←back to thread

Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

(news.mit.edu)
736 points gnabgib | 2 comments | 20 Nov 24 16:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.446s | source
Show context
meetingthrower ◴[20 Nov 24 19:41 UTC] No.42197376[source]▶
Yes but the algorithm also is that they take 5% of your assets each year. So if you've saved $1M (not much for a $200K a year couple in their 50s), that's $50K a year out the door.
replies(2): >>42197556 #>>42197595 #
robnado ◴[20 Nov 24 20:05 UTC] No.42197595[source]▶
Honestly, that wouldn’t be a bad way to fund education: education is free, but the university gets taxation power over you so they can tax you at x% of your income. It aligns incentives better than the current system.
replies(1): >>42197922 #
Engineering-MD ◴[20 Nov 24 20:44 UTC] No.42197922[source]▶
In which case you may like how it’s done in the UK. it’s technically debt but in essence works as a graduate tax. The government pays for your education with a loan. You then only pay back 9% of your income over a certain income threshold. You do this until you pay back the loan or 30-40 years have passed. So in practice this is a graduate tax.
replies(2): >>42198903 #>>42200679 #
1. rfergie ◴[21 Nov 24 03:03 UTC] No.42200679[source]▶
For most taxes you expect higher earners to pay more but this is not the case with student loans because high earners pay of their loans quickly whereas lower earners end up paying far more in interest.

An actual graduate tax would be far less regressive than the current system

replies(1): >>42230620 #
2. ric2b ◴[24 Nov 24 21:09 UTC] No.42230620[source]▶
Could also have a minimum duration (for example 3 years) where you pay even if you go over the original loan amount.

That would mean people that get great paying jobs right out of college would pay more than they even borrowed, but it would be justified because the degree would likely have had a big impact if it was so soon after finishing the degree.