State of the Union

Let's Pay for 'Free' Community College by Taxing College Savings!

Obama's new tax proposals hit more than the rich.

|

There are alternative solutions out there.
"Community"

President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address tomorrow proposes $320 billion in taxes over the next 10 years. Pretty much every new story is presenting it as "increasing taxes on the wealthiest" to pay for programs to help the middle class. That's bad enough. It's not like he's proposing increasing taxes to pay for fundamental government operations. It's just a wealth transfer to cover the "costs" of offering up tax credits to famillies with two working parents (screw you, stay-at-home moms and dads!). But beyond that, Americans for Tax Reform looked at the package and point out several ways these tax increases are going to potentially come back and hurt others besides the richest among us.

Obama previewed his plan for "free" community college for students seeking associate's degrees a couple of weeks ago. The administration has put a price tag of $60 billion over 10 years for it (which means it's likely to be much higher). Part of how Obama plans to pay for it is to tax the special saving funds, called 529 plans, that people can use to gather money to pay for their children (or themselves) to go to college:

Under current law, 529 plans work like Roth IRAs: you put money in, and the money grows tax-free for college. Distributions are tax-free provided they are to pay for college.

Under the Obama plan, earnings growth in a 529 plan would no longer be tax-free. Instead, earnings would face taxation upon withdrawal, even if the withdrawal is to pay for college. This was the law prior to 2001.

As you may recall, I argued that Obama's "free community college" plan was a subsidy for college administrators and bureaucrats, not students. Nothing could make my analysis more clearly true than to literally tax people's college savings in order to give more money directly to colleges.

Read more analysis from Americans for Tax Reform here

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

165 responses to “Let's Pay for 'Free' Community College by Taxing College Savings!

  1. At least these proposals will go no where in Congress.

    1. Because of OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS WHO HATE THE POOR! Only a vote for Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Congress in 2016 can save this noble plan!

      1. What, no love for Liz Warren?

      2. No, they hate education, according to my Facebook friends.

        1. They hate childrenz! Now quick, shut down those charter schools giving kids good education before no one notices, so we can preserve the privileges of entitled public school teachers and admins.

          1. Both of them?

          2. No, they just hate education, science and the poor. They love children, with barbecue sauce. Evil cannibal Republicans! Soylent Green Tea is people!

            1. Why so? I try to analyze all the threats of this community college plan, but still there are some positive moments or maybe not? Why here is not mentioned any of advantages of Obama’s proposal. For example, here is a kind of analytical article, that considers pros and cons and tells
              what Barack Obama’s free community colleges means for students – http://www.essaymama.com/blog/…..-students/

              1. That article doesn’t even mention 529s. For me at least, the issue is in taxing people who sacrificed and saved for their kids’ college and giving a free ride to some who didn’t save at all.

                If that doesn’t create incentive for mooching, and punish work, then I don’t know what does.

      3. Wake up! This is Obama!!!

      4. Since when does this have anything to do with Republicans?

    2. At least these proposals will go no where in Congress.

      I wouldn’t bet on Boehner’s House refusing to pass anything on principle.

      1. I wouldn’t bet against Boehner wanting to do it, but if he actually tried to push something like this through his support would collapse.

        The mainstream of the GOP may not have wanted any of the challengers to replace Boehner this year, but that changes if Boehner is ever dumb enough to sign on to a tax increase…especially one that Obama wants.

  2. “Pretty much every new story is presenting it as “increasing taxes on the wealthiest” to pay for programs to help the middle class.”

    ‘Raise HIS taxes!’
    Hoping to be the last to get shot.

    1. +1 fellow behind the tree

  3. It’s hard to believe that anyone would be gullible enough to put their money into a 529 or IRA believing that doing so would shelter them from taxation.

    1. I’ll venture to say that any financial instrument that is regulated and protected by the state is vulnerable to it’s predation.

      1. Who better than a fox to guard the henhouse?

    2. Isn’t it against the constitu…

      Oh, nevermind.

    3. I think IRAs are probably safer. Old people vote.

    4. That was a big concern for me when looking at Roth IRAs last year, but fuck it; gotta roll the dice and hope the state is miraculously OK 40 years from now.

    5. I use a 529 for my kids’ college fund, and it actually is sheltered from taxation. Even if they do pass this stupid legislation, the plan would still be tax deferred- all growth year over year would be tax free and would only be taxed at withdrawal.

      From a game theory point of view, people should still use tax shelters since paying for taxes now is still more expensive than the probability of paying taxes in the future.

      1. 1) Is the tax rate going to be higher when you pull it out?
        2) If tax rates go up, is the compounding of interest great enough to overcome the higher rate?

        The crystal ball is having a tough time getting a bead on #2.

        1. If your kid is pulling it out, then probably it will be cheaper since most kids draw much lower income (and therefor a lower income tax rate) than you would if you were paying taxes on it while it grew.

          1. Here’s the problem. With the way that Financial Aid is calculated (with assumed parental support factored in), unless you cut off the kid from everything (including your health insurance, which Obamacare conveniently extended to 26), and don’t claim them on your taxes, the 529 is going to show as income for you, the parent, according to the arcane accounting practices of the University system.

            1. But showing up as income on a FAFSA isn’t the same as showing up as income to the IRS.

    6. I remember discussing the possibility of the government seizing or taxing the shit out 401K/IRAs in the future a la Argentina with my accountant. He reacted like I had gone bonkers conspiracy theorist.

      Yeah, about that…

      1. When they announce that I’ll immediately withdraw all 401K/IRA savings and buy shit. I’m a slave to incentives after all.

        1. When they announce that I’ll immediately withdraw all 401K/IRA savings and buy shit.

          It would probably be too late by then.

      2. I think it is unlikely. Everyone and their dog has a 401(k) plan, so there is no way they can spin it as taxing the wealthy. Walmart associates probably have 401(k) plans.

        1. No, it will just be a rider on bill with a more obvious tax the wealthy plan. Whoever passes it will just fail to publicize that they are also taxing 401ks, and once this shit gets passed it never gets removed.

          1. I think you are right.

            Tax on 401ks will start as “over X amount”, then gradually be expanded.

            1. Yep, I work at a Wal-Mart as one of my jobs, and I do the 401K thing, because they match me up to 6% (those greedy Walton Bastards! /sarc)and frankly, since I’ve started putting 12% away tax free, my paycheck went up by about $5 every two weeks from not being taxed on 12% of it. If they ever try to take my 401K, I will be explaining how that’s a terrible idea in the breakroom, by holding classes on the history of the income tax.

              1. But when they tax you ot will be explained that it is necessary to help Americans in bad jobs such as those that work for Walmart.

    7. I have always been very suspicious of these tax-favored savings plans and special-purpose accounts. They’ll be “tax free” only until it is in the politicians’ best interests for them not to be. In recent years, I have made use of a health savings account, but only to deal with immediate expenses (that is, I contribute in a given year for expected consumption in that year), because the Congress so far has been unable to move the goalposts any more quickly. Especially if I were a young person, I would be very skeptical of putting money in 401K, IRA, or 529 for long-term savings purposes. These accounts are merely instances of the government using tax policy to engineer our economic behavior. End the taxes and the “special accounts” won’t even be desirable, much less necessary.

      1. Eh, 401ks are nice because of matching. I’m looking at how much my employer contributes not tax structure when I put money in one.

    8. I have both. You’d better believe that mine will vanish to the Caymans if I catch so much as a whiff of them being taxed.

    9. Maybe you don’t know what a 529 is. It is not sheltering anything. It is a savings account for college.

  4. Let’s redistribute money from those who have prepared to those who haven’t. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. They kill the 529 account? Is there any reason to use that type of account if you do not a tac break for tuition?

      Secondly, the government promised not to tax those instruments, so where are the damn “social contract” defenders?

      1. I suspect it would still be taxed at a lower rate. Or allow you to put in pre-tax money like an IRA.

        You missed the clause in the social contract where the government gets to change the terms whenever they want to. It’s actually very similar to a credit card contract.

        1. It’s pre-state-tax money, I think, not pre-federal-tax money. We had been debating opening a 529 for our daughter, but I don’t think we’ll be doing that now.

          1. It is still tax deferred- meaning every time you make money IN THE ACCOUNT, those proceeds are not taxed. If you put money in a standard brokerage account, even if you make 10% annual returns (which is very hard) 25 – 30% of those gains is taken as cap-gains tax and cannot be used for reinvestment. In a tax deferred account, you get to keep the full balance to reinvest and hopefully compound.

            The proposed taxes on 529s are a sucker punch, make no mistake. But they would still remain a useful investment vehicle.

            The real game-wrecker is when someone proposes to nationalize these accounts- including HSAs, 401k’s and IRAs. This is not very likely but is still a non-zero probability that people should keep an eye on.

            1. Yeah, they will want to nationalize all those accounts, because they need to be in safe (Fed Notes) investments you know. (The kind with near zero returns)

              Cause we are all taking big risks with our retirement (etc) accounts and the government has to protect us!

              And oh by the way, that lets them have and use the money.

      2. I am altering the social contract; pray I don’t alter it any further.

        1. This… government at its best..

        2. Bring the Tax-deferred 529 College Savings Fund Withdrawal Fees to my ship.

    2. Ant, meet grasshopper.

      There is nothing new under the sun.

  5. The State of the Free Shit Army is good, comrades. But the wreckers aren’t contributing enough yet.

    1. I think the wreckers have been so wrecked by now that they should be known as the wreckees.

  6. Of course the Obama administration wants to disincentivize stay at home parents. Women choosing to do that are the biggest factor in average oay disparity between men and women. At they are actually doing something that attacks the actual cause of that issue.

  7. I looked into 529s briefly. It looked to me like it was worth contributing up to the maximum state income tax deduction in a lot of states. I’m sure that will no longer be true if this passes.

    1. While I am not a tax accountant, I think the state-tax deduction is pretty much a wash. You get to deduct State taxes from your Federal Income Tax, so if you don’t pay it to the state, you pay it to the Feds anyways.

      As I noted above, the real benefit of 529s is that they are tax deferred, meaning that any gains realized year over year in the account are not taxed- speeding the compounding rate of the principal.

  8. The leftists at Salon were bitching over the weekend that Obama was only doing this for show. If he really wanted to do this, he would have done when the Dems controlled both houses or at least when they controlled the Senate. Now, there is no chance that it will pass.

    1. I think they pretty well hit the nail on the head with that one.

    2. Doi. They should remember that any time they complain that the Republicans “obstructed” some important progressive legislation. Obama had two years to raise the minimum wage or whatever.

      1. We never have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress at the same time. This is what some Team-Blue-bots actually believe.

        1. And the ReThuglicans are responsible for everything wrong with California

    3. I think I saw that, too, and now can’t find the article.

  9. Yeah, because the people using 529s are the wealthiest among us. What a bunch of bullshit.

    1. They are the suckers among us. The saps who work hard, pay their bills, and save for retirement and kids’ educations deserve yet another buggering.

  10. tax credits to famillies with two working parents

    That one seems really odd. The only rationale I can think of is to rectify the “marriage penalty” in federal taxes.

    I don’t want any of these social engineering credits. Just cut rates. But if anything I would think that a credit for a stay-at-home parent would make a lot more sense if you give any kind of a shit about the children.

    1. They don’t like stay-at-home parents.

      1. Which is really fucked up. How is having a parent at home not clearly enormously superior to a daycare or baby sitter? Especially for young children.

        1. What are you talking about? Parents don’t know how to raise their own children! Only professional government employees, like public school teachers for example, have the expertise to raise children! Duh!

        2. Zeb|1.19.15 @ 11:13AM|#
          “Which is really fucked up. How is having a parent at home not clearly enormously superior to a daycare or baby sitter? Especially for young children.”

          Now, what message might they get from their parents compared to what a union-member government employee might say?

        3. You haven’t met my brother’s ex-wife.

        4. You’re oppressing women or something if both parents aren’t in the workforce. This is a serious opinion that people hold seriously.

          1. Who says the father can’t stay at home?

            1. If the father is staying at home he’s a deadbeat loser that can’t hold a job and is clearly using his patriarchy to oppress his wife.

              1. And if his wife stays at home and he goes to work, that’s the patriarchy oppressing his wife too.

                Penises are evil!

        5. Job for the second parent, jobs for the day care / baby sitter. These selfish pricks are dragging the economy!

        6. Which is really fucked up. How is having a parent at home not clearly enormously superior to a daycare or baby sitter? Especially for young children.

          How is it the government’s business one way or the other?

          1. You ask how it is the business of ranchers what the cattle do?

        7. Children belong to the village so it’s better they aren’t homeschooled. Those people are dangerous.

        8. Women need to be liberated from their own stupid choices, no doubt forced on their gullible stupid female brains by those cunning men. Haven’t you read any Gloria Steinem? Obama gave her a medal, ya know.

      2. “Spoonman.|1.19.15 @ 11:08AM|#

        They don’t like stay-at-home parents.”

        Unless they are welfare moms.

    2. The parents staying at home might home school the state’s children, grow food outside of the agricultural industrial complex, amongst other potential activities.

  11. this is like Obamacare since it tries to bring down the cost of medical care by taxing medical devices. do these people not think before they put pen to paper?

    1. That gives me an idea. Maybe the government could fund itself by taxing its own activities.

      1. The Fair Tax actually does that. Even the government must pay sales taxes for its consumption!

        1. It’s only fair since government employees pay income taxes.

          1. No, they don’t. They give their boss a rebate of their salaries.

    2. What is this thing you call thinking? Only feelings matter.

    3. They think. They don’t expect their sycophants to.

    4. Stupid or evil. It’s got to be one or the other. Stupid’s getting too hard to believe. So…

  12. We of course know better, but given how stupid the Stupid Party is and how stupider the average voter is, this is smart politically from Obama:

    1. Propose some pie in the sky free shit plan

    2. Propose to tax the “rich” to pay for it

    3. Point and scold as Republicans come up with different reasons for opposing it

    4. PROFIT

    Republicans will need to have a coherent, sensible message in explaining why this is ridiculous, something they mostly suck at.

    1. To be fair, the message must appear more valuable to an ignorant person than the value of the free shit. When it comes to most people, perceived gain trumps all reason and ethics. We libertarian’s aren’t exactly offering messages that trumps free shit as good as the message is, but what the GOP lacks in their message, they make up for by their use of their own free shit tactics.

    2. While the caricature of the Democrats as bought votes isn’t too far from the mark, their reliable base is generally middle class, not raving Bernie Sanders socialists with a billion bumper stickers on their cars. Taxing 529s will peel a lot of those people off.

      1. While the caricature of the Democrats as bought votes isn’t too far from the mark, their reliable base is generally middle class, not raving Bernie Sanders socialists with a billion bumper stickers on their cars. Taxing 529s will peel a lot of those people off.

        Public school system, agricultural subsidies, SS, medicaid, medicare et cetera is all free shit. The fact that the support base of both parties want different types of free shit doesn’t take away from the fact that they all want free shit above all else. Politics is nothing not the struggle for free shit.

        1. “Politics is nothing not the struggle for free shit.”
          Uh…Duh!

        2. No, not free. Paid for by taxes, and SS is our own money coming back to us,

      2. They’re losing the white working middle class.

        Their coalition is increasingly minorities, public sector workers, leftist elites who have the resources to cope with the increasing tax burdens, and slacker whites with crappy humanities degrees who are net consumers of government services.

    3. They just have to ignore it. They don’t even have to bring it up if they don’t want to.

    4. Good point. I’ll have to remember this one.

      I see it all the time in the business world. The people who promise the moon for the price of wishing for it are loved, no matter how many times the pie in the sky never materializes, but the people who say “that aint ever gonna work” are despised, no matter how many times they are proven right.

      Never thought of it as a political strategy before.

  13. When in doubt, free shit rolls out.

  14. What a piece of shit.

    1. But. it’s FREE shit!

  15. I was preparing a tax return for a construction worker who told me that he quit working in mid-November and spent the holidays taking his kids to all the free Christmas events. He did this because mid-November was when he hit the maximum Earned Income Credit level. Since the EIC would pay him as much or more as working, he decided not to work. Then he asked me where the government got the money to give him EIC. I told him from people (like me) who don’t have children at home or don’t qualify for tax credits because they make too much money. (I was too polite to point out that meant me, because I went to college and am now working two jobs.) The low-life sonofabitch replied “Good!!” I wonder why this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

    1. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

    2. I have a child myself, but boy does it irk me when I hear other parents demand that childless people subsidize their life choices.

      “But, having children is hard! It’s expensive and I need help!”

      “Then why did you have children?”

      “…”

      1. Having children is expensive because of government. Take away government and having kids becomes affordable without government handouts.

      2. The usual response I get to that last question is along the lines of “How dare you question my right to have kids!?!” or “You don’t understand because you’re not a parent.”

        That’s usually the point at which I tell them that if they aren’t willing to come up with the money to fund what they want for their kids, it’s not my fault they’re shitty parents who don’t love their children. The conversation usually devolves from there.

        You’ll never be able to change the mind of someone like that, but you can ruin their entire day, which is a worthwhile consolation prize.

        1. In conversation, I once suggested a “voucher” program in which kids could get the financial help to go to a private school or buy supplies for homeschooling. One mother adamantly insisted that it was everyone social duty to help pay for kids and the wonderful public school system.

    3. I have a child myself, but boy does it irk me when I hear other parents demand that childless people subsidize their life choices.

      “But, having children is hard! It’s expensive and I need help!”

      “Then why did you have children?”

      “…”

      1. I remember a married woman caller on a talk radio show tout how she was conservative but that she deserved/needed government $$ to be able to be a good mother. Fortunately the host took her to task.

        My thought was, if you expect me – single & childless – to support your family then it should come with some reciprocity. Your brats need to mow my lawn & clean my house when needed. And, if you (the mother) are to my taste, then I insist on concubine rights on a monthly basis.

        1. They should polish your monocles, silly.

        2. Damn straight. There’s no accountability at all.

          I pay over $9K a year in property taxes. In my state (WA), 40% of that goes for public education. That still wasn’t enough, so the bleeding (breeding?) hearts decided this past November that we needed to tack on another $6 billion handout to the teacher’s unions to “make class sizes smaller!”

          What do we get for our money? Oh, well, we’re not allowed to ask. Testing is bad, mmkay? It makes teh pweshuses have bad feelz. Assessing kids in any way hurts their precious self-esteem, so we can’t find out if we’re getting our money’s worth. If the kids grow up to be little shithead thugs and thieves instead of productive, working adults, it’s not like the parents give us our money back.

          Having a baby is the Leelu Dallas Multipass of welfare handouts. Doesn’t matter how able-bodied you are; you have a kid, regardless of how lousy a parent you are, you can collect WIC, TANF, housing subsidies, food stamps, daycare vouchers, college tuition, Medicaid, Earned Income Credit…and you still get your child tax credits and deductions to boot.

          Accountability? Quid pro quo? None. Kid can grow up to be Adam Fucking Lanza, doesn’t matter. Kid can grow up to do exactly what their parents did, and plop down on their lazy ass at 15 and grunt out some more welfare-sucking brats. Don’t matter. Nobody has to pay anything back.

          1. Assessing kids in any way hurts their precious self-esteem,

            I’ve never quite understood that. How are they to have any self-esteem if they have no standards with which to assess their worth? Indeed, if they are not assessed at all? How can one value oneself if one has no standard of value?

            1. Liberals are experts at reversing cause and effect. Esteem first! Accomplishment later (if ever)!

              And that’s how you end up with participation trophies, sports leagues that don’t keep score, grade inflation and microaggression-awareness (Seriously, when you’ve been taught since you were little what a special snowflake you are, it’s not surprising that the tiniest slight is traumatic. When you have the emotional development of an infant, everything makes you scream like an infant).

          2. “In my state (WA), 40% of that goes for public education.”

            Wrong.

            40% of that goes to the government educational apparatchiks.

            “Public education” is an entirely optional output of the system.

            The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.

      2. The explanation that I’ve heard is that they deserve help for raising the next generation of [group of people who are supposedly very good]. Then where’s my ironclad guarantee?

        1. Well they’re not doing a very good job, as young men are the most likely to commit crime.

        2. Not that it makes sense to provide government subsidies to anyone who’s doing ANYTHING, but subsidizing breeding would only make sense if we needed more humans, and if we were having difficulty getting people to make more.

          But we don’t, and we’re not. If we do need more workers, we can always get them as immigrants from countries with high birth rates. Plenty of people out there have kids just because they’re idiots. You don’t need to throw any money at the idiots. They’re going to get knocked up anyway.

          We waste possibly hundreds of billions of dollars in this country trying to make educational outcomes “equal” for a vast population of kids who don’t have any real potential. The kids might have more potential, but their families don’t value education that much and don’t raise them to appreciate and take advantage of their educations. They’d probably value it a helluva lot more if they had to write the checks for it themselves. But as long as somebody else is writing the checks, what most American parents care about is that their kid feels happy and important at school. That’s what we’re paying for: making sure everybody gets a trophy, everybody gets on the school bus no matter how late they are, and everybody gets a halal, vegan, gluten-free, peanut-free meal option.

          And what do we get for our investment? Practically nothing. Companies want the kids from overseas, the ones who appreciated their educations and knew they’d be worthless unless they excelled.

          1. Missing the point – we need more Democrat voters!

            1. ^THIS^

              After all, it requires very little intelligence to have children, and by some magic, it seems that stupid people breed faster than smart ones.

              So faster breeding equals more stupid people (aka Democrat drones)

    4. Then he asked me where the government got the money to give him EIC.

      I think a more pertinent answer to that is, “People whose children have grown up. Just like, once your children grow up, you’ll be paying for other people’s EIC for the rest of your life.

    5. I told him from people (like me) who don’t have children at home or don’t qualify for tax credits because they make too much money. (I was too polite to point out that meant me, because I went to college and am now working two jobs.) The low-life sonofabitch replied “Good!!”

      Not only low-life but pretty clueless as well. Most people wouldn’t be dumb enough to insult someone doing their tax returns, doing their surgery, cooking and serving their food, etc.

    6. YOu can’t really blame the guy. He is not a low life piece of shit by any streath of the imigination.

      In his own way he is making the same decision that others do to exploit the tax code to his maximum benefit.

      As do you I’m sure if you own a home etc etc, you low life sonofabitch.

  16. Between shit like this, and those below-zero interest rates PB seems to love, is the federal government giving anybody ANY incentive to save money at all?

    1. is the federal government giving anybody ANY incentive to save money at all?

      Nope. Saving is bad. Didn’t you know that? When people save money, then they’re not spending it. They’re not driving the economy. That money just sits there in a bank doing nothing. It’s not lent out to be used as wealth producing capital. It just sits there. Just ask any progressive. Since that saved money being used as capital cannot be seen, while spending can, then spending is good while saving is bad.

      1. +1 swimming pool filled with gold coins

      2. I have explained that more than once to liberals. “There’s no such thing as idle money in the modern economy unless you’re stuffing it in your mattress.” Makes their head explode.

        It usually goes hand in hand with explaining to them that the people making money from “Greedy oil companies” (or pick your own corporate demon), that’s them! Hey there IRA/401K/Mutual Fund, etc.

        I have actually had more than one say to me with a straight face that there’s a fixed supply of wealth, too. I’m going to break my nose if I have to keep facepalming at that.

  17. It’s all about the camera angle!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..72895.html

    “… the front line of leaders was followed by just over a dozen rows other dignitaries and officials ? after which there was a large security presence maintaining a significant gap with the throngs of other marchers.”

    1. Libertarian|1.19.15 @ 11:26AM|#
      “It’s all about the camera angle!”

      A year or so ago, I drove by a ‘demonstration’ by teachers in front of the state building; maybe 15 people, and 10 ‘news gatherers’.
      That night, the TV news covered it.
      It is indeed all about the camera angle; it somehow morphed into a ‘mass demonstration’.

      1. Same thing with Occupy in my town. There were about 100 people out there after the first week. 25 of them were the homeless folks that would be hanging out in the town square regardless. Hardly a mass movement.

        1. Same thing in my town. They conveniently chose to have the occupy where all the hobos collected cans. Some guy with a megaphone was there complaining about the freemasons or something. That that movement got any serious attention from the media just shows how batshit insane the media is.

          1. OWS: People who can’t manage a decent campsite lecturing us on how to run the world.

  18. OT: My God, any article about Uber attracts the most ardent supporters of the taxi cartels. All in the name of “safety,” of course.

    One guy on this thread wanted to ban Uber because one of its drivers allegedly raped a woman who used the ridesharing service. ‘Cause every time someone is raped while using some business’s service, the sane thing to do is to ban that business. But only those businesses I don’t like.

    Also, “there are lawsuits against Uber; that shows how bad it is!”

    And, the best of all: “Uber doesn’t follow the rulz!!!!”

    1. You don’t understand! Uber is unregulated!

      That’s…. anarchy!

      Everything must be regulated because, because… regulation is magic!

      1. It’s amazing, isn’t it? What is it about so many people who just uncritically accept the claim that the “rules” are there to help them?

        I think I understand now why so many people have an emotional aversion to profit-making. In the bad old days, children were taught to suppress their sexual urges, that possessing those urges was a sign of evil.

        Similarly, today children are taught that the urge to make profit is evil. Therefore, they grow up thinking their desire to make money is evil, and they have to make daily penitence to cleanse themselves, usually by berating others for making money.

        Like that guy in that link who says “apps shouldn’t be used for profit.” Really, WTF?

        1. Power seekers benefit from economic illiteracy.

    2. I just assume anyone comdemning Uber et al. are flacks for the taxi cartel. We have one here who crawls out of the woodwork just for Uber articles.

      1. BigMike is probably some taxi cartel lackey. But I doubt many, if not most, of Uber’s critics are. They honestly believe that Uber’s flouting the rulz is the worst thing ever.

        1. But those rules don’t benefit anybody except the taxi cartel. Why would anyone else argue against their own self-interest…? Yeah, stupid question.

          1. It takes 12-16 years of public education to teach ostensibly normal young kids to consistently act against their self-interests.

            There’d be no supporters for mass immigration otherwise (oh, wait, there are hardly any supporters for mass immigration anyway! But our politicians are completely owned by pro-immigration interests. Damn, we can’t win even when the masses are right!).

    3. Don”t worry, Uber is well on its way to joining the cartel.

      1. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, amirite?

        1. “Close the door behind you, please”

    4. Uber is just another Liberal Pinata like the Koch brothers.

      Even though it should otherwise be a symbol of millenial innovation adding new dynamism to the real economy, it got nominated for being MegaEvil by the progs because of its nasty side-effect =

      revealing how the regulatory economy screws the little guy in favor of the government-sponsored cartel

      I think cathy correctly nails that point there, but that there’s also more to Uber specifically that helped turn them into the chosen target of the Prog media machine ; everything about it is inherently voluntary and entrepreneurial. There’s no direct *controls*. “Markets Undermine Control*, and they think that Control Means = ‘Fairness’. Because then Government can punish some people and hand favors to others. If there are no subsidies or mandates or favors to grant… how is there any way to ensure *fairness*??

      The comments of the latter link provide a disturbing window into the mind of the prog-hive, and their cartoonish “economics for poets”-conceptions of how the world works. They toss around economic terms like so much literary name-dropping, with zero actual understanding of how these things work together.

    5. THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

      Uber has a CEE (Chief Evil Executive) that specifically raisers prices during tragedies in order to gouge people that need their service

      / THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

      1. Funny how government and Red Cross vehicles weren’t around to transport people. Just Uber. Oh, but we’re entitled to free rides because TRAGEDY.

    6. when ever some makes the Uber Rapist excuse I always ask “has no one has ever been raped by a licensed cab driver”. I find that hard to believe.

  19. My Aunty Abigail just got an awesome twelve month old Lexus LS 460 Sedan by work part time using a lap-top. go to this web-site I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    ? ? ? ? LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ? ? ? ? ?

    ??????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  20. I actually think this will negate itself.
    People will just stop using 529 accounts and there will be nothing to tax.

    1. I just opened a 529 for my son barely a week ago.

      Then this fucker proposes to tax it.

      1. He’s watching you.

    2. People can’t just stop using 529s. They can quit opening new accounts, but the ones already started will be around for fifteen years or so, long past the next election cycle.

  21. Let’s Pay for ‘Free’ Community College by Taxing College Savings!

    Seems legit.

    1. My friend, mikeangellogy, would like to speak to you…heh.

  22. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself,
    ……
    ?????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  23. I’m not defending confiscating taxpayer dollars to send everyone to college, but you have to understand where this is coming from. In my city, I know of several businesses I’ve dealt with personally; these companies require their secretaries to have college degrees. The secretaries. I know a law firm in town that requires that, AND requires even its bike messengers (you heard that right) to have college degrees. So you tell me: if I need a college degree to be a secretary (or bike messenger) then how is it fair to require me to go into crushing debt to acquire that degree? You want to complain, complain to Corporate Amerika. They’re the ones that want college graduates sweeping their bathroom floors, driving the value of a college education into the toilet in the process.

    1. When a high school diploma no longer attests to the fact that you are literate and numerate at an adult level, then unsurprisingly companies no longer see it as a sufficient qualification.

      “Corporate America” (learn to spell) is risk-averse and lazy. When the government rewards you for cooperating with them and punishes you severely for making them look bad, this is an unsurprising outcome.

      So if requiring a college degree takes you from receiving 2000 applications to just 50 applications, and as an added benefit selects for individuals less likely to cause trouble, then it’s a no-brainer for the average corporate HR flunkie.

      The destruction of the educational system is the root cause. Passing some new law to “reign in Corporate America” is just papering over it all.

    2. So you should trust government to bring the same respect and stringency to college degrees that it brought to the high school diploma!

      1. It’s amazing how similar this is to the “everyone should own a home” and “raise the minimum wage” arguments.

        People with college degrees have better earning potential. Free college degrees for everyone! Um, hey, how come my nifty new free college degree is so worthless I can’t get a job flipping burgers?

        Minimum wage is $x.xx. Living wage is $x.xx+y. Raise the minimum wage to $x.xx+y and every worker makes a living wage! Um, how come it’s harder to find a job, and how come my $x.xx+y doesn’t buy what it used to? It’s not a living wage anymore! How did that happen? What should we do? (Raise the minimum wage!)

        Home ownership is a good predictor of success and stability. Let’s make everyone a homeowner! Um, how come all those people who wouldn’t have qualified for normal loans are defaulting. It’s almost like making them homeowners didn’t magically make them responsible. Unpossible!

    3. It wasn’t corporate America. It was a) Mandatory attendance laws and intense pressure to “leave no student behind” that turned high school diplomas into toilet paper, b) the effective outlawing of job testing, because of endless disparate impact lawsuits.

      Corporate America is like any other simple organism, it responses to pain (money loss) and pleasure (money gain) and responds to incentives and disincentives.

  24. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  25. “for it is to tax the special saving funds, called 529 plans, that people can use to gather money to pay for their children (or themselves) to go to college:”

    Inevitable.

    Yesterday the story was taxing the IRAs of “the rich”.

    The government will be going after every single “tax advantaged” plan. The advantage for them is that they has to be registered with the government, so that they know where to find them when they want to raid them.

    Think of it as a gun registration program. Eventually, if they know you have it, they will be coming for it.

  26. I’m convinced that as long as you said the wealthy were going to pay for it, you could get the progs to support any new government program. It’s the golden ticket.

    You’d think they’d have learned that it was all BS with Obamacare (I liked it before I realized I’d have to pay for it etc.), but here they are…pushing the same old tired narrative.

  27. It puts the lotion on its skin, Obama wants to tax and spend. Isn’t that right precious?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.