'Course you'd have to actually go look at the plan to know that.

Then what amount would he pay?

He's advertising 100%. If that's not true he shouldn't be saying it.

You're also making the huge assumption that if two or three times as many young people go to college, the economy will magically have two or three times as many jobs available that require that credential.

What we could have is more college graduates working as waiters. A worthy profession but not one that should require a college degree.

to accommodate this assumed influx of students. Investments in faculty and facilities cost money.

paying taxes.

You also have more people in the workforce innovating in technology, economics, the sciences, the environment, alternative energy, etc etc etc

Win, win

NT

to negotiate?

Yeah....tell me again how the ACA is totally going to rein in costs with that "it's impossible to negotiate" angle.

The plan, as it currently exists, pays based on the costs of all public universities. That would create massive pressure for public universities to basically all hit the same price. Just like there is enormous pressure in the ACA to be the 2nd lowest Silver.

Could ReallyExpensiveStateU charge more? Yes. But they'd hemorrhage students until they cut their tuition.

with the disparity in current tuitions. Will he pay them all the same? Will colleges with tuitions at the bottom end raise their tuitions to match those at the top? Will he pay a median amount?

Why will there not be massive pressure for the price they all charge to be the current maximum -- ie., 17,000, instead of the median or lower?

The plan calls for paying up to the 75th percentile of all public universities.

Will CheapskateU raise their tuition? Possibly. Hopefully they'd use the money to actually upgrade their education. Will ExpensiveU lose out on students? Yep.

for 100% of public tuitions.

it is far too expensive.

Why doesn't he say FREE FOOD FOR ALL ??? That way, people would not die from starvation.

the total would equal .15% of the cost of the Iraq wars.

thanks for this

So in a really simple comparison, if State 1 chips in $10, State 2 chips in $15 and State 3 chips in $20, the federal government would chip in $30.

If that's correct, I have a huge problem with it based on things like cost of living in individual states and how it makes it hard for a state to justify putting in more money since it won't be matched and it makes it easy for a state to put in less.

Additionally I think it will harm public school as it will encourage professors to teach at private schools where they could make more money.

A state puts in $10 million, it gets $20 million.

A state puts in $15 million, it gets $30 million.

Let's do that again!

Or so I've learned here.

in PA 1970-1974 and we paid tuition.

He didn't like that they had time to protest his bad policies.

Community colleges use to be free tuition. You paid for books and a Student Fee that was nominal and took care of some incidental costs. That changed some time ago and they now charge tuition, but the costs is still very inexpensive for community college. The State Universities charge more, but they are still a bargain compared to private universities. The state universities have pretty good reputations. I went to one in the early 80s.

if tuition was free there now .

Not quite free, but close enough.

had a protest March 😊. Did not change things. I think I was making $1.65/ hr minimum wage (1970).

and could be worked out. For me the larger problem is would this come with the usual trade off of strict admission standards that European countries tend to have. Most, if not all, EU countries have a series of exams that they take to decide which colleges/ universities they can attend. No affirmative action, no attempts at increasing diversity, simply a cut and dried number. That would be a disaster in a country where there is such an unequal system of high school education. Some of our public high schools rival the toniest of private academies while others make one think of the third world.

NT

But the colleges will have to have more stringent admissions standards.

Supply and demand.

...in which case an increased number of applicants would make it harder to get in (all else being equal.)

Or a state could try to maximize the federal dollars it gets by increasing the number-of-openings.

every country that offers free tuition has the type of standards I outlined. They do so for a good reason. You can't make college free and not have those standards without bankrupting your nation.

If a state wanted to raise admissions standards after making its public colleges tuition-free, it could. It's up to each state.

can you say nearly all white schools?

NT

they'd have to be. Or at least, a big flunk-off at the end of freshman year.

Totally correct about the unevenness of US high schools.

The financing is clearly laid out on his website and in more detail in a PDF document.

From Berniesanders.com:

the huge range of current tuitions and keep costs in check? What is to keep colleges from a race to the top -- tops in tuition?

Could be fun, pnwmom.

charging 4 times as much as others for public colleges and universities.

States which make their public colleges tuition-free would get twice as much from the federal gov't as they spend on their colleges.

the College for All Act. It appears that it is a percentage rather than a dollar amount:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373/text

(1)

Initial allotment

For fiscal year 2016, the Secretary shall allot to each eligible State that submits an application under this section an amount that is equal to 67 percent of the total revenue received by the State’s public system of higher education in the form of tuition and related fees for fiscal year 2016. For each of fiscal years 2017 through 2019, the Secretary shall allot to each eligible State that submits an application under this section—
(A)

an amount equal to the allotment the State received for fiscal year 2016, plus
(B)

if the State provides additional funds toward the cost of reducing the cost of attendance at public institutions of higher education in the State for any of such fiscal years that is more than the matching funds requirement under subsection (a)(2), an amount equal to such additional funding provided by the State, which amount provided by the Secretary may be used for the activities described in subsection (e)(2).
(2)

Subsequent allotments

Beginning in fiscal year 2020, the Secretary shall determine the median allotment per full-time equivalent student made to all eligible States under this section for fiscal year 2019 and incrementally reduce allotments made to States under this section such that by fiscal year 2025, no State receives an allotment under this section per full-time equivalent student that exceeds the median allotment per full-time equivalent student made under this section for fiscal year 2019

Iirc, he estimates the EFT stock speculation tax will being in $75 billion. Current needs to fully fund free public college is $64 billion but that isn't accounting for the $24 billion we pay out already in Pell Grants.

So the tuition program would end with a $35 billion surplus the first year it was implemented and that without any state pressure for the schools to cut costs.

It's why he also says it would fully fund Head Start too with plenty to invest and hold over for the future.

Bernie proposes:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS.
The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country.

a thousand economists from 53 countries have written to G20 finance ministers and Bill Gates calling on them to introduce financial transaction taxes to tackle global poverty and climate change and help people hit by the economic crisis.

The financial crisis has shown us the dangers of unregulated finance, and the link between the financial sector and society has been broken. It is time to fix this link and for the financial sector to give something back to society.

Even at very low rates of 0.05% or less, this tax could raise hundreds of billions of dollars annually and calm excessive speculation. The UK already levies a tax on share transactions of 0.5%, or ten times this rate, without unduly impacting on the competitiveness of the City of London.

This money is urgently needed to raise revenue for global and domestic public goods such as health, education and water, and to tackle the challenge of climate change.

Given the automation of payments, this tax is technically feasible. It is morally right.

"Even if trading declined by 50 percent as a result of the [FTT], the government would still raise $175 billion. "

Guess she didn't really want an answer after all.

of tuitions in different states.

It was trying to address this fundamental question in your post:

"What if his plan to make Wall Street pay for all this doesn't yield enough money? Will he add on new taxes or cut back the program?"

Will his plan really pay for 100% of tuition at ALL public colleges no matter how expensive?

Or a median amount (which is about $8K) or what?

If he thinks the Fed govt. should pay for 100% of any public college's tuition, then what measures would he have in place to keep cost increases in check? Why shouldn't all the $4,000 and $5,000 colleges immediately begin upgrades? Why shouldn't the $17,000 colleges look for more ways to spend money?

How does she deal with the fact that community college tuition can vary a lot among states?

highest rate? At some median rate? Let all the lower end colleges decide to charge more?

What do you think tuition free means?

So since University of Pennsylvania is a large research university and has a tuition of $17k, that will be met the same as the University of Arkansas, which is structured differently and thus has a different tuition basis.

There's no distinction for funding based upon different cost structures.

You do realize that's a historical norm? Public universities used to be almost entirely state funded. That's eroded badly over the past few decades but the principal is the same - tuition at Cal State is different than UC Berkeley. Nobody blinks that these two public universities have different tuitions. They service different student needs and offer different programs

of course when it comes to education, health, social security the people can't have it. When I was at college it was free. We were given grants which covered tuition fees, board, travel and fees. It is possible because other countries manage to do it. Bernie has already said how it should be paid for.

Bernie's plan for "free" college has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. He doesn't have a revenue source to pay for it. It will largely benefit middle to upper class Americans as the standards for entry would have to be raised higher thereby giving an advantage to kids from better education systems.

What's really worse is that Bernie is clearly pandering to progressives with his platform, and by doing that, he's doing real damage to the progressive movement.

Free college nope just load up with debt instead
You HRC supporters hate the youth that much huh ?

Hillary's plan, like Bernie's, will ensure that NO student has to borrow to afford a public college in their state. But her plan won't make taxpayers cover the cost of tuition for the rich.

Why are you insulting Hillary supporters and misrepresenting her plan? You BS supporters hate the truth that much?

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

I think Obama's proposal to make community colleges free is the first real achievable step to take. Reducing existing student debt seems like a preferable focus but it's not vote getting material apparently.

The idea of taxing speculation on stock trades is a good idea, proposed and being used in Europe to fund climate change in poor countries. That to me is priority if it's possible ever to make that tax happen - the college and university system has to get shaken out. Too many administrators are paid millions, some institutions have to go under in this process. Throwing money at it isn't an answer.

California's universities were tuition free until the 80s. Germany's are today.

I'm not interested in a NO! We Can't campaign.

We need details to go with his huge promises.

We elect a President who sets goals, the Congress will develop the details. Even if Bernie gave a detailed plan that met your specifications, the reality when it got enacted would be different.

The US is a rich country, we can have tuition free college if we demand it. Period.

on negotiations with Congress.