Recruiting forum off topic thread (merged)

[schwompal]

When you say lower performing students are you talking about average students?

Under the old lottery scholarship (Hope), students with a 3.0 High School GPA received enough scholarship money to pay the entire cost of community college tuition. Promise scholarships do not require a minimum GPA. Hope still exists but the rewards for university freshmen and sophomores have been reduced to finance Promise scholarships for community college attendees, most of whom did not have a 3.0 and could not qualify for Hope.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Under the old lottery scholarship (Hope), students with a 3.0 High School GPA received enough scholarship money to pay the entire cost of community college tuition. Promise scholarships do not require a minimum GPA. Hope still exists but the rewards for university freshmen and sophomores have been reduced to finance Promise scholarships for community college attendees, most of whom did not have a 3.0 and could not qualify for Hope.

OK, I've got you. But here's the problem. I have a daughter that's on the hill now. Absolutely one of the brightest kids you'll ever meet. Has never made below an "A" in her life taking as many AP and honors courses as she could. Took so many college hours to UT that by adding some summer courses she started her sophomore year as a junior hours wise. Between the Hope and additional scholarships she got basically her tuition played for but not her dorm, books, or meals which is about 50% of the total. In asking admissions why she didn't qualify for a full ride, we were told that it was basically because of her ACT score. She scored a true 29 and a had a super score of 30. We are footing the bill for the rest, she has a small student loan too.

Now my son is a good student too but not on the same level as my daughter simply because he doesn't put forth the same effort as my daughter did/does. He makes 90% As with the occasional B. Hasn't taken his ACT yet. In most likelihood he's headed to community college as I don't see him getting the additional scholarship that my daughter did and I doubt we can afford the additional $30K that it will cost, and that's if he commutes.

It's a shame that it cost so much to attend a land grant university especially for a kid that will in all likelihood will have a high 3.5 plus GPA and upper 20s ACT.

Edit: sorry for the off topic rant. Mods feel free to merge to the appropriate thread.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

OK, I've got you. But here's the problem. I have a daughter that's on the hill now. Absolutely one of the brightest kids you'll ever meet. Has never made below an "A" in her life taking as many AP and honors courses as she could. Took so many college hours to UT that by adding some summer courses she started her sophomore year as a junior hours wise. Between the Hope and additional scholarships she got basically her tuition played for but not her dorm, books, or meals which is about 50% of the total. In asking admissions why she didn't qualify for a full ride, we were told that it was basically because of her ACT score. She scored a true 29 and a had a super score of 30. We are footing the bill for the rest, she has a small student loan too.

Now my son is a good student too but not on the same level as my daughter simply because he doesn't put forth the same effort as my daughter did/does. He makes 90% As with the occasional B. Hasn't taken his ACT yet. In most likelihood he's headed to community college as I don't see him getting the additional scholarship that my daughter did and I doubt we can afford the additional $30K that it will cost, and that's if he commutes.

It's a shame that it cost so much to attend a land grant university especially for a kid that will in all likelihood will have a high 3.5 plus GPA and upper 20s ACT.

Edit: sorry for the off topic rant. Mods feel free to merge to the appropriate thread.

That's another byproduct of the hope. More kids can afford enrollment at UT now, so scholarships are getting more and more competitive. The average GPA and ACT score of incoming freshmen classes has been steadily rising over the last 5-6 years.

Most of the friends I attended UT with (along with myself) were in the 27-31 range on the ACT and graduated high school with honors and none of us received full rides. It just doesn't mean as much anymore. Kids who get full-rides now have to have a lot more going for them than test scores and GPAs.

On a personal level, it sucks that it's more difficult to foot the bill now, but the increase in academic competition is actually a good thing for the school. It is what it is.

 

[InVOLuntary]

That's another byproduct of the hope. More kids can afford enrollment at UT now, so scholarships are getting more and more competitive. The average GPA and ACT score of incoming freshmen classes has been steadily rising over the last 5-6 years.

Most of the friends I attended UT with (along with myself) were in the 27-31 range on the ACT and graduated high school with honors and none of us received full rides. It just doesn't mean as much anymore. Kids who get full-rides now have to have a lot more going for them than test scores and GPAs.

On a personal level, it sucks that it's more difficult to foot the bill now, but the increase in academic competition is actually a good thing for the school. It is what it is.

Other than the test score I'm not sure what more she could have done. She was selected for Girl's State, Governor's school a full year ahead of the norm. She was offered full rides from other schools but really wanted to go to UT.

 

[Volnatic]

That's another byproduct of the hope. More kids can afford enrollment at UT now, so scholarships are getting more and more competitive. The average GPA and ACT score of incoming freshmen classes has been steadily rising over the last 5-6 years.

Most of the friends I attended UT with (along with myself) were in the 27-31 range on the ACT and graduated high school with honors and none of us received full rides. It just doesn't mean as much anymore. Kids who get full-rides now have to have a lot more going for them than test scores and GPAs.

On a personal level, it sucks that it's more difficult to foot the bill now, but the increase in academic competition is actually a good thing for the school. It is what it is.

I was paid well in excess of all costs to attend UT, thanks to the HOPE, Volunteer Scholarship, and various other private scholarships for which I applied throughout my Senior year of HS. It's not that difficult to win those private scholarships bc few kids actually have the "have-to" and understanding of the value of the dollar to complete the applications. Make your son fill out those applications, and I'm sure his tuition will be helped out tremendously.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I was paid well in excess of all costs to attend UT, thanks to the HOPE, Volunteer Scholarship, and various other private scholarships for which I applied throughout my Senior year of HS. It's not that difficult to win those private scholarships bc few kids actually have the "have-to" and understanding of the value of the dollar to complete the applications. Make your son fill out those applications, and I'm sure his tuition will be helped out tremendously.

Thanks Volnatic, I'm assuming that's directed at me. My daughter did apply and got none of the private stuff. Not sure if it was income related or not. Hopefully my son will get some.

 

[MockingVol]

Other than the test score I'm not sure what more she could have done. She was selected for Girl's State, Governor's school a full year ahead of the norm. She was offered full rides from other schools but really wanted to go to UT.

I had a 32 ACT, was invited to Boy's State, was invited to partake in Governor's school, did the Washington Youth Tour, etc

Yet since I was lazy and expected for the colleges to come and knock on my door, I didn't even get a full-ride to UTC. I waited so long I didn't even get to apply to UT. Hopefully I'll be up in Knoxville next year after screwing around these past few years.

 

[jman9865]

Thanks Volnatic, I'm assuming that's directed at me. My daughter did apply and got none of the private stuff. Not sure if it was income related or not. Hopefully my son will get some.

You gotta do some digging too. There are lots and lots of private scholarships out there. Some are income based, some only go towards students in a particular field of study (nursing, etc), and some are available to students from particular areas (by county or city). For example, the East Tennessee Foundation has several scholarships that were set up by private donors because those donors had a soft spot for kids that meet certain requirements (discussed above).

Also, maybe your son can do what I'm doing. I am working full-time in a place that will pay a portion of my tuition. It's hard work, but if you really want to go to a good 4yr school, it's possible.

I was against the lottery when it started for just this reason. It's a scam. In every state it has been tried it essentially is just a tax on poor people, and while it gives lots of money to the state, it doesn't help students because tuition goes up to counter any help it provides. In my birth state, they paid for the first 2 semesters in one lump sum, but dropout rates in the 1st semester soared because the schools put in weed-out classes as requirements the first semester so they could get free money from the second semester payments of all the people that dropped out the first semester.

I remember a friend of mine getting a C on an assignment in that weed-out class. His mom, who had a masters in that field of study, did his assignment for him to prove a point. It was the best grade anybody got in the class on that assignment.

 

[NashVOL93]

Nothing about the lottery is a "tax on poor people". It's a tax on whoever chooses to play it, and the generalization that only poor people play it is simply incorrect. The lottery is 100% optional, unlike Tennessee's 9.75%+ sales tax, which is by every definition a tax on poor people.

I'm with you on the other stuff though. It seems to be mostly an accounting trick by the state. Tuition has skyrocketed at even the most affordable of state institutions lately.

 

[volatil]

Nothing about the lottery is a "tax on poor people". It's a tax on whoever chooses to play it, and the generalization that only poor people play it is simply incorrect. The lottery is 100% optional, unlike Tennessee's 9.75%+ sales tax, which is by every definition a tax on poor people.

I'm with you on the other stuff though. It seems to be mostly an accounting trick by the state. Tuition has skyrocketed at even the most affordable of state institutions lately.

Sales tax is the fairest tax there is. I wish they abolish the income tax which is incredibly unfair and create a national sales tax. Everyone would then pay taxes. People who make money illegally now pay their fair share. Tourist from other countries would pay taxes. I wrote a report on it once. At the time, the country would save in excess off 700 million per year by eliminating the IRS. Asked my congressman and he replied that he was in favor but would likely never happen.

 

[NashVOL93]

Sales tax is the fairest tax there is. I wish they abolish the income tax which is incredibly unfair and create a national sales tax. Everyone would then pay taxes. People who make money illegally now pay their fair share. Tourist from other countries would pay taxes. I wrote a report on it once. At the time, the country would save in excess off 700 million per year by eliminating the IRS. Asked my congressman and he replied that he was in favor but would likely never happen.

The sales tax is "fair" only in that everyone pays the same amount - but that's not really the definition of fair. Fair is when everybody pays the same percentage, because different people make different amounts. Let me illustrate this to you.

Guy A, a single male in his early 30's living in Tennessee, makes $150,000 a year. Guy B, also a single male in his early 30's living in Tennessee, makes $30,000 a year. They're both fiscally responsible, and don't spend outside their means. Here's the thing. Guy A is making 5 times as much money as Guy B. But he's not consuming 5 times as much "stuff" - basic, inelastic consumables such as toiletries, groceries, electronics, gas, and other non-luxury products that are responsible for the lion's share of sales tax revenue, because it simply isn't possible. There's only so much toilet paper one guy can use, and while his higher income may allow for the purchase of additional elastic luxury goods like cars, real estate, etc, the fact remains that Guy A is still being taxed on a significantly lower percentage of his income than Guy B, even if they're spending the exact same amount on consumables, say, $15000 a year. Even if Guy A's higher income leads to slightly increased consumption or investment (entirely plausible), leading to luxury tax revenue or capital gains tax revenue, it still won't be 5 times as much consumption or investment as Guy B. It's not fair in any way for Guy A to only be taxed on 10% of his income when Guy B is getting taxed on 50% of it.

So, in conclusion, it is better for everyone to pay at least something than it is for them to pay nothing, but everyone paying the same share is not the same as everyone paying their fair share.

 

[jman9865]

Nothing about the lottery is a "tax on poor people". It's a tax on whoever chooses to play it, and the generalization that only poor people play it is simply incorrect. The lottery is 100% optional, unlike Tennessee's 9.75%+ sales tax, which is by every definition a tax on poor people.

I'm with you on the other stuff though. It seems to be mostly an accounting trick by the state. Tuition has skyrocketed at even the most affordable of state institutions lately.

I think you misunderstood me. My point is that it is a piss poor investment where all the proceeds go to the government, and I call that a tax because that is how I view taxes. My choice of words was about taxes, not a commentary on who's paying what.

I'm not against taxing poor people. But per capita, more poor people play the lotto, and the lowest income bracket actually spends 9% of their income on it. That includes poor people that don't play, or spend 0% of their income on it!

It's voluntary, and I get that. However, the amount received by the lotto, in any category (most total spent, most people playing, percentage of income spent, etc.), shows that poor people play waaaay more than any other group. But I digress. I am in favor of sales taxes in place of income taxes.

Some purchases have higher tax rates. Booze is about 50-60% taxes when you calculate all the embedded taxes on production. But people voluntarily purchase alcohol. The lotto, to me, is like a purchase with a high embedded tax rate. It is a voluntary purchase, and the government reaps most of the rewards, but it's worth paying the cost to make the purchase from time to time.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The sales tax is "fair" only in that everyone pays the same amount - but that's not really the definition of fair. Fair is when everybody pays the same percentage, because different people make different amounts. Let me illustrate this to you.

Guy A, a single male in his early 30's living in Tennessee, makes $150,000 a year. Guy B, also a single male in his early 30's living in Tennessee, makes $30,000 a year. They're both fiscally responsible, and don't spend outside their means. Here's the thing. Guy A is making 5 times as much money as Guy B. But he's not consuming 5 times as much "stuff" - basic, inelastic consumables such as toiletries, groceries, electronics, gas, and other non-luxury products that are responsible for the lion's share of sales tax revenue, because it simply isn't possible. There's only so much toilet paper one guy can use, and while his higher income may allow for the purchase of additional elastic luxury goods like cars, real estate, etc, the fact remains that Guy A is still being taxed on a significantly lower percentage of his income than Guy B, even if they're spending the exact same amount on consumables, say, $15000 a year. Even if Guy A's higher income leads to slightly increased consumption or investment (entirely plausible), leading to luxury tax revenue or capital gains tax revenue, it still won't be 5 times as much consumption or investment as Guy B. It's not fair in any way for Guy A to only be taxed on 10% of his income when Guy B is getting taxed on 50% of it.

So, in conclusion, it is better for everyone to pay at least something than it is for them to pay nothing, but everyone paying the same share is not the same as everyone paying their fair share.

How can he be taxed at 50% of his income when the sales tax is 9.75%?

 

[jman9865]

The sales tax is "fair" only in that everyone pays the same amount - but that's not really the definition of fair. Fair is when everybody pays the same percentage, because different people make different amounts. Let me illustrate this to you.

Guy A, a single male in his early 30's living in Tennessee, makes $150,000 a year. Guy B, also a single male in his early 30's living in Tennessee, makes $30,000 a year. They're both fiscally responsible, and don't spend outside their means. Here's the thing. Guy A is making 5 times as much money as Guy B. But he's not consuming 5 times as much "stuff" - basic, inelastic consumables such as toiletries, groceries, electronics, gas, and other non-luxury products that are responsible for the lion's share of sales tax revenue, because it simply isn't possible. There's only so much toilet paper one guy can use, and while his higher income may allow for the purchase of additional elastic luxury goods like cars, real estate, etc, the fact remains that Guy A is still being taxed on a significantly lower percentage of his income than Guy B, even if they're spending the exact same amount on consumables, say, $15000 a year. Even if Guy A's higher income leads to slightly increased consumption or investment (entirely plausible), leading to luxury tax revenue or capital gains tax revenue, it still won't be 5 times as much consumption or investment as Guy B. It's not fair in any way for Guy A to only be taxed on 10% of his income when Guy B is getting taxed on 50% of it.

So, in conclusion, it is better for everyone to pay at least something than it is for them to pay nothing, but everyone paying the same share is not the same as everyone paying their fair share.

So you simply tweak the rates on luxury purchases to be slightly higher than non-luxury. Tax guy A's Lexus at 12% and guy B's Kia at the standard 9.75%. Certain goods have higher taxes.

There are many better ways than the current system, but I'm in favor of those making more money getting to keep it.

 

[InVOLuntary]

So you simply tweak the rates on luxury purchases to be slightly higher than non-luxury. Tax guy A's Lexus at 12% and guy B's Kia at the standard 9.75%. Certain goods have higher taxes.

There are many better ways than the current system, but I'm in favor of those making more money getting to keep it.

Actually only the first $3200 is taxed at 9.75%, the rest is taxed at 7%.

 

[RikidyBones]

Don't omit the fact that the wealthier guy may purchase more expensive living goods. The non-generic goods are usually not purchased by the party with less income. We all don't consume the same products. Cost of living needs to be analyzed for guy a and guy b.

 

[volatil]

The National Sales Tax has been proposed to have no tax on food and tax holidays for clothes and goods.

The individual has control of the amount of taxes paid.

 

[jjay2518]

How can he be taxed at 50% of his income when the sales tax is 9.75%?

He's saying that with a $30K a year income paying $15K a year in consumables, 50% of his income would be taxed at a 9.75% rate.

 

[NashVOL93]

How can he be taxed at 50% of his income when the sales tax is 9.75%?

Because he's not being taxed AT 50%, he's being taxed ON 50%.

In other words, he's paying proportionally more of his income in taxes than somebody making 5 times as much as him is. That isn't fair, and it isn't right. The income tax isn't perfect either, for that matter. I think the solution is somewhere in the middle - 4-5% income tax, 4-5% sales tax.

Lest anyone think I'm some sort of bleeding heart liberal, I can assure you that's not the case. I just think the tax code in this state and in this country is desperately in need of reform, and the fact that the average citizen probably can't sit down and explain it to you is proof of that.

 

[NashVOL93]

The National Sales Tax has been proposed to have no tax on food and tax holidays for clothes and goods.

The individual has control of the amount of taxes paid.

I get where the NST is trying to go, I really do. I'm fully in favor of simplifying the tax code, which is what the NST aims to do. But the fact remains that people making a hundred times more than you aren't buying a hundred times as much stuff as you are. They might not even be buying ten times as much stuff. Therefore, any tax on consumption is going to take proportionally more of your income than it is of theirs.

 

[volatil]

I get where the NST is trying to go, I really do. I'm fully in favor of simplifying the tax code, which is what the NST aims to do. But the fact remains that people making a hundred times more than you aren't buying a hundred times as much stuff as you are. They might not even be buying ten times as much stuff. Therefore, any tax on consumption is going to take proportionally more of your income than it is of theirs.

But the guy selling drugs and pays zero taxes pays taxes now. The number would significantly lower than 9.75.

 

[NashVOL93]

But the guy selling drugs and pays zero taxes pays taxes now. The number would significantly lower than 9.75.

That's true. There's about 6.5 million people in the state of Tennessee. How many people do you think would realistically fall into that category (paying zero taxes due to evasion)? 1%? 2%? 5%? Let's say 5%, just to be conservative.

So it comes down to utilitarian theory. Keep in mind that 55% of households in Tennessee bring in $50k or less per year, and the median income is $44100. Is it really worth hurting the majority of Tennesseean households just to collect sales taxes from the 5% of human scum that aren't contributing anything to society?

I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

Also, I'm not proposing to get rid of sales taxes completely. I just think they should be balanced evenly against a reasonable income tax. Say 5% sales, 4% income, or vice versa as needed to achieve a comparable level of state tax revenue to what we have now.

*Household income numbers from WolframAlpha

 

[InVOLuntary]

Because he's not being taxed AT 50%, he's being taxed ON 50%.

In other words, he's paying proportionally more of his income in taxes than somebody making 5 times as much as him is. That isn't fair, and it isn't right. The income tax isn't perfect either, for that matter. I think the solution is somewhere in the middle - 4-5% income tax, 4-5% sales tax.

Lest anyone think I'm some sort of bleeding heart liberal, I can assure you that's not the case. I just think the tax code in this state and in this country is desperately in need of reform, and the fact that the average citizen probably can't sit down and explain it to you is proof of that.

Oh ok , I misunderstood. That is not the case though as in reality people spend what they make. The guy making $50k may be renting and not buying a home. In addition the guy making more may have a $60k truck on the side as well as a boat while driving his beamer daily. He's got the 70" flat screen instead of the 32. It goes on and on. Not to mention he's spending his money creating jobs for others.

 

[jman9865]

Actually only the first $3200 is taxed at 9.75%, the rest is taxed at 7%.

You're making my point for me. We put loopholes in luxury items. Get rid of them. A guy buying a 60,000 car should pay the same total percentage as the guy buying the 12,000 car.

 

[InVOLuntary]

You're making my point for me. We put loopholes in luxury items. Get rid of them. A guy buying a 60,000 car should pay the same total percentage as the guy buying the 12,000 car.

He does since $60k cost more than the $12k car. Income taxes are the most regressive taxes you can have. Penalizes people for making money.