Wednesday, September 28, 2016

     Well if everyone wants people to go to college then that would make more people want to go because it will be parcially/fully paid for. Sometimes people don't go because they can't afford college because it's so expensive and sometimes no one will help pay for them to get into college. If more people go to college our economy will be more educated which will eventually pay off in the end. Plus the government makes so much money it's not gonna affect too much from them to help people that can't pay for college out.
     I think most people can afford paying for their own college and they don't need any support and shouldn't ask for any assistance to help pay for it. I don't think the government should help people that can pay for college because they'd be asking for it just because they want more money for themselves when their fully capable of paying for it themselves. If the government pays for it they'll have to raise taxes or spending.
     The government should only support people in college when they don't have enough money to afford it but really wanna go to make a difference in their life and put forth the effort to do it and not go then drop out wasting the governments time and money. They should have to pay fees and percentage of it not a lot but little.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Why having the government subsidize college tuition? College is expensive for a lot of people with government help, it can reduce payment up front. ("Pell grant recipients has expanded by 50 percent over that same time, providing college access to millions of low income and middle class." Whitehouse.org, 2016). With the Pell grant helping people is good money wise.

  On the other hand why government not subsiding college tuition? With college aid from the government means higher tuition. Eduardo Porter says, ("it has the most expensive higher education in the world $26,000 a year, on average", townhall.com, 2016). Basically over government is raising college to be more & more. Expensive every year.

  I believe college is kinda good the way it is. More help with it raises college tuition every year. So I think we need to find a better way to deal with college. Yes more government help would help pay up front prices but we don't need much help with government, taxes go up too much year by year.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Subsidize College

It would be good If the government subsidize the collage tuition because it could help with there being more people in the field like medical or government/business. And it will help the less fortunate people to get on there feet and go to college."We know that too many students are struggling to repay their debt today for college"( home room). If this is happening to people it show that we need to do something about this, you should be able to pay off your debt fast.That is why it would be best for colleges to be subsidize.

It is not a good idea for the government to subsidize collage. People are going to have to learn to fight for what you want. It also means that we are going to have to pay more out of are hand if we did. "After netting out grants and tax benefits cost grew from $18,270 to $23,550"(Chris Edwards,Downsizing the federal government, November 1, 2015). That is still a lot to have to pay for and it can cost more to so really you should have had a plan to save money up so you can go if you really wanted to go. That why you should not have to subsidize college tuitions.

I do not believe that college should be subsidize because it is you job to fix problems you are in. It also will help you grow and get smarter on solving things like this. You also can get a tuition if you do try to get it. I think it cost so much to help with build up your mind for you future because not everything is going to be easy.

Pay for own school

It is wasteful to spending the money for the kid, and it have not effect on the this kid. This kid ripoff for the enter the Canada socialized college.

College education

The enter the college is hard then we need the subsidized from the government. The favor of the subsidies college tuition is most of good to the poor student, and they are can enter the college by the subsidized.  The students from the poorest families are less than half as likely as those from the wealthiest families to get bachelor's degrees , it is by the money.cnn.com. So they are the poorest families difficult to get the degree to the son or daughter.

Beside the against the government subsidized is people don't profit the government. According the dissent magazine.org, it is not effect on the rich family so they are don'need to get to subsidize from the government. This is the opposite of the favor of subsidized from government. So, they are is not to cross the each other.

I should government should to give the subsidized tuition to the college, and college need to give the poor student to enter. The most of poorest student can not have the money for the enter the college then can not take the tuition. It is mostly need the skill for the study to make level-up they are own skills. So, college is need subsidizes from the government.

Subsidizing college

An argument that could be made in favor of the government subsidizing college is that it will make it much cheaper for students to enroll. Because college is so expensive, a lot of people would not be able to afford college without government subsidies. "Today, 71% of students earning a bachelor's degree will graduate with debt, which averages $29,400." (Whitehouse.gov) The article states that most of the students that graduate college still have debt when they graduate. And so without government subsidies that percentage would be a lot higher.

       A reason government subsidies towards college is that subsidies actually raise the price of tuition. "The report’s findings show that of all three programs the Federal Direct Subsidized Loans generated a 65 cent-on-the-dollar increase on college tuition," (Ethan Stoetzer, usatoday.com, 8/20/15) The article talks about how when the government raised subsidies on college tuition it actually raised the average price of tuition for students. So it's actually doing the opposite of what people want and it's costing the tax payers more money. The government also should not be responsible for paying students tuition on higher education.

        I think that the government shouldn't give subsidies on college tuition. They already provide education from kindergarten through grade 12 so higher education should be left to students to pay for. And when the government does give subsidies it just raises the price of tuition so it hurts all college students. Students would also generally not try as hard in school because it's mostly not their money that they are spending so it means less to them.
Subsidizing college for kids that attend a college in their home state would provide many benefits. For example, it would lower poverty, provide better education for the less wealthy, and give people job opportunities. Also the more educated a person is the less likely they are to commit crime so crime rates could also go down. "By raising the bar and building off more two-year degrees, more people would be encouraged to receive their bachelor degree." (Educationdive.com) I agree that subsidizing college would increase the incentive to get your degrees and be more successful in life as well.

However there are a couple cons, One of those cons is the cost. If we were to subsidize college we would be spending a huge amount of money. Also there is a chance that the people that get free college would dropout, community colleges have a high drop out rate at about 65%. "The estimated cost of the program, over 10 years, is $60 billion." (educationdive.com) our country is already in massive debt so this would only increase that debt.

I believe that we should not subsidize college. The reason being is that we already have a similar program that allows 7/10 students to go to community college for under $ 1,000 and 2/5 of those students go for no cost at all. If we were to subsidize college this would only lead to increase taxes and more debt, there fore we should not subsidize college more than we already do.
I think we should subsidize college tuition because they are so expensive and not everyone has the money to pay for it right now. For a student in college between 1997 and 2001, average total costs will be nearly $46,000 at government institutions, reports Investor’s Business Daily (December 8, 1998). For those in private schools, the news is even bleaker. Students face expenses approaching $97,000. Twenty years from now, graduates may well be staggered by costs of $157,000 and $327,000, respectively. (Madden.fee.org.1999) It would be nice for the government to subsidize college tuition because college is expensive. Its not like people aren't going to pay that money back. 

The government and tax payers should not subsidize college tuition because its not their responsibility to pay for someone else' education. The U.S. Department of Education spends tens of billions of dollars a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of the spending goes to student aid, with the balance going to grants for educational institutions. Federal Pell grants are more than $30 billion a year, federal student loans are about $100 billion a year, and grants to colleges and universities are $2.5 billion a year. (Edwards.fedgov.2015) There is other things that we as tax payers could be paying for instead of paying for someones education. 

I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to subsidize college tuition, but it also wouldn't be a bad idea to lower college tuition costs. College is really expensive and a lot of people want to go to college but don't have the money. Most people are still paying college debts when they're in their 30's-40's! I want to have a good education but that is insane! The government should help out a little bit, The people who have student loans, sill have to pay back the money they borrow. It wouldn't be that good for the government but it would definitely help out the people.

Subsidies on college tuition

     The government should have subsidies on college tuition. This would cause for everyone that has lived in that state to get lower tuition. According to the Foundation for Economic Education we should not put subsidies on college tuition because it makes it more for people out of state (fee.org,Alex Tabarrok,2016). The students out of state should pay more as they have not contributed to the government in that state as the people in state have. Tuition should be subsidized for people in state and not people out of state because people in state contribute to that states government and the people out of state do not.

      The government should not have subsidies for college tuition. It would not help people who are out of state pay for college but the exact opposite. It would how ever help the people who are in state pay for college. According to Forbes the subsidies on college tuition for people in state would raise the price of tuition for people out of state (www.forbes.com, Tim Worstall, 2015). Therefore if you do subsidies it less people out of state would not go to college due to lack of funds. There should not be subsidies on in state college tuition because people out of state are negatively affected by it.

      Should the government have subsidies on college tuition for people in the state? In my opinion we should have it subsidized for people out of state and in state. This would make it so mostly everyone can afford to go to college because honestly I think that college tuition is too much and hard to Pay for. Therefore in the future we will have more educated people in our country. There would also be less poverty and crime as more people would more likely have a job and have the money to support them and their families. If we subsidized not only tuition for people in state but also for people out of state then there would be more successful people.

Subsidizing College tuition


        I believe we need to subsidize college tuition. People already have unbelievably large college debts. Taxpayer subsidies that cover the operating costs of most colleges and universities ranges from around $8,000 to more than $100,000 for each bachelor’s degree awarded, with most public institutions averaging more than $60,000 per degree (air.org). That is a lot of money subsidizing college tuition would be good for the people.

          Subsidizing would not be a good idea. With the government already in debt that is a lot of money for the government to be paying. The federal government has spent more than $80 billion each year on subsidizing tuition fees(trad-school.net). As of now our government is never getting out of debt and subsidizing any more would just make it worse. 


        Subsidizing college tuition to a certain extent would be a good idea for the people. Most people in America are paying for college 30 years after they graduate. If the government pay for a lot of it their debt will just keep getting deeper and deeper and taxes will go higher.  I think subsidizing college tuition would not be good for the government at all but somewhat good for the people.

College Subsidies

We should not have college subsidies. There is no link between higher college subsidies and economic growth. Basically this says, the more money that is spent on college subsidies there is no gain so we are wasting more and more money. Next is that providing subsidies dilutes a university degree. What this is saying is that if college is paid for mostly by the government alot more people would go to college so then a degree would not mean as much. There is no benifit to college subsidies so we should not have them. (https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/18279)

We should subsidize college for students. Subsidies make college affordable for people who usually could not go. With subsidies in place it also supports colleges. Each student earning a bachalors degree brings in around sixty thousand dollars in the four years. Subsidies also help many non profit organizations. On average a student will bring in eight thousand dollars to non profit organizations. (http://www.air.org/news/press-release/taxpayer-subsidies-most-colleges-and-universities-average-between-8000-more)

In my opinion we should not have college subsidies. First is that the money for that comes out of taxes and that is a waste of money. If people are not going to go to a college they should not have to pay for those that go to college. Next is that if there are subsidies and everyone goes to college then a degree does not mean as much as if there where no subsidies. We should not have subsidies because it is a waste of money and hurts the economy.

Subsidizing Students Kranovich

1) Should the government subsidize college? Yes, the government should subsidize college. By granting free college, more and more people will be able to receive a higher education. Cost aside, President Obama and the White House have worked with Michigan community colleges to maintain free college for community college students. Not only have more people gone to college, but more people are getting into the workforce, " the White House said that the Labor Department's grants, which will be distributed among 46 public-private partnerships, are expected to create over 34,000 apprenticeships"(college.usatoday.com, Baskin, 2015). Subsidizing college would allow for those who can't pay for college, the opportunity to go to college. No matter the price, the government should subsidize college because it helps lots of people.  

2) Should the government subsidize college? No, of course the government should not subsidize college. Not only does government funded college discriminate against blue collar workers who don't want or have to go to college, but government funded college also increases tuition prices and makes the 'government' pay more. When I say government, I really mean taxpayers. Ever since the U.S congress passed a bill stating that veterans returning from World War II would receive free college, Universities have used this to raise their tuition costs knowing that the 'government' will be paying, not the student. This practice is still common today and in a 2015 study by the New York Federal Reserve Bank concluded that, "institutions more exposed to changes in the subsidized federal loan program increased their tuition disproportionately around these policy changes, with a sizable pass-through effect on tuition of about 65 percent." What does this mean? This means that the 'government (the taxpayer)' will have to pay more and more for college tuition in taxes. People are caught by phrases like 'free college' but college really wouldn't be free, the taxpayer would be heavily affected by a tax to pay for free college. On top of all of this, people who go to community college, or go directly into the workforce would receive different treatment for the same cost.

3) While searching for articles on these topics, I found it very hard to find anything in favor of subsidizing college. Why? Besides the fact that it is a terrible idea pledged by people fighting for votes, it also is not in the realm of feasibility. This is very much an issue of the left and right, and once again the left fights for votes by continuing their practices of cronyism. Subsidizing college disproportionately discriminates against blue collar workers because they have to pay the same tax, but not benefit from the tax itself. Free college may sound great, but what doesn't sound great is having to pay very high taxes so people, whether they deserve it or not, can go to college for 'free.'

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Subsidizing Students

1. If college was subsidized many people could be given a chance to expand their education and get into a better job. "Making two years of community college free would help close the gap between the haves and have nots in the U.S., especially at a time when many believe that universal education to the community college level is inevitable. By raising the bar and building off more two-year degrees, more people would be encouraged to seek a bachelor’s degree." (Keith Button, educationdive.com, 2015). If students could get 2 years of college for free that could lead to more of a degree. If we can get people to got to college that could potentially result in more jobs.
2. College should not be subsidized because that will increase debt tremendously. If college was free, more students would go but that does not mean that is a good thing. Many students just aren't ready for college and they should not be there. "Additional tax funds, interest rate cuts, repayment caps and loan forgiveness plans would be used to make college a virtually debt-free experience." (Daily Journal, dailyjournal.net, 2016). This country can not afford to pay more for free education.
3. I believe that college should not be subsidized, we can't afford to pay for other people tuition. Many students shouldn't even be in there and it it useless to pay for them. If you want free college you should work hard throughout high school to help with the cost of college. If college was free I also think the students would not put out their best work because they didn't pay a large sum of money to be there.If you don't feel like paying for college you should not go at all.

College subsidies

should the government subsidiez college, it could be a good thing. They could make college cheaper for students who aren't so well off. "Campuses supporting the practice say it helps build a more diverse student body and provides a path to the middle class for lower-income students." (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578545884011480020). I agree with this quote, that college subsidies could make it easier for lower and middle class kids to go to college without having to deal with the huge costs.

Should the government subsidiez college, well no they shouldn't. Subsidiezing college is actually making it more expensive than it's ever been. "Federal student aid is harmful in many ways. It drives up tuition costs, encourages bloat and inefficiency, and is an unfair burden on taxpayers. But most importantly, because federal aid comes with top-down regulations, it poses a threat to the core strengths of American higher education, including institutional autonomy, competition, and innovation. All efforts to impose federal regulations on colleges and universities should be rejected. At the same time, federal subsidies to students and institutions should be reduced and ultimately eliminated."(http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-education-subsidies). I agree with this statement. We need to keep the government out of it, they only make matters worse and this is a perfect example, college tuition costs have almost quadrupled in the past couple of years and it's time to bring that to a end.

In my option I think college subsidies are a terrible idea. Where we have subsidies actually making college tuition more and more expensive than it's ever been. Like in the quote I have in my second paragraph it is just a higher burden for the tax payers who are the ones stuck paying for the subsidies for all these kids. The amount of money having to be spent is cause more problems than finacial costs, it's also hurting competition, innovation, and the educations these kids are trying to get when they know that by the time they get done they will owe $50,000 plus in student loans.


Subsidizing College

I agree that the government should subsidize colleges. I believe that they should be subsidized because it would benefit the graduating college students who have hard times paying off their loans. If it became subsidized, then 2/3 of that payment would be laid off thanks to the tax payers. "'The size of the public subsidy increases with the size of the endowment,' said Mark Schneider, a vice president at the American Institutes for Research, said at the hearing," (Janet Lorin, sltrib.com, 2016). This means that the donations given to colleges, can be used as subsidies towards the students. So, not only will the donations potentially help the college, but it will also help the students with their loans. 

I also disagree with the government subsidizing colleges. I disagree because, maybe, giving subsidies to colleges could potentially encourage them to raise their tuitions. Raising the tuitions for the students would cause them more money, therefore causing the taxpayers give up more money. "'Free' tuition will only further distort the incentives. …there is little evidence that additional spending has enhanced the value of the college degree," (Daniel Mitchell, peoplespundintdaily.com, 2016). This is also a true statement, saying that if college is given for free and subsidies are used all the time then getting a college degree can be easy and anyone can get it just like that. 

In my opinion, I believe that there should be subsidies and college shouldn't be free. There should be subsidies because a students tuition at the end of the year is through the roof, and they're going to have to get a job and worry about paying all that off first. That's where the subsidies come in, if taxpayers pay off 2/3 of that debt, then the students getting out of college won't have to stress about the rest of the payment. Maybe then they can help with other students who need subsidies. 

Should the government subsidize college? -Clare Flowers

Subsidizing college is the most important investment the government can make. By making college cheaper or even free the economy as a whole would be more educated. According to Kieth Button, " Judging from the results of the free community college program in Tennessee so far, enrollment would surge when high school students learned that their own community college would be free. An estimated 9 million students would benefit". Additionally, we would increase our funding for high education since it has dropped 29% from 2008-2012. We would be helping and encouraging the future generation to be a productive part of society.

The are three main reason why the government should not subsidize college. First, colleges already have set tuition rates relative to supply and demand, but government subsidies distort this process and inflate the cost. Secondly, "According to Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, by the year 2000, the Mitten State was spending the sixth most in the country, double what Illinois was spending and much more than Ohio. This did not lead to higher growth as Michigan’s economy performed among the worst in the country during that time period." This proves that there is no correlation between higher college subsidies and economic development. Lastly, students would be incentivized to take high school more serious and the job of a teacher would be made easier. They would spend less time disciplining their students. Not only would they have harder working students, they would have students who would treat them with more respect and who would disrupt the classroom less.

In my opinion, the government should not stop funding college education. Most of this nation is not able to afford college outright, which means that most student coming out of college have to start out their adulthood in a pot of huge debt that's increasing (interest). That could discourage anyone not to go to college. I think it would be a good idea to make community colleges free because it would open the door for so many underprivileged kids and also it would solve our problem of education equality.

College Subsidization

Subsidizing college in the US would stimulate the economy and provide job growth. The cause of economic healing is quite obvious. It educates people, lowers poverty, and lowers crime. More job opportunity, means more money and less poverty. Education lowers crime, (Columbia University) and even lowers the chance of setting your house on fire.
A negative consequence of subsidizing college, is that it is expensive. Today, the Federal Government spends $62 billion dollars, (Us Uncut) and they pay 2/3 of college fee (Mr. Hornaday). Bernie Sanders 100% rational free college plan, would cost $75 billion additionally (nprED). That number will probably be much more, because the colleges will raise their tuition fees for more profit.
I think what we have today is good enough. My dad grew up in a low income family, and he managed to get to college. My dad didn't even need a loan for college; he had a scholarship and gas station clerk money to go, nor did the government help him. $62 billion is enough, and I believe that anyone can get to college, no matter the state, income, or race; I believe in the American Dream.

Subsidizing College

The government should subsidize college tuition because it helps students get into less debt than they would if they had to pay for all of their tuition alone. It's better for students to receive Governemnt aid because federal student loans are about $10 billion a year, and grants to colleges and universities are 2.5 billion a year" (downsizing government.org). Also, if the government subsidizes higher education then that helps students to move forward in their education instead of feeling like they need to drop out and work to start paying for the money they own. As a society everyone is encouraged to go to school ad get an education. If students are actually going to college then the government should subsidize tuition since students are trying to move forward in the education. However, the Governemnt shouldn't subsidize college tuition because it'll be even more expensive for the Governemnt to have to pay more for tuition. If the government subsidizes college tuition then the U.S's debt will only grow. Federal money flowing into this area allows more students to borrow more money to go to schools they might not otherwise attend. And this gets us into our current crisis, with over $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt.(dailysignal.com). In my opinion I believe the Governemnt should keep funding college education. Colleges ask for way too much money from students and its almost impossible to pay it all off. If it costs that much just to go to college then the Governemnt should at least help pay for it. Otherwise, something about making college more affordable should be done.

Subsidizing College

     Should the government subsidize college? I think the government should subsidize college because college is hard to pay for and since the taxpayers help pay for a lot of things why not add to the list of things taxpayers pay for. Students going to college can't pay for it most of the time anyway so if you live in the state there should be subsidies because that way students can pay for it easier ( Tom Warstall, Forbes.com, 2016). If college is more affordable then more people would be going to college to get a degree or to get more skills for a job that they want in the future.
     Should college be subsidized? I think it shouldn't be because it is not helping students now. Earlier in our county's history the subsidized colleges would have been a great idea because it helped so many students pay off their loans after college. But nowadays, it is totally different. Right now most students leave college with $25,250 from loans and done of them can't even get a job to pay that money back to the bank (Mary Cary, usnews.com, 2016). I think that if students need to get three jobs because they can't pay for college even if they had the subsidied total its just not enough money to help people when they are out of college.
     In my opinion, I really like it that colleges are being subsidized. I like this because I am a student and being a student I don't have that much money to spend for college. I believe that when I go to college that the taxpayers money will definitely help me and thousands of other people go to college (Jarrett Skorup, michigancapitolconfidential.com, 2016). College is very expensive and any effort that the government is trying todo to help students pay for college is a great idea.

College Subsidizing



Today government and tax money are subsidies 2/3 for someones tuition. Because of this many people are getting more educated. According to Chris Edwards The U.S. Department of Education spends tens of billions of dollars a year on subsidies for higher education. The bulk of the spending goes to student aid, with the balance going to grants for educational institutions. Federal Pell grants are more than $30 billion a year, federal student loans are about $100 billion a year, and grants to colleges and universities are $2.5 billion a year. ( Chris Edwards, www.downsizinggovernment.org, 11/01/2015). The Federal government and taxpayers are aiding colleges but adding funds to improve education in those colleges. From this colleges are getting more and more experienced in educated students. With students well educated many highly educated jobs will be filled make the economy strive to better place.



Some people say that subsiding colleges are a big waste of money. What Jarrett Skorup say though is Colleges set tuition rates relative to supply-and-demand, but government subsidies distort this process and inflate the cost. That's why schools like Grove City College and Hillsdale College, which receive no government funding, do a much better job at keeping down the cost of tuition. Annual tuition at Grove City is $13,598, the cheapest of all institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania. Tuition at Hillsdale is $20,760 a year. Both are much cheaper than the average cost of private colleges and universities in the country at $31,975 a year. ( Jarrett Skorup, 04/13/2013). People say that since the government gives money to colleges then prices for colleges will go up more then usual. Prices of tuition and supplies would go up to making it harder for a  student to enroll in those colleges. 


Where do I stand on this? I think that the government and taxpayer money should go to colleges but at a certain amount. the amount now is could be fix or stay the same. If                         government subsidies  go up more for colleges then many colleges will charge more the others since they have better equipment and supplies. But if the subsidies are too low then it would be harder for residents to enroll into colleges. So we should not raise the subsidies but also not lower subsidies for colleges. 

Subsidizing

             Subsidizing for college students is a good thing because one it helps many afford it.  This is helping many students be able to go and get a better education (button, educatipndive.gov).  This is helping many students benefit and get a better job when they are all done.  By students getting a better education they will get good jobs and better our economy.  Subsidizing is a very good thing for college students that maybe could not pay for all of their tuition.
             Subsidizing is not a good thing because it is costing the us a lot of money.  The us is spending money on students tuitions when we could be spending it on other better things.  The federal government has spent more than $80 billion each year on subsidizing tuition fees (trad-schools.net).  This money could have gone to other things like the debt we have or anything else.
             I think it is a good thing to have subsidizing but I dont think we should be spending this much money on it. I think insted of paying about ⅔ of students tuition maybe it would be better if we just spent like ¼.  Then if we dont spend all this money of the tuitions we could be paying for other things.  I think we need to keep it though or tuition could end up costing way too much and students wont want to go to school anymore.    

Subsidizing the future

1) 1 reason we should subsidize education at public universities is because it gives the future smarter more intelligent future for those who want to go to college (About 60 percent of the college’s 1,438 students come from outside Iowa.InsideHired.com ) this shows Iowa is doing something right if we are attracting this many people from out of our state to get a better education witch in the future these smart young minds will make the next generation intelligent and help the country overall in medical and scientific breakthroughs along will making the average man that much smarter.

2) A reason agenst this is it takes students from other colleges and by giving them more incentive to come here giving Iowa public schools a over abundance of students where private schools only have some many as shown by insideHired.com again (The 15,000-student community college had a 17 percent enrollment decline this summer, Starcevich said. He blamed some – but not all – of that decline on the University of Iowa, which offered free summer tuition to its students who had successfully completed 20 credit hours or more in the past year.) this shows that students flock to the cheaper school leaving other universities to be less successful and maybe just go out of business .

3) I think cheaper public college is a good thing it makes it easier for smart kids with little money to get an education so they can make a life for themselves rather then the economic barrier to hold them back because he is too poor if he is smart enough and he tires hard enough he can make it and if other schools fail its there fault for making kids pay too much for education and therefore not allowing us to have it at all

Subsidizing College

There is no valid argument that questions the idea of a smarter nation typically being better off than one of less intelligence. This is why subsidizing college may be a good thing. Subsidizing college has been proven to directly increase the amount of students enrolled (Foundation for Economic Education, https://fee.org/articles/student-loan-subsidies-cause-almost-all-of-the-increase-in-tuition/, 2015). This is a very good thing that comes out of subsidizing and is one of the biggest arguments in favor of it. The problem with this increased amount of enrollment is that taxpayers must pay for even more students, even as tuition skyrockets.

As I briefly mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are some major problems with subsidizing college, and that is the increased price of tuition. The taxpayer dramatically increases the price of tuition, making the taxpayer and the student have to pay more (Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/03/increased-tuition-subsidies-increase-the-price-of-college-tuition/#3928cc3b2b88, 2015). Not only is this needlessly wasting taxpayer's money, but it is making school more expensive for the students, the people the program should be helping. Making everything more expensive makes this another policy that inflates the dollar, creates debt, and hurts the economy.

I think our government should get rid of college subsides. They hurt everyone involved and lead to more unwanted debt. The only party who benefits from the system is colleges themselves, not even the students it was designed to help (Capitalism Magazine, http://capitalismmagazine.com/2015/09/college-education-bubble-government-subsidies-raise-college-tuition-prices/, 2016). If we were to get rid of the subsidies, students would pay less for college, and the taxpayer would not have to pay as much. This would create a much stronger and more educated nation, the one the subsidies fail to create.

College subsidize

1. The government should subsidize college education. Nearly all college education is subsidized in the United States today. College provides people with the skills they need to enter the workforce and tools to face problems faced by humans today (contemplativemind.org, 2013). A college education is looked for in many jobs today and helping those students who need a little help paying for college would in turn help the economy.

2. The government should not subsidize college education. Colleges on their own set tuition prices based on supply and demand which is based on the market.  But when the government subsidizes college, it distorts the supply-demand price, and instead inflates the price of college (Skorup, michigancapitolconfidential.com, 2013). When the government get involves the cost of college, it changes the true price for each college.

3. I think the government should help fund college education for those who really need it. As someone who is going to college next year, I like the idea. But money from the government given to colleges should only be for the people who are serious about college and actually need the money for it. Or maybe there should be other opportunities to get money to help pay for college. I think that people who take money from the government and then go to college and blow it all should not receive that money.
 Why having the government subsidize college tuition? College is expensive for slot of people with government help, it can reduce payment upfront. ("Pull Grant receipients has expanded college access to millions of low income and middle class." Whitehouse.org, 2016) with the Pell grant helping people is good for money wise. It's make going to school less stressful for payments.
  On the other hand why government not subsidizing college tuition? With college aid from the government means higher tuition. Eduardo mPorter says, ("it has the most expensive higher education in the world $26,000 a year, on average. Townhall.com, 2016). Basically our government is raising college to be more & more expensive and less affordable each year.
   Where do I stand with all this? I do believe government should help the common middle class people with education. If we want our people to be wealthy and educated, they need to go to school. Most people aren't born with wealthy parents or maybe super smart to get college grants. With government helping us could be better. But we need a way to reduce the cost so people don't go to debt after it.

Subsidizing college

According to Forbes.com, Higher education prices have risen far faster than other prices in the economy: across all institutions, undergraduate tuition, fees, and living expenses more than doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars. At private nonprofit four year schools, tuition and fees have nearly tripled compared to 40 years ago, while at four year public schools costs have almost quadrupled over the same time frame. Public two-year schools, which experienced a huge drop-off in state funding in the wake of the recession (and where most of the higher education in this country takes place), have seen tuition and fees grow nearly 50% in the last decade. Bloomberg estimates that the price of college has increased twice as much as that of medical care since 1978. In short, college has become more expensive – and the price continues to increase(Richard Vetter, Forbes.com, 2016).

On the other hand, according to michigancapitolconfidential, there is no link between higher education subsidies and economic growth, and none between college degrees and job creation. Since 1980, Michigan has spent a much higher proportion of personal income on state government support for higher education than nearby states like Illinois and Ohio. According to Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, by the year 2000, the Mitten State was spending the sixth most in the country (2.34 percent of its personal income), double what Illinois was spending and much more than Ohio. This did not lead to higher growth as Michigan’s economy performed among the worst in the country during that time period(Jarrett Scorup,michigancapitolconfidential.com, 2016). 

In my opinion college tuition should be subsidized. I say this because looking at the facts, since 40 years ago, tuition and fees have tripled at most colleges. And the price continues to rise. The college tuition price has gone up faster than any other price in today's economy so students shouldn't be expected to have to pay the full tuition when they don't have a job that can pay for that. A job that can pay for that is what they are going to college for.





Yes governments should subsidize college. Taxpayer subsidies that cover the operating costs of most colleges and universities ranges from around $8,000 to more than $100,000 for each bachelor’s degree awarded, with most public institutions averaging more than $60,000 per degree (air.org). This is a huge amount of money for a student who has to devote a large amount their time to studying or going to school and doesn't have the chance to make all of that money. The taxpayers however have jobs and can afford to give money to their future employees or coworkers.

No we should not subsidize college. Having this financial aid for students is increasing the college tuition. "As higher financial aid pushes costs higher, it inevitably puts upward pressure on tuition. Higher tuition, of course, reduces college affordability, leading to calls for more financial aid, setting the vicious cycle in motion all over again" (Andrew Gillen, CNN). Andrew Gillen explains this perfectly, the higher the financial aid allows colleges to present higher prices. These higher prices will lead to students not being able to get into college because of the prices and that calls for more financial aid. A vicious cycle that gives colleges more money and tax payers less.

We should not subsidize college. The rates colleges can charge because of the already existing subsidy is absurd. Thus it would be most effective if we returned to the old ways of capitalism and let the price sort out itself. If there were no subsidy then only the extremely rich would be capable of going to college, this is not enough to sustain most colleges and would cause them to raise their prices and only offer to the rich or lower their prices and allow the common and middle class to become educated.

Tuition subsidy

    In favor of subsidizing tuition fees, people are already paying more than enough to go to college. Some people are coming out of college with 6 digit sized debts, and some may never pay that off. It's clear that it's not working already as the debt keeps rising over the years, so, something needs to be done about it.
     Because subsidies are rising so much, inflation in tuition is as well, ironically. "That is because the rise in student subsidies over the decades has fueled inflation in education costs" (downsizingthegovernment.org) If we brought down the amount of subsidies...maybe students wouldn't have to pay so much.
      I don't really know where to stand. This is one of those cases that should be obvious but I can't decide. Giving more money just means more money to pay- nice touch of irony, and taking away means MAYBE less money to pay...but still money you'd have to pay for alone.

College Knowledge

     Subsidizing college tuition is a good idea. According to US news, But at the same time, the university's Board of Trustees has voted to increase tuition by at least 3 percent every year for the last 10 years – or a roughly 47 percent increase since the 2005-06 school year. In doing so, the university funds its financial aid initiative in part from the tuition revenue wealthy student bring in. It also has a $21 billion endowment, and a portion of the returns each year goes toward university operations (Allie Bidwell usnews 2015). I agree with this because while there is the subsidzing, the college does get the money from the government.

     Subsidizing college tuition is not the best idea. According to CNN, Furthermore, taxpayers are getting fewer returns for their money. In 2009, the six-year graduation rate of bachelor's students was 56% in the United States. In 1997, it was 52%. During that time period, student aid skyrocketed. According to the College Board, "Total student aid increased by about 84% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the decade from 1997-98 to 2007-08." Taxpayers are subsidizing higher education at greater and greater costs while institutional performance has not kept up. I agree with this because this does hurt the taxpayers in the end.

    I feel that we shouldn't subsidize college. Due to how this will effect the taxpayers in the end and factoring in the cost just to have a dorm, classes, etc. Theres also trades schools that can help people looking for jobs too.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Should the government increase their taxes on gasoline pollution.myes they should, everyone drives so could you imagine the amount of money that could come from that tax increase? Let's say that it would be a lot and that money could go to a lot of different things. "The case for more transportation investment is very strong. Study after study finds that the country’s roads, bridges and rail lines are inadequate and that public spending on transportation as a percentage of the gross domestic product has been stagnant for several decades. More investment would not just improve roads and railways. It would also boost the economy by creating jobs and improving efficiency."(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/opinion/states-should-raise-the-gas-tax.html?_r=0). I agree with this quote since oil is so cheap right now they should raise the tax and be able to build up new infrastructure.

Should the government raise the gas tax, no I don't think so. The reason being that we already get taxed so much on everything else we do and buy in day to day life because the government can't stop spending, so then it's up to us to pay for it. " At some point in the not-too-distant future, gasoline sales won't even have the potential (which they have today) to fund road maintenance. The aversion to tax increases now makes even the most rudimentary repairs difficult or impossible; in the future, the U.S. may not even have the option of turning to a gas tax increase because the sales base won't be there." (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-22/raise-the-gas-tax-before-it-s-too-late). I agree with this because the gas tax could not be enough soon with electric cars coming up and becoming more relevant.

In my opinion I think that we should increase the gas tax. Now it is rare that I agree with raising taxes but in this case it makes sense. We see that with this gas tax it would help with the infrastructure of all of our roads and bridges and tunnels. Plus gas is super cheap right now so it would make sense to tax it more. "We now pay for the maintenance and construction of our interstate highway system, bridges and tunnels -- plus many state and local roads -- through the Highway Trust Fund. (We have discussed this before here, here, here and here). The fund is financed by a gasoline tax that has been stuck in a time warp. The last time the tax was increased to keep up with the cost of construction and maintenance was in 1993, to 18.4 cents a gallon. But now the fund is being starved of funding because the tax wasn't indexed to inflation. Adding to the strain is weather that has gotten worse for roads because of hotter summers and colder, snowier winters." (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-07-22/raise-the-gas-tax-before-it-s-too-late). I agree with this because we need the funding to fix our roads and other infrastructure that we use day to day

Pollution tax- Synclare Flowers


 Pollution Tax

The government would benefit by increasing its pollution tax on gasoline. By making it more expensive to drive, citizens would look for other ways of transportation like public transportation which means less air pollution and promote American Energy independence.  Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University, estimates that if the government raised the gas tax by $1, it would bring in $100 billion in extra revenues each year. This could reduce our debt or earn money for government programs like the military or welfare.

If the government raised the pollution tax on gasoline it would be a huge mistake. Average American wages are not keeping up with the cost of living so this would strain most of our country. This would ultimately decrease the amount of money people could spend on on local small business goods which would hurt our economy. Rather than increasing taxes on Americans, Corker and the rest of Congress should get down to the business of reforming all of our federal transportation spending( Jay Caruso 2016).


In my opinion, raising the gas tax would hurt our economy more than it would help it. I believe this because Americans are already struggling to pay for gas and if every one had to use the public transportation buses would be very overcrowded. Another reason that I don't agree with increasing pollution tax on gasoline is gas tax is a flat tax which in my opinion is unfair because it's harder for a poor person to come up with that extra money than it is for a wealthy person. 

Gas Tax

States should raise the tax on gas, at least according to the New York Times. The recent fall in gas prices is a great opportunity for the government to gain enough money to repair the bridges and roads that have fallen in disrepair. Several states have already raised the taxes on gas and the bridges are getting repaired. These states include Iowa and Michigan. However states like New Jersey who haven't raised the taxes have bridges in shambles throughout the state.(Editorial Board, nytimes).

States should not raise the tax on gas. According to Watch Dog it is ridiculous that some republicans to advocate raising the gas tax. (Caruso,WatchDog). We have flat wages as of now and people will not be able to afford the tax. The government does not need the tax anyway because it will just go to side projects instead of the bridges and roads that need repair. The government can just end the side projects if they need money.

The government should not raise taxes on it's citizens. The people buying gas are those who need it to get around and buy things. If you tax gas then it decreases money and transportation decreasing business efficiency. When you don't have the money to buy stuff you will walk making businesses that aren't close to residential areas lose business. The government can find it's money elseware.

Pollution taxes on gasoline

1) the gasoline have possible to increase the pollution by the  some accident. According thinkprogress.com . In fact, in 2003 Atlanta-based Colonial Pipeline agreed to pay $34 million, then the largest civil penalty a company has paid in EPA history, for spilling 1.4 million gallons of oil from a 5,500 mile pipeline systemif the government should not to vigilance the strongly we must pay the more taxes pollution from on gasoline.

2) We don't want to increase the pollution taxes from the gasoline. According to woos.com have the accident from the gasoline pipe, so it have the more strong vigilance of the gasoline pipe. If it happen the next time the pollution taxes are should to increase by the law.

3) I should to increase the pollution taxes on gasoline because the it have the make the large size of accident when the gasoline pipe have broken into the forest or mountain. These statement is the simplicity. It have asking about the just gasoline so it is can concentrated to pay the pollution taxes. We must be increase the pollution taxes from the gasoline.

Gas tax

Although raising gas prices may seem to be a bad thing for the consumers wallets it could be good for a good cause. What if the government needs to raise money to pay for a natural disaster or repairs for a terrorist attack they can just raise gas prices a little bit and raise a ton of money. "Ten days after a major Southeast gas-transporting pipeline was shut down in Alabama because of a leak, prices at the fuel pump in surrounding states have jumped by as much as 11 percent." (Www.csmonitor.com) this company had an oil leak and were forced to raise gas prices so they are able to fix the pipeline.

If the government was to not raise gas tax then there would be quite a few positives. Such as people would be happy and would most likely drive more than usual buying more gas. Also people would be able to buy other things with the money they would have spent on gas which would help other business's.  "For every 1 cent increase in the gas tax, $1.5 billion is taken away from American consumers." (https://www.myheritage.org/news/7-reasons-why-congress-should-not-raise-the-gas-tax/) the government should not raise the price because they already take to much money from us for taxes.

Personally I think that gas tax should not be raised. The reason behind this is because most people are already struggling paying bills and buying food if that's tax was raised it would hurt a lot of people. In my case I don't enjoy paying up to 3 dollars for gas and I would rather buy other things.

Gas tax

      The government should increase its pollution tax on gasoline for many reasons. If you raise this tax there would be less driving due too higher cost of gas therefore the pollution would go down and our air would be of good quality. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the health benefits of this would increase by ninety percent. People would basically be paying for not just gas but a healthier life due to less pollution. This tax being increase will not only help our government but our environment as well.

      The government should decrease it's pollution tax on gasoline. Poor people would not be able to buy gas like other people who have money could.raising the tax could actually even negatively effect the oil companies. According to the heritage lowering the gas prices would actually increase government revenue because people would drive more and spend more money on gas. Therefore if you raise it then less people will buy it therefore the government would get less money. The raise of gas taxes does not raise the amount of money that the government gets.

      In my opinion we should keep the tax where it is right now at eighteen dollars and forty cent and what the state governments are asking. If you raise it then less people will buy the gas meaning less money would go to the government. If they lower the tax they might not get enough money as well for the fact that people would not have to spend as much on gas. I believe that if we keep it where it's at today then the government will make the most money that they can to repair road and bridges. The government should not raise or lower the pollution tax on gas but keep it the same.

Economics of pollution tax

One argument in favor of raising the pollution tax is it would increase the amount of money that the government would get. Because we are such in debt, the government needs a lot of money to spend on public services, welfare, the military, etc... So in a way it would help the US by not increasing the debt as much, even though the amount of money it would provide would be extremely low. "The Canadian province began to tax fossil-fuel users, ranging from utility companies to car drivers, in 2008. Since then, the economy has grown by an average of nearly 2 percent a year," (scientificamerican.com, 12/1/15) By putting a pollution tax in place, British Columbia has improved vastly on their economy compared to the rest of Canada. So it should work here too.
          
            The reason why raising the pollution tax would be bad is because then people would have to spend even more money to fill up their vehicles. And a lot of people use that gas to get to work, buy groceries, and lots of other things that contribute to making the economy better. If there was a tax increase, people would be driving less and spending less money which would be bad for the economy. It may also lead less production in the US and more in other countries that have little to no pollution tax. "Production may shift to countries with no or lower carbon taxes." (Tejvan Pettinger, economicshelp.org, 01/20/13) I agree with the article because products could be made cheaper in other countries, therefore less things would be made in the US which would mean less jobs for Americans.

            I don't think it would be a good idea to raise the pollution tax. It's already to high and another one would just make drivers spend even more money on gas. It would make more companies produce more products overseas because it would be cheaper to do so, which would lead to less jobs in the US. The pollution tax already does almost nothing and is pointless so why should it be increased.

Pollution Tax

     Should the government increase the pollution tax? Some people would be in favor of increasing it more then it already is. One reason the government should raise the tax would be to encourage other alternatives for using gas. On politico.com they support raising the tax to help efficiency and green house gases. "Adding 35 cents to the gas tax is equivalent to collecting a tax of roughly 40 dollars for every ton of CO2 emitted by gasoline. This is also close to the Enviromental Protection Agency's estimate of the social cost of carbon that measures the incremental damage to the environment caused by each incremental ton of CO2 emission"(politico.com) I agree with this because if we raise the tax then the government and the EPA will have enough money to do something about the green house gases. Also if we add 35 cents which would be a big jump more then likely a lot of people would find other ways to drive so the efficiency of cars would be better if people could figure something out.
     Why would the government raise taxes on gas if that's not the real problem? The real problem the government and the HTF are having is the amount of money that is being spent and the money that is being brought in from gas tax. On atr.org they agree with this reason for not raising the tax. "Currently the gas tax brings in around 34 billion dollars annually, yet the federal government is spending roughly 50 billion dollars each year. There is no solution in 'raise the gas tax' method"(art.org). See if the government would cut their spending and realize that they are not bringing in the money they would be spending then there would not be the raise in tax. There would be a lot of down fall in doing so.
     I believe the government should not raise the gas tax. I'm going off the ability to pay for the reason  the government should not raise. Raising the tax would hurt the economy financially. If the tax would be raised to 35 cents per say it would be hurting the middle class mostly. The rich would have no problem paying more but coming up for the 35 cents for middle class would be harder. That money would be used for something else they need. That is why I think we should not raise the gas tax.

Pollution Taxes Kranovich

1) Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? Yes, the government should increase its pollution tax because the pollution tax helps in aiding the government with pollution and cleaning up the Earth. The tax itself can help reduce pollution, it penalizes those who pollute, and the money from those who pollute goes to the government to help with new anti-pollution strategies. In a study, the author concludes that in, "Taking account of both the revenue-raising benefits and the benefits from reduced fuel consumption, the optimal gasoline tax is just over $1 per gallon for the United States"(rff.org, Parry, 2002). Although this price is destined to change, an estimated $1 is the optimal price, today, the optimal price is at a much higher level. A higher pollution tax means less pollution and a cleaner safer world. 

2) Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? No, the government should not increase its pollution tax on gasoline because it is hard to actually measure pollution enough to give a fair tax. Also, a pollution tax can lead to job loss whether it be a reduction in plant workers, or a closing in plants, and a pollution tax puts manufacturers at a major disadvantage. "If demand is price inelastic, the tax may have to be very high to reduce demand significantly. In the short term, firms may not feel they have many alternatives. Though other time, demand will become more elastic as more alternatives are generated"(economicshelp.org, Pettinger, 2013). To reduce the demand for gasoline would, the government would need to have an outrageous pollution tax on gasoline. Not only is the pollution tax an outreach of government into the private sector, but it is also pointless to tax something to an extent to which an industry itself will be close to destroyed. 

3) Should the government increase its pollution tax on gasoline? Yes, the government should increase its pollution tax because of the benefits received from it. If you raise the pollution tax on gasoline to an understandable amount, less people will drive, but there will still be ample amount of jobs in the industry. Because of the notion, 'If I pay taxes, should I get something in return?' a pollution tax is an excellent example of paying for something that is in most cases a necessity, and receiving a benefit of decreased pollution for a simple tax. 
Should gas pollution taxes be raised? Well raising taxes on gasoline could have a lot of benefits. If we    Raised tax the extra money goes back. ("The extra money colllected at the pump goes right back into the u.s economy." Thewashingtonpost.com, 2016). While raising tax on gas this could help with pollution. More money on gasoline, less people drive.
 On the other hand, of raising taxes on gasoline, could be bad. Raising tax on gas is kinda waste. ("Every 1$ of gas tax, Washington wastes 20% to 30% in needless regulation that jack up highway construction cost" mclntosh, usatoday.com 2015). Raising tax on the pump is a old out dated way to restruct our infrastructure.
  I believe that both raising and getting rid of tax will help. There needs to be a better incentive for our usage on gasoline. ("10 percent increase in gasoline prices would decrease gas consumption by 4.3 picker, nber.org, 2016). Raising tax on gasoline prices per gallon could decrease how many people will drive for transportation.

Gas tax

Its time to pay more for gas. According to Seth Wenign the gas tax has not changed since 1993. According to Wenign we need to change the tax on gas now because, the price of gas is as low as it has been for a while and it would not effect gas buyers as much. He also says that the amount of money that is coming in right now is not enough to support the spending of americas crumbling road system. Wenign also states that the reason the government is not making the change is because we are so close to election time and they do nit want to change the tax before the election. The problem with this is that the price of oil is not going to stay low forever so now is the time to make the change. (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/opinion/states-should-raise-the-gas-tax.html)

The price of gas should stay the same. Abby Attia states that the gas tax should not be raised becasue 25 percent of the gas tax goes to non highway projects like bike paths, parks, and other things. Attia also states that if gas taxes are raised less people are going to be driving. When gas prices are lower people drive more so then the government makes more money off of the program. Lastly is that At a time of stagnant wages, a gas tax hike serves as a negative stimulus according to Attia. (https://www.myheritage.org/news/7-reasons-why-congress-should-not-raise-the-gas-tax/)


Gas tax should not be raised. The money from gas tax goes to things like fixing roads and bridges. I think that the money for these things should come from the people that use them. The way to get the people that use them to pay for them is to put toll ways up. Next is that the gas tax was made to build an interstate system and that was done a long time ago. Now the gas tax is wasted on things like parks, bike paths and other things. If we need to keep maintaining roads the money should come from tolls. In conclusion the gas tax should not be raised.

Pollution tax on gas

          It is a good thing to increase the pollution tax on gasoline. This is because it is everyone job to keep this world from going bad even if it's going to cost you money. It found that " A 10 percent increase in gasoline prices would decrease gas consumption by 4.3 percent... increase hours worked by 0.07 percent, approximately 2 hours"(Les Picker,The National Bureau of Economic Research,09/19/16). This is would be a good because if they got more hour than more money so they should be able to afford this. It also will be fix other problems like accidents because of less drivers on the road.

          It is not good for the government to increase the pollution tax on gasoline. This can be a problem for people and jobs that require gas."gas taxes are generally use to fund transportation infrastructure maintenance and new projects"(Colby pastre, Tax Foundation, July 23, 2015). That why it does not need to be tax because a lot of other thing that are tax pay for these projects. Also a tax could cause transportation job to have to lower down on transportation because of the tax. This is why the government should not higher the tax on gas.

          I do agree they should have a higher tax on gas because it does pollute the would and there will be a time when there is no more gas or very little. I also do believe people will have the ability to pay for the gas. And if people do pay with the tax then like in the first paragraph there could be less people on the road so less crashes and if there is less people on the road that mean they should be at work of home so there are not wasting there gas. That is why I do believe there should be a higher tax on gas.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Pollution tax on gas

According to Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, If you simply set a higher price point for gasoline, buyers will do the sorting on their own, choosing fuel efficiency as they would when the world prices are high. The beauty of a tax- as a substitute for a high world price- is that as the incentive for fuel effiency remains, but the extra money at the pump goes right back into the U.S. economy(Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, 2016).
On the other hand, there is a negative side to increasing the pollution tax on gas. According to Shannon Wulf of Environmental Economics, Over the next decade, miles traveled will increase nearly at historical rates, causing substantially higher oil consumption and GHG emissions than if persistent changes in household driving habits explained the recent changes in VMT(Shannon Wulf, env-issues.net,2016).
In my opinion the pollution tax on gas should not increase. People are already paying so many different taxes(i.e. Local, state, etc.). Some people with how many taxes we are having to pay already, would not have the ability to pay the pollution tax if the government decided to raise it for gasoline.





Gasoline pollution tax

 By increasing the pollution tax on gas drivers may change how they get around(Brunel, nber.org, 2016). Cars produce an externally pollution that imposes various economic cost(Brunel, Nber.org). By increasing this tax people may not want to spend more so they may start to walk or ride a bike. Overall this could be better for our future because pollution is not good for us and earth.

This could be a bad thing to increase the tax because that's just a extra strain on Americas government(rodeck, howmoneywalks.com, 2015). Many people don't have the extra money that they can spent on a tax increase. Many are still looking for work in a recovering economy(rodeck, howmoneywalks.com, 2015). People can't afford more then they need to so why would we increase it knowing this may cause more problems for them.

I don't think they should increase the pollution tax. I think this will only cause more problems for people who are already trying to just get by now. Even though this could case less pollution by people doing more then just driving(Brunel, Nber.org, 2016). It's not worth cause more trouble for people.
1.) No matter what, people will need gas. If the government raised the price of gas, dipping their hand into the jar of honey, they would benefit vastly. Consumers of gas may have to pay a little extra, but it is just a few more bucks. We also need money to build roads and highways, and where else to gather money than what the roads are used for.
2.) There are multiple reasons we should not raise the price of gasoline. First, raising it even a cent would take $1.5 billion from Americans. Second, our roads and highways are already very well developed. I see a lot of construction workers standing around the construction sites, and it is because of one reason. The longer it takes, the more they are payed. Perhaps improve productivity in that area before raising taxes on every American need.
3.) I do not believe in raising the price of oil in the USA. Cheap gasoline is a luxury, and us Americans ('merica!) are lucky to have it. The main reason that people want to get rid of cars, is that we can walk or bus around town. Ever had to ride a bus to Idaho, Maine, or Florida? Me neither, and I plan to keep it that way.

sources:
http://www.howmoneywalks.com/should-gas-taxes-be-raised-a-look-at-the-pros-and-cons/http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/2008GasolinePricingReport.pdf
http://www.aroundcommodities.com/?error-ja291

Gas Pollution Tax

The govenrnment should increase its pollution tax on gasoline because it could keep people from buying gasoline and that way less people will polite the air. If taxes on gas prices go up people will think more about how they can avoid driving somewhere so they won't have to spend any money on gas. Higher gas prices "forces drivers to take that cost into account when making driving decisions" (Nber.org). Raising gas prices will help the environment in a positive way because it'll reduce pollution and can even reduce "accidents, noise, and traffic congestion" (Nber.org). However, there are some negatives to why gas prices should not be raised. If gas prices go up, that might motivate people to try not to buy as much gas and that means less gas will be sold. It can also keep people from buying cars and relying on public transportation because they don't want to spend money on gasoline If it's expensive. According to an article "they are building more infrastructure dedicated to pedestrians and bicycles as a means of encouraging a safer and healthier environment" (ipsnews.net). Also, it is important to consider how the economy will suffer if gas prices go up. In my opinion I believe that gas prices shouldn't go up. Gas prices should just be left at a reasonable price where it is affordable. If gas prices don't go up then the economy won't get hurt by it. People should be able to purchase gas and that way sales won't go down and hurt the economy.

Clarks gas post

1)One reason gas prices being raised could be good is because it will help people prepare for even less gas making it even more expensive it will save up a whole lot of trouble with that later instead of this money staying in our pockets if it goes to this tax it could be used to help agenst pollution or help fix roads witch is a big problem as politico.com shows (Congress has seriously delayed the maintenance of the country’s roads, bridges and mass transit systems. The American Society of Civil Engineers has regularly given the public transport infrastructure a grade somewhere between “poor” and “failing,” with an estimated backlog of some $1 trillion of needed investment) we need this tax to make this permanently better for roads and trasport infrastructure.

2) One reason gas prices should get loweris to have the poor still be able to afford gas this shows that many of them can't (roughly 65% of households in the lowest 10% on the SEIFA index own cars, in contrast to 83% of households in the highest 10%. Lower-income households thus own fewer cars, on average, than higher income-households. But note that even among these poorest 10% of households, a majority nonetheless own at least one car. Fact check.com) so this shows that even the poorest of houses still have cars and need to afford gas.

3) think that the taxes should be raised because if they are rich enough to have a car they should pay the gas fee because there are other forms of ways to make your commute and get to your job in good time and they could use that money to help pay for roads and keep the prices lower when we are closer to running out and prepare for then and it would also be used to get rid of the debt

Gasoline Pollution Taxes

Should the government raise pollution taxes for gas? Sure, if the government is making profit then they can. According to The New Yorker, since the cost of building and, above all, repairing roads has risen substantially in the past twenty-two years, because of inflation and because the federal highway system is deteriorating, while the revenue from the gas tax hasn’t risen nearly as much, (James Surowiecki, 07/25/2015). From this statement I can conclude that the government should raise taxes on gas. Since then vehicles and roads have been evolving and growing, With all that the government will have to maintain in somehow, they will have to tax the gas that is need for a car to move on the road. With raised taxes for gas, the government will be more likely able to maintain and even upgrade the roads and highways need for cars to drive.


Then there is the other question which is, Should the government not raise the taxes on gas. Well with this question according to Forbes, average Americans are quick to oppose the idea. Across the board, the majority of Americans support lower gas prices because they have had a positive impact on their budget. Low gas prices allow them to spend more on groceries and other necessities, as well as put more money into savings. ( Christine Harbin Hanson, www.forbes.com, 03/06/2015). I can agree with this statement by Christine because, many people are trying to save money for necessities. People would like to have saved money at the end of the day then lose money. With lower prices on gas people can on focus on other things that they need like food, water, etc.

What I think about the rising of gas taxes. I think that the government shouldn't, but if they do it should be to a very reasonable amount for an average middle-class American. Yes with higher taxes on gases the government can spend it on maintenance for roads, and bridges. But with higher taxes people would have to spend more money on gas then on more necessities Also people would also like to save some money on gas too, since today in America cars a used very frequently. A middle-class American that can't afford to get gas would lose their jobs. So to sum myself up, no raise in gas tax (maybe a little), and moeny should be spend on food.