is America any less taxed than under the British?

Originally posted by sh76
Yes. I see the difference.

If you can afford to pay for college, the taxpayers pay for your education anyway.

If I can afford to pay for college, unless I can get a school or private scholarship, I pay for my own schooling. If I can't afford to pay for college, the government helps me out with grants and/or low interest loans that I don't have to start ...[text shortened]... ng back until after I graduate.

I'm not sure I see why your system is better or more fair.

Because "my" system allows anyone to go to university, other than just those with rich parents or who are willing to take a risky $100.000 loan. Society has an interest in having educated people, so it makes a lot of sense for society to pay for education.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because "my" system allows anyone to go to university, other than just those with rich parents or who are willing to take a risky $100.000 loan. Society has an interest in having educated people, so it makes a lot of sense for society to pay for education.

The $100,000 loan (which, by the way, is not necessary unless you want to go to an expensive private school- state schools charge much less than that) is not all that risky. First, there are Pell grants which pay for part of your tuition if you're low income, which need not be repaid. Second, Stafford loans are low interest and you don't have to start repaying them until 6 months after you leave school. Plus, you can pay them back over many years. If you get a job from your college training, paying these loans back should not be a major issue in most cases. If you don't get a job and can't afford to repay, the feds don't come after you all that hard. I've had two clients who had outstanding student loans. The collection agent told me point blank that they don't really go after people who can't afford to repay the loan.

If you go to a community college (which are usually open admissions), you can get your Associate's Degree for under $20,000, easily. If you're low income and your Pell grant doesn't cover all of it, you'll have to take out $10,000, give or take. Today, Stafford interests rates are probably 3% or less and it doesn't start accruing until 6 months after you graduate. If you can't take that much "risk" for an education, you don't deserve one.

Originally posted by sh76
The $100,000 loan (which, by the way, is not necessary unless you want to go to an expensive private school- state schools charge much less than that) is not all that risky. First, there are Pell grants which pay for part of your tuition if you're low income, which need not be repaid. Second, Stafford loans are low interest and you don't have to start repaying ...[text shortened]... te. If you can't take that much "risk" for an education, you don't deserve one.

I get access to the top universities. Poor people in the US don't (unless they were lucky enough to get a grant).

I agree that investing some money in your education is not a problem. But it deters people from going to college or university, and there is not really any good reason to deter people from doing that. Maybe they don't "deserve" the education if they are not willing to take a loan. But you're stealing from your own coffers here, as having a poorly educated workforce hurts you financially as well.