I have proposed this idea in the past, and support it, butyou mis-name it when you call it 'affordable'. This makescollege cost more for the vast majority of college graduates who live and get the sort of job only collegegraduates get. Debt, what most of us use now, limits theprice paid and correlates with the cost.

I agree that debt correlates to the cost and making the election voluntary gives the option of traditional borrowing. For many, I believe a "tax" on income would give them a chance to become established without being overwhelmed by the debt load. This is especially true for those who pursue graduate degrees.

This is a good idea. It creates a low barrier to entry for economically or academically challenged students.

It does not lock a student into completing their degree in a set time period, allowing students to take time off from formal schooling to pursue DIY schooling such as volunteering, the Peace Corps, and running with a business idea.

The low barrier would also encourage older citizens to return to school after they have lived and worked in "the real world".

There real question is, why do colleges cost more and more while there is low inflation in the rest of the economy. The reason is that there is more demand for the top spots. But these are supposed to be non-profit institutions so where does the money go? It goes into fancier gyms and things that aren't really relevant to the educational value. This means that technically there is an arbitrage oppurtunity to open a college that gives a better value. A Southwest of colleges. unfortunately it would be incredibly difficult to build up the brand image, but if you hired some high profile professors it just might work.

It is not a bad idea. The College and the university can have income when the graduates give money back to the government.

The public library is Free College, no?

I suppose only for those who do not seek employmentthat requires formal documentation of their education.

Excellent idea. It is very difficult to make loan payments right out of college. Debt becomes a real burden if the student graduates during a recession. I speak from personal experience as a recent graduate.

Some loopholes must be closed.What if someone leaves the country, he/she is no longer subject to income tax in the U.S.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately the following need to be worked out. I think some of these can be worked out but others would be harder.

- If it were mandatory, it would work nicely: future investment bankers would subsidize future social workers, and everyone has access to education. But if it is optional, the the future investment bankers will opt out. If only people with low expected future incomes opt in, then the calculated tax rate won't be enough.

- While it might be good for individuals, society as a whole might like the idea of people having to pay their own way, because it gives them incentive to earn enough money to pay off their loans, and thus, contribute taxes to the government and productive activity to society.

- Foreign students who come to the US for their education, may have no incentive to voluntarily pay money in the future if they will leave the US when they work. Similarly, a US student move to another country and not have to pay.

- Bankruptcy. With over a million people filing for bankruptcy each year, the priority of the government's education tax among other secured and unsecured creditors needs to be worked out.

There is system like this in Australia called HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme). Australian citizens who attent university pay a certain amount of money per semester (depending on course, credit load, etc) and end up with a debt at the end. This is paid off at about 3% of your paycheck once you earn more than about $25000 PA, in Australia. If you never earn that much, you never pay. An average HECS debt for a four year degree is about $15000-$20000, indexed to inflation but does not accumulate interest. (And yes, Australia also has government subsidized Universities). There are also incentives for people to pay up sooner -- if you pay early, you get heavy discounts.International students do not have this option -- they are full fee paying students, and the cost runs a lot higher than HECS. Universities in Australia have also recently implemented a number of places in courses for Australian citizens that are also full fee paying (similar to the "Never Reject Anyone" idea on this site).

Good philosophy. I would prefer to see the states offer free education in return for one year of work for each one year (or two) of free education granted. The work could be for the state gov, for the university, etc. Or, like originally posted, they could pay it off in a wage-garnishing tax-like structure.

I've suggested a concept that would use existing infrastructure to make college education universally obtainable at the lowest possible cost to the student, that would cost the taxpayer NOTHING, and that could be operating within a few months. It's called Television University and would make use of the soon-to-be-obsolete analog TV channels and the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of TV receivers already in place in virtually every home on the planet.

The biggest objection to this plan is that the broadcsting stations would be supported by advertising revenue interspersed within the educational material, as it already is, within the crap the networks call "entertainment." My suggestion replaces the misconceptions and misinformation presently shown on television (as "entertainment") with good, accurate information ("education"), at what I think is a reasonable cost to the consumer/student.

We're already being "educated" by television. They're pouring crap into our heads, calling it "entertainment," misleading us about how the world really works, and making a buck at it. I would prefer to be educated while I'm sitting on the couch, rather than being misled and mininformed.