Streamline Undergraduate Degrees to 3 Years

[Tuco Salamanca]

My answer to that is the same one I'm giving my two sons. If you are not ready to commit to a major day 1, wait and work a couple years to save up some money and get an idea for what you might like to do. Kids at 18 really don't know how wastefully expensive those extraneous classes will be and how long it will take to pay back student loans if they dilly dally between majors.

I’d like you see a study of how many people go back to school after taking just 1 or 2 years off and getting a job to save money for school.

I would venture to say less than 50%. Unless they get to stay, at least partially, on mom and dad’s payroll. Entry level jobs don’t pay a ton, probably not enough to live and save for college. In which case kids end up settling.

I guess I’d rather spend the money on college than have to supplement my kids income or have them continue to live with me.

jmho

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The issue is government backed student loans. They are giving money to kids that have no clue what to do with it and have no real plan to pay it back. And once these loans were handed out to everybody, college prices soared.

Eliminate all government student loans. Banks won’t give loans to people that are getting degrees that don’t have earning potential. The demand for college will go down and the price will drop with it.

Honestly, many jobs that require a diploma shouldn't. I have been begging my boss that we remove a degree from our requirements for our next office hire. My college degree meant little to nothing for my job. We can hire somebody out of high school for less money (initially) and they don’t have to go into debt. It is a win-win.

Edit - Also, bring back apprenticeships. It’s ridiculous that you cannot take the bar exam without going to law school. Or that you can’t become CPA without getting an accounting degree. People should be able to be an apprentice and then take the exam.

Hell or a surgeon for that matter, I watch Chicago Med, give me six months with an ER doc, pay me to learn, make mistakes, kill a few people, who is any worse for the wear?

 

[Cloud@Heart]

I’d like you see a study of how many people go back to school after taking just 1 or 2 years off and getting a job to save money for school.

I would venture to say less than 50%. Unless they get to stay, at least partially, on mom and dad’s payroll. Entry level jobs don’t pay a ton, probably not enough to live and save for college. In which case kids end up settling.

I guess I’d rather spend the money on college than have to supplement my kids income or have them continue to live with me.

jmho

Planned "GAP" years are becoming more common..... And colleges are doing a better job (at least in the pacific northwest) of honoring scholarships and financial aid/grant programs than they used to, in my handful of instances that I have knowledge of.

A GAP year would not have been good for me..... I would still be working construction, but doing it full time instead of part-time, and I wouldn't have a piece of paper to fall back on. I often wonder what would have happened if I would have went down the contractor route as a full time business. I also wonder how life would have been different if I would have taken the AirForce and Navy up on their ROTC offers. (I still wouldn't have been able to pass Diff E Q!)

 

[dand84]

I’d like you see a study of how many people go back to school after taking just 1 or 2 years off and getting a job to save money for school.

I would venture to say less than 50%. Unless they get to stay, at least partially, on mom and dad’s payroll. Entry level jobs don’t pay a ton, probably not enough to live and save for college. In which case kids end up settling.

I guess I’d rather spend the money on college than have to supplement my kids income or have them continue to live with me.

jmho

I have no idea what the current numbers are, but when I was at DONU in the 80s and graduate school in the late 80s/early 90s, the attrition rate for Frosh through 4 years was 65%.

 

[Native Nebraskan]

The undergraduate degree is probably what a high school degree used to be. The graduate degree has become what the undergraduate degree used to be. The doctrine degree what used to be the masters.

As for time and classes, remember it is the professors and deans who make this determination for each type of degree. You don’t get an undergraduate in accounting, you now get equal to a masters. Same for a physical or occupational therapist. RN used to be an associates degree, now it is a BSN. The business world is telling higher education what they need to be either competitive to other countries or to meet fast changing business world.

Private colleges have gotten the message, the first 45 to 60 credits apply to all majors. The result as many students try to find themself, they aren’t taking classes that don’t apply to their eventual degree. Also, Colleges have to not offer certain senior level or prerequisite classes only one semester. For students who do change majors many times can’t get inline with the timing of courses.

Granted colleges became the farm system for some professional sports like football and basketball. However, there are more athletes in non-revenue sports that are true student athletes. Many student athletes couldn’t afford college otherwise.

The associates degree at a community college is needed more and more. An automatic is as much a computer technician as a mechanic.

First a college should teach how to think, reason and self learn. Many jobs that existed 50 years ago have disappeared. People who move up in companies have this ability. People who can adapt to change is what companies desire. Yes, they need a certain set of skills and knowledge to start.

As parents in today’s society, what are we willing to give up for ME to help our children succeed. Are parents willing to save some money for college for our children? Are parents taking the time to support their children’s education from elementary school through college?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Planned "GAP" years are becoming more common..... And colleges are doing a better job (at least in the pacific northwest) of honoring scholarships and financial aid/grant programs than they used to, in my handful of instances that I have knowledge of.

A GAP year would not have been good for me..... I would still be working construction, but doing it full time instead of part-time, and I wouldn't have a piece of paper to fall back on. I often wonder what would have happened if I would have went down the contractor route as a full time business. I also wonder how life would have been different if I would have taken the AirForce and Navy up on their ROTC offers. (I still wouldn't have been able to pass Diff E Q!)

I just wonder how working a job and saving money for college is going to give you a better idea of what you want to study is all. Working as a painter or as a fry cook or whatever isn’t going to help you decide if you like accounting or medicine or banking. And when they finally get to school the same pct of students are going to change their minds after getting to college.

 

[CheeseRunza]

I just wonder how working a job and saving money for college is going to give you a better idea of what you want to study is all. Working as a painter or as a fry cook or whatever isn’t going to help you decide if you like accounting or medicine or banking. And when they finally get to school the same pct of students are going to change their minds after getting to college.

If that is the idea of taking a gap year, then I agree, they would be better served to take advantage of the numerous opportunities available in high school to explore their interests and determine their path. There are so many great opportunities available to kids today to explore and sharpen their skills. Summer camps and academies, career exploration and bridge programs, and even part time jobs, internships and shadowing are all available resources for those that look for them. To the original point, forcing students, who already did their homework to determine their path, to take extraneous courses seems like a money grab. I get that many students may not know what they want to study, and if they want to spend their time and money exploring their interests in college, then fine, that should be their choice. Others would just as soon take courses relevant to their field. Now if the idea of the general ed courses is to create a broad experience for the student, then I get that to some extent. And I think that many colleges are trying to make enough gen ed classes available that students can select some that are at least somewhat relevant to their field.

 

[oldjar07]

Knocking a year off the K-12 would be an even better move.

The problem isn't colleges. The problem is K-12. Colleges have to spend time going over things that should have been covered in their primary education. I wouldn't suggest cutting a year off K-12 but it should be much more rigorous to prepare students for college or a career after graduation. How it is now is not much more than glorified babysitting. If primary and secondary schools did their job, colleges could do a better job of preparing students for the workforce.

 

[DudznSudz]

There are some really good ideas posted on this thread! There are also some absolutely terrible ones.

Here are my thoughts:

1.) College (a bachelor's degree) is not about prepping you to fit like a cog into some machine or even become an apprentice. That is vocational work, and should be handled by technical colleges and on-the-job training. College in the traditional sense is about educating adults beyond a certain basic level and ignoring vocational training in an effort to create a well-informed citizenry of workers, and provide a path to advance education in graduate school, if one elects to pursue that route. These things are not to be confused for one another.

2.) The student athlete model is woefully out of date. I think the student athletes should be paid and have a union. I also think they should have access to that degree program on scholarship even if they leave to "go pro" if and when they decide to come back.

3.) The cost of college has become outrageous for a number of reasons. Some of them are as follows:
a.) Administrative costs and high demand for education.
b.) PRIVATE LENDERS GOT INVOLVED.
c.) Lower and lower tax revenue allocated for education (this only applies to public education; private education has always been expensive and for elites-only or lucky gifted people who receive crazy scholarships).

My ideas on solutions:

1.) Re-allocate tax revenue to pay for college for all citizens who choose it, be it vocational or a four-year degree. I don't mind the taxpayer paying some fees and paying for their books, and other small things like that, but tuition should be either free or very, very cheap. The WHOLE point of public education is to make it accessible to the public. And don't give me the "wahhhh taxes" right wing bullshit argument. We ABSOLUTELY can afford to do this, and the benefits throughout the generations are tremendous.

2.) Bar all private organizations from handling money for education unless it is just a private loan that you, stupidly, feel like getting your hands on. Kick them OUT.
2.a.) Write off the vast majority of student loan debt that current exists.

3.) In exchange for free or very cheap tuition, I like the idea mentioned above of encouraging/requiring gap years/years of service. That could be military (2 years), public service (1-2 years), or community service stuff. Other countries do this all the time, and its a good model and it also has the added benefit of raising civic engagement/pride in one's country.

4.) Pour more money into public K-12 education and also public vocational schools/technical colleges. Only about 25-40% of our population should get a 4 year degree (you don't want the model to become too top-heavy), the rest of people should choose to not pursue education or pursue vocational training/technical training.

This stuff I have outlined is an updated version of what we had been doing as a country until private interests captured many pieces of government that handled this stuff and F-ED IT ALL UP. Now, we have another debt crisis brewing, and my generation cannot afford to even have kids or buy a house. If you want to collapse an economy, this is the PERFECT way to do it.

 

[Husker.Wed.]

"And don't give me the "wahhhh taxes" right wing bullshit argument. We ABSOLUTELY can afford to do this, and the benefits throughout the generations are tremendous."

We are $21T in debt and cannot afford obligations already signed up for (Social Security, Medicare, expanded Medicaid). Where exactly would you shift the money from?

"Write off the vast majority of student loan debt that current exists."

Only if the government writes off the loan I just took on some land I bought. I was drunk when I signed the papers and not responsible for my actions.

"Pour more money into public K-12 education."

More money? I think we already spend vastly more per pupil than any other country. Seems to me spending more without thinking about why we are failing is the definition of insanity.

"my generation cannot afford to even have kids or buy a house."

I live in SoCal and lots of recent immigrants working service jobs have kids and buy houses. They just don't buy McMansions and take the kids to Orlando. It has always been tough to have kids and buy your first house. People in my generation get tired of hearing about how it is so tough now and we had it so easy. In 1982 UNL tuition was $28 hour. Cost for year of 15 hours X 2 semesters was $840. When I did an analysis in 2014 tuition was $216, so cost for 30 hours was $6480. Yeah, wow, big increase. HOWEVER! this is a periodic cost (twice a year). My menial job I worked at 32 hours a week in 1982 paid $5/hr X 32 hrs X 50 weeks made $8000 for the year. Salary is a reoccurring resource so even though the percentage didn't go up as much as tuition, I got a lot more paychecks during the year. The same menial job in 2014 made $12 hour, or $19,200. Actually Salary.com said $15 and hour, but I was prudent in my calculations. When the increases in tuition, books, fees, salary, renting a 2 BR apartment with a roommate, food, gas, and Pell grant increase were all calculated, I concluded it was the same, or even easier in 2014 than 1982 to pay for 30 hours a yhear of college at UNL. My analysis led me to believe the student loan "crisis" has more to due with students refusing to work a job during school, insisting on going to school out of state, going to private colleges, living in luxury apartments, having the 250 channel Directv package, buying phones annually, having car payments, and going to Cabo every spring.

 

[DudznSudz]

"And don't give me the "wahhhh taxes" right wing bullshit argument. We ABSOLUTELY can afford to do this, and the benefits throughout the generations are tremendous."

We are $21T in debt and cannot afford obligations already signed up for (Social Security, Medicare, expanded Medicaid). Where exactly would you shift the money from?

"Write off the vast majority of student loan debt that current exists."

Only if the government writes off the loan I just took on some land I bought. I was drunk when I signed the papers and not responsible for my actions.

"Pour more money into public K-12 education."

More money? I think we already spend vastly more per pupil than any other country. Seems to me spending more without thinking about why we are failing is the definition of insanity.

"my generation cannot afford to even have kids or buy a house."

I live in SoCal and lots of recent immigrants working service jobs have kids and buy houses. They just don't buy McMansions and take the kids to Orlando. It has always been tough to have kids and buy your first house. People in my generation get tired of hearing about how it is so tough now and we had it so easy. In 1982 UNL tuition was $28 hour. Cost for year of 15 hours X 2 semesters was $840. When I did an analysis in 2014 tuition was $216, so cost for 30 hours was $6480. Yeah, wow, big increase. HOWEVER! this is a periodic cost (twice a year). My menial job I worked at 32 hours a week in 1982 paid $5/hr X 32 hrs X 50 weeks made $8000 for the year. Salary is a reoccurring resource so even though the percentage didn't go up as much as tuition, I got a lot more paychecks during the year. The same menial job in 2014 made $12 hour, or $19,200. Actually Salary.com said $15 and hour, but I was prudent in my calculations. When the increases in tuition, books, fees, salary, renting a 2 BR apartment with a roommate, food, gas, and Pell grant increase were all calculated, I concluded it was the same, or even easier in 2014 than 1982 to pay for 30 hours a yhear of college at UNL. My analysis led me to believe the student loan "crisis" has more to due with students refusing to work a job during school, insisting on going to school out of state, going to private colleges, living in luxury apartments, having the 250 channel Directv package, buying phones annually, having car payments, and going to Cabo every spring.

I'll be happy to answer the portions of your reply that you absolutely got wrong:

"We are $21T in debt and cannot afford obligations already signed up for (Social Security, Medicare, expanded Medicaid). Where exactly would you shift the money from?"

Answer: No, what we can't afford are tax cuts that keep pushing money upwards, thoughtless spending on poorly designed subsidy models, and wars that don't end. In addition, our cost of health care needs to be completely re-done. Having said that, yes, our deficit has ballooned to a risky size, and that is bad.
Also also, running a deficit is not categorically bad so long as your economy and your currency hold a primary place of importance in the world economy and you can therefore successfully finance your debt. If you think otherwise, you do not know how this stuff actually works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States

"Only if the government writes off the loan I just took on some land I bought. I was drunk when I signed the papers and not responsible for my actions."

Answer: Those two situations are wildly different, though yours at least has the benefit of being funny. You could potentially win a lawsuit if you brought it and successfully proved you were impaired beyond a reasonable standard when you purchased that land, and therefore get out of some or part of the obligation. But the ways in which this is different are far more instructive. The first of which is, your example is a rogue private action, it is not representative of a broad societal trend that occurred, again, due to private capture of the public interest (this interest being affordable education).

"I live in SoCal and blah blah blah..."

I don't, I live in Nebraska (for the time being). It's very affordable to live and work here, even though it is brutally cold part of the year and politically f-ing stupid in most of the state. However, I hear nothing, absolutely nothing, about things being affordable for anyone in SoCal.

The trends outlined in the below article, in my opinion, are indicative of bad circumstances, not good ones:
https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-housing-market-affordable-rent-2019-6

Your argument smacks of the kind of ignorant talk used to put people down who want to cause systemic change (and also blaming people and refusing to help them based on that same ignorance, a-la the "welfare queen" fallacy).
I think we need to be able to agree on the problems, first: I am stating that current student debt levels and costs of education are too high, and that this system needs to be reformed.

I think you have a couple of decent points, too: UNL is still pretty darn cheap (many state schools are, if you are in-state). K-12 education does have a lot spent on it, and while I will almost always argue for more spending, it is also very true that "how" the money is spent needs to be reformed. You don't just throw dollars at a problem, you need to fundamentally change how they are spent, too.

 

[Husker.Wed.]

I'll be happy to answer the portions of your reply that you absolutely got wrong:

"We are $21T in debt and cannot afford obligations already signed up for (Social Security, Medicare, expanded Medicaid). Where exactly would you shift the money from?"

Answer: No, what we can't afford are tax cuts that keep pushing money upwards, thoughtless spending on poorly designed subsidy models, and wars that don't end. In addition, our cost of health care needs to be completely re-done. Having said that, yes, our deficit has ballooned to a risky size, and that is bad.
Also also, running a deficit is not categorically bad so long as your economy and your currency hold a primary place of importance in the world economy and you can therefore successfully finance your debt. If you think otherwise, you do not know how this stuff actually works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States

"Only if the government writes off the loan I just took on some land I bought. I was drunk when I signed the papers and not responsible for my actions."

Answer: Those two situations are wildly different, though yours at least has the benefit of being funny. You could potentially win a lawsuit if you brought it and successfully proved you were impaired beyond a reasonable standard when you purchased that land, and therefore get out of some or part of the obligation. But the ways in which this is different are far more instructive. The first of which is, your example is a rogue private action, it is not representative of a broad societal trend that occurred, again, due to private capture of the public interest (this interest being affordable education).

"I live in SoCal and blah blah blah..."

I don't, I live in Nebraska (for the time being). It's very affordable to live and work here, even though it is brutally cold part of the year and politically f-ing stupid in most of the state. However, I hear nothing, absolutely nothing, about things being affordable for anyone in SoCal.

The trends outlined in the below article, in my opinion, are indicative of bad circumstances, not good ones:
https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-housing-market-affordable-rent-2019-6

Your argument smacks of the kind of ignorant talk used to put people down who want to cause systemic change (and also blaming people and refusing to help them based on that same ignorance, a-la the "welfare queen" fallacy).
I think we need to be able to agree on the problems, first: I am stating that current student debt levels and costs of education are too high, and that this system needs to be reformed.

I think you have a couple of decent points, too: UNL is still pretty darn cheap (many state schools are, if you are in-state). K-12 education does have a lot spent on it, and while I will almost always argue for more spending, it is also very true that "how" the money is spent needs to be reformed. You don't just throw dollars at a problem, you need to fundamentally change how they are spent, too.

I was all ready to laud you for a well thought out disagreement with good points and sources until I got to the "blah blah blah", "ignorant talk" and "put people down" parts. Couldn't do the whole response without getting nasty could you? I understand, these days the need to condescend during debate seems to be a desperate need along with others such as air, water, food, and sex.

The most recent tax cuts appeared to help lower income people more than they did me. I got royally screwed. I'm not sure this round of cuts was hugely upward. Agree about the endless wars and many subsidies. Yes, the debt is only alarming and not yet terrifying because the world has faith in our currency, but just in case they lose it, I am adding land and physical metals to my portfolio.

On the loan obligation thingy I guess we will have to just disagree. To me a loan is a loan. You accept money from someone or an institution and agree to pay it back. You pay interest for the privilege. One could argue that people used to buy sensible cars they could afford with a four year loan. The broad societal trend is for people to buy bigger cars/SUVs, with more gizmos, that suck more gas, and take a larger portion of their income to buy. They take five, six or even seven year loans. Just because this is a broad societal trend, doesn't mean I should pay to forgive their loans.

We considered staying in California after retirement, or moving to Nevada, South Dakota, Nebraska, or Iowa. I did a detailed analysis considering all expenses except stuff in the noise. Believe it or not, Nebraska afforded us the least spendable income after tax, by quite a bit. Nevada and South Dakota were the best and provided the most spendable income. This was due primarily to no state income tax and fairly reasonable property tax. California and Iowa are similar and midway between South Dakota and Nebraska for income kept. A $1M home in San Bernardino County CA is taxed at $7300 a year. Sarpy County is 20,800 and Mills Co IA is $12,800. Insurance on a $750K home in San Bernardino County is $1100/year. In Mills County a $500K home costs $1500/year to insure. So going in, I thought moving out of CA would save us tons, but it doesn't. And believe it or not, Omaha home prices are rising to being only $100-$150K less than the same type home CA once you get out of the LA and Bay areas. Bottom line it pays to run the numbers and understand the results.

The article you linked said "Millennials face house prices 39% higher than their parents did in the 1980s. I don't deny this. But that could be misleading. I believe lower priced homes haven't gone up that much and higher priced homes have gone up more making the 39% potentially misleading. And anyway, in 1980 the STEM jobs at my employer started at $18K. Now they start at $60K. That is a 333% increase. According to salary.com a HS teacher in Omaha starts at $34.7K. In 1980 I seem to recall teachers starting around $15K. More than a 100% increase now. I'm sorry, no matter how I do the math on college costs and historical salary and home prices I can find data for, I just can't prove to myself going to college, and buying a home are way more expensive now than in 1980 everything considered. I have not done an analysis on having kids.

 

[bleed husker red]

High schools dont really prep kids for the real world of work. Some are picking up the industrial arts and leading kids toward apprenticeships, which is great.

My opinion is that community colleges should be prep for those kids that are not 100 percent certain of what they want to do. Those that want to work trades can be exposed to those at a higher level. Others can choose things that do not require a 4 year degree, like CNA, or study some general career fields that may help them land a job, or follow on to a bachelor's degree.

Community college budgets are largely funded by taxpayers, so figure out a funding model that makes it free to all. Corporate sponsors may help.

Like the Carrier center for HVAC, or Ford center for auto body or mechanics.

 

[DudznSudz]

I was all ready to laud you for a well thought out disagreement with good points and sources until I got to the "blah blah blah", "ignorant talk" and "put people down" parts. Couldn't do the whole response without getting nasty could you? I understand, these days the need to condescend during debate seems to be a desperate need along with others such as air, water, food, and sex.

The most recent tax cuts appeared to help lower income people more than they did me. I got royally screwed. I'm not sure this round of cuts was hugely upward. Agree about the endless wars and many subsidies. Yes, the debt is only alarming and not yet terrifying because the world has faith in our currency, but just in case they lose it, I am adding land and physical metals to my portfolio.

On the loan obligation thingy I guess we will have to just disagree. To me a loan is a loan. You accept money from someone or an institution and agree to pay it back. You pay interest for the privilege. One could argue that people used to buy sensible cars they could afford with a four year loan. The broad societal trend is for people to buy bigger cars/SUVs, with more gizmos, that suck more gas, and take a larger portion of their income to buy. They take five, six or even seven year loans. Just because this is a broad societal trend, doesn't mean I should pay to forgive their loans.

We considered staying in California after retirement, or moving to Nevada, South Dakota, Nebraska, or Iowa. I did a detailed analysis considering all expenses except stuff in the noise. Believe it or not, Nebraska afforded us the least spendable income after tax, by quite a bit. Nevada and South Dakota were the best and provided the most spendable income. This was due primarily to no state income tax and fairly reasonable property tax. California and Iowa are similar and midway between South Dakota and Nebraska for income kept. A $1M home in San Bernardino County CA is taxed at $7300 a year. Sarpy County is 20,800 and Mills Co IA is $12,800. Insurance on a $750K home in San Bernardino County is $1100/year. In Mills County a $500K home costs $1500/year to insure. So going in, I thought moving out of CA would save us tons, but it doesn't. And believe it or not, Omaha home prices are rising to being only $100-$150K less than the same type home CA once you get out of the LA and Bay areas. Bottom line it pays to run the numbers and understand the results.

The article you linked said "Millennials face house prices 39% higher than their parents did in the 1980s. I don't deny this. But that could be misleading. I believe lower priced homes haven't gone up that much and higher priced homes have gone up more making the 39% potentially misleading. And anyway, in 1980 the STEM jobs at my employer started at $18K. Now they start at $60K. That is a 333% increase. According to salary.com a HS teacher in Omaha starts at $34.7K. In 1980 I seem to recall teachers starting around $15K. More than a 100% increase now. I'm sorry, no matter how I do the math on college costs and historical salary and home prices I can find data for, I just can't prove to myself going to college, and buying a home are way more expensive now than in 1980 everything considered. I have not done an analysis on having kids.

Point taken on the sarcasm, and apologies; I am used to a lot of right-wing vitriol on these forums so I tend to add in a lot of my own these days and probably shouldn't.

As to your points: yes, it is far more expensive now than it was before. Here is a chart illustrating the purchasing power of the dollar over time. As you can see, it appears to be about half of what it was in 1980; so your analysis on percentage increases is incomplete. You need to factor in inflation and, in particular, a huge recession that hit in 2008 that likely permanently stunted job prospects for Millennial citizens.

https://howmuch.net/articles/rise-and-fall-dollar
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ged-the-job-market-forever-for-college-grads/

Next, as far as cost of living, it is true that Nebraska has insanely high property taxes. That is common in largely rural states that do not have very many large companies (and what large companies they have often twist the arm of the state to avoid taxes as much as possible through incentives or they threaten to leave) or heavy industry, so property taxes tend to be the best way to raise revenue. Nevada as legalized gambling, so they don't even need a state income tax.

I myself think taxes are good.

Oh, and the Trump tax cuts: they largely didn't do anything of note, other than lower the corporate tax rate to the lowest levels they've been at in nearly four decades, and they either did not do what was advertised, or had the opposite effect.

https://markets.businessinsider.com...y-re-higher-than-before-the-law-was-enacted-7

Reasonable people pointed this stuff out, as tax cuts rarely do anything like what they are claimed to do by the right wing nuts that keep pushing them. I am probably as left as they come, and even I can see that "sometimes" lowering taxes on specific categories of individuals or entities is a good idea if you need to kick-start activity, but it is not "always" the solution by any means. That is the problem with iron-clad ideology: it ignores the hard work that needs to be done in order to properly analyze a problem and diagnose solutions, and instead blindly advances belief over all else.

Lastly, you probably got hosed because the standard deduction is much higher now, but you can't itemize stuff like you used to be able to. In fact, I don't even know that itemized deductions even work very well anymore, and if they do, the standard deduction now blows past it, but doesn't really wind up helping very many people. I have no idea why they did that, as it's been pretty universally unpopular.