tax shouldn't be raised. According to Alfredo Goyburu from The Heritage Foundation, rather than the hypothetical benefits of a tax increase, it would instead damage the economy. "Macroeconomic analysis shows that increasing the gas tax would depress economic activity and the incomes of millions of Americans. It would also raise significantly less revenue than its proponents project." (Alfredo Goyburu,, 2004) Based on the analysis, a tax increase would be a major disrupt to the amount of money that Americans have, the amount of job positions available, and even the GDP. The gas tax should not be increased so American citizens can be protected from the risks that come with it.

I think that in this day in age, gas is something that is needed, and can sometimes be difficult to obtain under our economic circumstances. However, as long as it isn't too high, I believe that a modest tax increase should still be accessible to those paying for gas, and would also benefit the infrastructure of our national transportation. A few cents increase would be a fair tax because people would most likely be able to pay it, and the benefits received would be pretty clear. Either way, this is a tough issue as raising the tax and preventing the raise both carry an equal weight of postive/negative implications.

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Pollution Tax? - Jake Bayles, Block 1

The main point of this argument is that if we already have taxes, why not pollution taxes? One particular point the article made was about how putting a higher tax on greenhouse gases shouldn’t weaken the economy. According to the research, Congress could become neutral on their position with the country’s revenue, they could swap out payroll taxes with higher pollution taxes (Brad Plumer,, 2011). I guess this idea could be beneficial to middle-class families who are worrying about payroll taxes, sure they would have to pay higher taxes on gasoline, but their are alternatives to transportation.

The main point of this article is stating that with the pollution tax, nothing is to be gained by the state enforcing the tax. The article stated that the money that can be made by the state from the tax would bring their revenue to a neutral standing, and won’t increase the state budget (Joshua Zaffos,, 2016). I would look at this from the standpoint that you have to consider the well being of the state government receiving enough money to keep the state in good hands. Also, the neutral standing of the state that was mentioned by the article, is an observation that the state would not gain anything more from an increased tax on pollution.

My position on this dispute is that the Pollution tax should be raised. I say this only because I do agree that they government could swap out one tax such as the payroll tax with higher pollution taxes. I know for myself that I like getting in my gas powered truck every morning and driving around, but I think for the future, there are better alternatives for transportation. Electric cars could be one of them, or to save individual families from paying a tax, increased public transportation is always an option. All in all, I think there's at least one tax out there that the government could stand to lower, and to even things out, the pollution tax could go up.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Gas tax

1.If the government were to increase the pollution tax on gas it would stop people from driving cars, and hopefully make the environment a cleaner and safer place. Not to mention it would help the government repair roads and such to make the highways a safer place. “The tumbling price of crude oil is helping many Americans save money. It also presents a good opportunity for state governments to raise their gasoline taxes to help pay for road repairs and other needed transportation investments.”( Raising the prices would also help americans save money to by not even driving the vehicle. Also, we could get more of a workout and burn fat using bikes.

2.we shouldn't raise taxes on gas because people who can barely get by with what they have struggle to pay for gas. Especially if the do a lot of traveling. “Middle-income families make up roughly one-third of Americans. By increasing the gas tax, not only are you lessening the amount of money in their pockets, but the amount of money being pumped into the economy is being lessened too. It’s estimated that a 1 percent increase in gas prices takes $1 billion out of consumers’ pockets. That’s $1 billion dollars that could be spent on eating out, clothes, and leisure activities.” ( Most importantly it hurts the middle class. Because in the end that tax will hurt them the most.

3. I feel as if we shouldn't raise the gas price because the middle class would suffer from this tax the most.”Oh, how far the country has come since August of 1993, and how far its infrastructure has ... not. The motor vehicle gas tax—those 18.4 cents that get tacked onto every gallon sold in the US—remains the primary funder of the road, bridge, and transit system. And even as inflation does its thing, cars grow more efficient, and the federal government’s transportation network expands, widens, and, yes, breaks, legislators steadfastly refuse to hike the thing. Now the Department of Transportation estimates the entire system will take at least $84 billion to maintain, not improve, each and every year.” ( Our country has been doing great without this raise on gas tax, so why change now. Our country will only slow down and our economy will stop growing.

Lauren Roemer

With a carbon tax we would have benefits for both the citizens and the government of the United States. If the price went up then hopefully the pollution would go down and there would be less people driving. This could lead to less traffic and less accidents on the roadways. THe gas taxes would push people to go to more environmentally friendly routes such as biking, walking, carpooling, or even electric cars. The government probably spends way to much money when it comes to clearing pollution. WIth this we would stop spending so much money and could use it on other things instead to help our economy. In the long run the gas tax would be good for many people in many different ways.(Future of Working, February 14, 2016). )
The carbon tax would also have some downfalls. If there are companies that refuse to pay these taxes it could risk them moving out of the country and resulting in us losing that business here. The costs of other good could also possible go up and people may be unhappy with that. It would still help the government but not the people so much in this way. (Brad Plumer, Washington Post, June 1, 2011)

I agree that the gas tax should not be a thing. It would cause way too many problems with other things. I do however know the pollution thing is a problem and maybe it could be put into rule in later years when it is more of a problem.
I will be going over reasons Tax on gasoline is good. First it can shorten the air pollution. By upping the price on gasoline less and less people will be buying gas and pollution the air.It can also help the department of transportation make the roads safe for other drivers. So they raise the price for pollution it would improve the roads. That why it's a good thing the end .
Link for supporting evidence  

I will be going over why tax on gasoline is bad. First it will end up costing a lot. Gas already cost a lot of money so adding tax to it will make it worse. People would end up not being able to afford it. Some people will try and buy cars that don’t need gas. Then the other business will  close down.
Link to supporting evidence

I agree and disagree with the tax on gasoline. Because it could make the environment better. But it won’t completely save it. Also if they raise the tax people might not be able to afford it. But they will have safer roads because of  how much money they are getting from the tax. But nobody will be driving on the roads because they don’t have gas money So i don’t know.

Pollution gas

I believe that raises the gas tax could became beneficial earning, that could be used to build new roads, and repair buildings. Benefits of increasing the gas tax, Federal motor duel taxes support highways, as well as public transportation, bicycle infrastructure and predestrian improvements. The federal gas tax is a big source of funding for the road and bridge repair.(, David Fesslor, 2016). But with the gas tax so low people aren't paying enough, to allow there to be a a lot of money to fix roads. So the fact is we need to raise the gas tax.

Raising the gas tax will only hurt, more people then benefit others. Everyone should be able to afford gas for there car, and raising the gas tax may stop some people for getting gas. Some of the members of congress want to raise the gas tax on gasoline to $5.45 cents per gallon. But in truth, increasing the gas tax would depress economic activity, and the income of millions of Americans( In the big picture, maybe the money earned from raising the gas tax my help benefit roads, and highways. But in doing so you hurting the economy and millions of jobs to do so.

I believe that there shouldn't be a gas tax, because it's not necessary. There is a large amount of gas that we have in stock, that's why the gas price is so low, therefore there's no reason to raise the gas price. Also people should be able to afford gas at a good price. And the increase of gas will only hurt the people that use it and the economy. While so people may say, raise the tax, improve are roads and highways. Only good things can come from it. Those people will only hurt themselves. That's why a gas tax shouldn't be raised.

Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? - McConnell

A carbon tax could benefit both the people and the government. If there was say, congestion pricing, which charges people for driving during rush hour, this could clear up roads and thus reduce pollution. According to the Washington Post, “extra fees on gas-guzzlers… can steer people toward more efficient vehicles.” (Brad Plumer, Washington Post, June 1, 2011) Gas taxes would push people towards more efficient vehicles. The most important thing to remember here is that not only would these benefit the people, but the environment and the government too. With less people on the road, there isn’t as much pollution being emitted, and the government could use the extra revenue from these taxes to improve infrastructure and education.

While carbon taxes have their benefits, there are also the risks that come with them. Some companies might not even want to pay the taxes, and they’ll simply move to a region that has little to no carbon tax. This would lead to a loss of jobs for anyone who worked for that company and didn’t move with them. The cost of production and transportation of goods would go up aswell, due to fossil fuel cost increases. Prices would go up, and this would weigh heavy on people who already have to pay extra taxes. Finally, the government might not be able to raise the funds to implement and enforce it (Future of Working, February 14, 2016).

I don’t think the government should raise the gas tax. The problem is that too many people use their own cars to get around places, and the increase of costs with production and transportation (leading to higher product cost) would weigh heavy on poorer people. The possibility of losing companies is something people ought to consider as well. If companies don’t like the carbon tax, they’ll just relocate elsewhere, leading to a loss of jobs. While the tax would be nice for the sake of improving environmental quality, it just carries a lot of risks.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? - Tyler Wellman

Raising the tax on gas would benefit many people. The money they earn can help improve the roads, making it safer for the travelers. Also, studies "find that higher gasoline taxes encourage work, and when this effect is taken into account, the optimal gasoline tax is substantially higher than previous research has suggested" ( 2017). Increasing the tax can motivate people to work harder since they have to pay more because the gas is needed for transportation. Therefore, if they get more money on the tax they can improve the roads that will benefit companies because it will give them more opportunities to work and lastly for anyone that uses the roads.

By raising the gas tax it would affect many Americans in a bad way. Part of Congress wants to increase the tax on gas by 5.45 cents per gallon. "Increasing the gas tax would depress economic activity and the incomes of millions of Americans." ( 2004 Hederman and Goyburu). Although raising the tax would help make the roads safer it would also hurt the incomes of many people in the economy. Plus gas is a high demand for people to get around, so if they raise the tax people might try to save more gas resulting in them not buying gas as often. 

I think the tax should not be raised, due to the tax fairness criteria of ability to pay. Gas is already expensive enough, so why would people spend more money. Some might not be able to afford the gas if the taxes are increased. Also people are going to keep on buying gas at the price it is at right now therefore there is no reason to raise it. Raising the taxes will result in unhappy customers. 

Pollution Taxes

     The main purpose of carbon tax is to ensure that companies or organizations that emit huge amounts of CO2, cut down if not eliminate their emissions, minimizing pollution and the effects of global warming in the process. When everyone takes part in this noble cause, whatever damage the environment is experiencing at the moment can be lessened and pave the way for possible healing. Maybe then, the environment would last longer and people would still have a planet to live in for the next millennia. "Think of cars powered by electricity or hydrogen fuels." (green Garage 07-11-06) How could we live our day to day life with out the world getting polluted somehow.

      It is believed that carbon tax will increase the cost of fossil fuels, which will then increase expenditures involved in goods and services production. In a poor developing world, this can spell bad news because they can’t afford the slightest increase in energy costs. Low-income earners are likely to suffer when their energy bills are raised. This would then call for a carbon tax rule that will reflect each person or company’s ability to pay. " This requires more time, effort and money." (green garage 06-17-09) Just because it requires more time and money its all worth it in the end.

     Taxes on carbon are not simply taxes on consumption, they’re a tax on production as well, since energy is a primary input to production (and is a growing share because of increasing automation). Taxing both production and consumption seems like a poor way to stimulate your economy, reduce your costs of production, or make your exports more competitive.

Pollution- Newton

Tax on gas should be increased. The New York TImes on May 3, 2017 suggested that Donald Trump’s hint at raising gas taxes could actually benefit states and some have taken the increase into their own hands. “Many states, tired of waiting for Washington, have raised fuel taxes. Just last month, lawmakers in California, Indiana, Montana and Tennessee voted for increases… Many large infrastructure projects cross state lines and involve multiple modes of transportation, like road, freight rail and mass transit, putting them beyond the capacity of individual states.” If the increase in taxes means bigger infrastructure, better roads, and helping develop railroads then raise the cost.

One argument against raising the tax is the stunt on economic growth. Boone from wrote in 2015 that the higher taxes could only mean the disturbance of middle class Americans. If a tax rate becomes too high in state people may move out. The economy of the state will be in poor shape if no one is purchasing the gas and paying the tax. “Reductions in discretionary income often correspond with diminished economic growth. In fact, analysts at Goldman Sachs predict ‘lower gas prices could add as much as half a percentage point to GDP growth this year.’” The Country won’t be able to pay off the debt is taxes are raised on gas, a necessity that people need to travel.

I don’t think the tax should be raised. The producer selling the gas could see a decrease in consumers and may have to shut down their business. Benefits received, you’re getting the same amount of gas as you were before so why pay extra if you don’t get more mileage? Don’t raise the tax on gas because it’s expensive enough as it is.

Gas tax - berg

Raising the gas tax would be a good idea because the money earned from the increase could be used to help the roads and other infrastructure.  The need to better the infrastructure is going to cost all Americans and they believe that raising the gas tax would be one way to solve that problem. Raising the tax to all more infrastructure updates would create  jobs sand benefit anyone who uses bridges and roads (Blackmon,, 2017)

By raising the tax there would be more long term negatives on the average person. Economists speculate that individuals savings will go down $8 billion dollars from 2005 to 2014. Raising the tax although it will fix more roads will definitely cause an upset in the economy (hederman,, 2004)

I think that by raising the tax one would be infringing on the ability to pay. Gas is a high demand item for people and I think that if one were to make it more difficult to purchase it then the system would be broken. Gas is already very expensive and I believe that raising it more will upset more people than it will help them.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Assignment: Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? (due Fri., December 1)

The Economics of Pollution Taxes:

The current federal sales tax specifically on gas is $0.18/gallon.  Additionally, purchasers of gas in Iowa pay a sales tax of $0.32/gallon (Source:  Should the various levels of government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline?  Analyze this issue using the following format:

1) In paragraph one, evaluate at least one argument in favor of the government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

2)  In paragraph two, evaluate at least one argument against the government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  You must include at least one outside source, using in-text citation (author, website, date).

3) In paragraph three, justify your position on the government increasing its pollution tax on gasoline.  Be sure to reflect on one of the four criteria for tax fairness (ability to pay; efficiency; simplicity; benefits received) in your explanation.

This assignment is due by 8:25 am on Friday, December 1.

Zweifel- Glass Ceiling

The glass ceiling is an invisible barrier blocking women from progressing in the workplace. The question is, are men to blame? Some would say yes and some would say no.
Some believe that men are definitely to blame. One opinion is that men are “victim blaming” women for not being more assertive, confident or competitive than men. Rather, men should be remaking the system to better format equality for men and women, “Things will only start to change once we stop blaming women, and start challenging the flawed system they must navigate” (Gloudeman 2015).
In comparison some believe that the fault falls to women. One argument is that the perception that there is a glass ceiling in a workplace at all inhibits a woman's ability to succeed in a work environment (Morgan @017). Women believing there is a glass ceiling is just psyching themselves out and setting themselves up for failure. Believing you can progress will improves your chances of progressing  (Morgan @017).

I believe that there is blame to be put on both sides. While there are certainly situations where a woman can not progress because she is a woman, I believe that is not nearly as common as some perceive. I do agree with the fact that if believe there is a glass ceiling you are setting yourself up for failure. If you enroll in a hard course and school and from the very beginning think you aren't going to succeed you are more likely to not succeed. In conclusion, both men and women could change their thinking to get rid of the glass ceiling.

Monday, November 20, 2017

I will give two reason why the glass ceiling could be caused by men is prejudice in the workplace. One reason is if you had  boss was prejudice against women and won’t give them a raise this this is a way men could cause a glass ceiling. Another way men could cause a glass ceiling is if everyone in the workplace could try and remove the person from the saying that they are skipping work when they are actually not.

I will  be going over reasons why men are not the reason why there's a glass ceiling. The reason why men are not the reason for the glass ceiling is. Not all men are prejudice to woman but other woman can and are prejudice to other woman. So it's not only men who are making the glass ceiling.  The way some people are the reason why there is a glass ceiling.  

I will be giving my opinion if men are to blame for the glass ceiling. Also how they could fix the problem. I think the glass ceiling isn't always there. I say this because not all jobs only focus on one gender or in favor of one gender. But there are some that are favor of one gender. So it is just based on how the boss acts towards a subject. I also don’t think it can be fixed because the only way to fix it is to change people's way of thinking and some people have strong opinion on something and will not change it. It will be almost impossible to change everyone mind on something  especially if they really believe there opinion.

Glass ceiling

In America, the median (middle) pay for women is 78% of that for men (according to 2016 US Census Data).  Are men to blame for this 'glass ceiling', or pay discrepancy, for female workers?

I believe that man are to blame for the glass ceiling. I feel this because it seems like it also been that the rol if the man is to work and make money while the woman stays at home. But in to days world that's not the case. Woman are just as intelligent as man or and have the same drive and work ethic to get things down. Holding them back in company shouldn't be a thing anymore.  Some people think that only man can make the hard decisions or the tough choices, "if only woman were more confident, more aggressivem more like man."(, Nikki Gloudeman, 2015). But in today's world woman are just as ready as man to start working in higher position.

I disagree that man are to blame for that glass ceiling because, in the work force man and woman have the schooling and same chance to get the job they want, but wants holding them back. I believe that the pressure the glass ceiling holds scare some woman to try for higher positions, so they just stay were there at and wish they could get that next position. In the work places, I feel that it's all about who you know , you get that next position. It's true, that woman have a harder time asserting themselve ( Nikki Gloudeman, 2015).You get it because know the boss or you worked really hard. So the glass ceiling isn't the fault if man, but the lack or confidence in the work places, and the drive to get the next position in the business.

I believe, that man are not to blame for the glass ceiling, and the only one who can fix it is the woman that 
are in the work place. A way to fix the problem many be to just have more confidence and believing that you can get the position and working really hard to get there, instead of fearing the glass ceiling. Another may be to allow more woman in jobs to equal the choice for more higher jobs in the work place for woman. The only way for the glass ceiling to fall is for the man and woman in the work place, to allow equal fairness toward promoting, there workers, and more confident in the work place.