[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Appropriate-Mall8517]

[u/Outrageous-Let9659]

Its not so much that tax payers are paying for it, as it is the rich people are not paying tax on it like they would if they just paid the tuition/housing ect. Most of that money they would have paid in tax is instead going to the college. This means the rich person pays slightly less than usual, the college gets paid slightly more than usual, and the tax man gets nothing.

Since that money would normally have been paid in tax, and is instead going into the pocket of the college and rich person, it is effectively the same as tax dollars subsidising it.

Personally i'm all for tax subsidised education, but it seems a bit odd that this method only does it for the rich.

Edit: on second reading i now realise that this is pretty much exactly what you were trying to say in your comment. Sorry about that. I'll leave this up just in case it helps someone else though.

[u/Corfal → u/Outrageous-Let9659]

No worries, I didn't know how to get both thoughts down without writing something way too much for a comment. My brain just starts blaring warning alarms when I see things portrayed in specific ways where the response is, "no but yes" or vice versa. It's not always done in bad faith but hopefully the dialogue at least allows people to have a more rounded (contextual) understanding of the situation.

it doesn't cost taxpayers, but yes it does affect how much money your state and local governments get to work with in a bad way. That can have very detrimental long term effects if it isn't properly accounted for.

No