PDA

View Full Version : CA considering rich pay more for same



aREDSKIN
July-21st-2003, 06:29 AM
education. Now I know that CA have a very liberal ( the state pays for most of the cost) higher education system but this just seems a bit unfair and not likely to hold up in court or with the voters.


UC eyes surcharge for rich students


By Steve Sexton
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



****California's premier university system is considering charging rich students more tuition to offset deep funding cuts resulting from the state's $38 billion budget deficit.
****The Board of Regents of the University of California examined a proposal for a surcharge on wealthy students at a meeting Thursday. The university would be the first in the country to target wealthy students with a surcharge.
****The proposed fee would force undergraduate students with family incomes exceeding $90,000 to pay as much as $3,000 more to attend one of the university's nine campuses. It is expected to affect 58,194 of the university's 160,000 undergraduate students.
****"I think that is outrageous," said Republican state Sen. Dick Ackerman, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. "There is already a significant program of financial aid and scholarships for people who can't afford to go there. You shouldn't be charging rich people more just because you can."
****The UC regents were forced last week to raise tuition 25 percent across the board to compensate for a budget shortfall that had already caused the university to cut spending by $360 million. The tuition increases were preceded by a 10 percent increase in December and might be followed by a 5 percent increase.
****Universities across the country are grappling with shrinking budgets as state support and endowments dry up. Last year, tuition at public universities climbed an average of 10 percent, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. This year, 30 states are facing serious budget shortfalls forcing tax increases or spending cuts.
****The surcharge was proposed by Regent Tom Sayles who did not return calls for comment Friday. The university administration has drawn up a plan that would raise $60 million by charging the rich students an additional $1,000. But the university's vice president in charge of the budget has said a $3,000 surcharge might be needed to make the program worthwhile.
****Regent Matt Murray, the lone student on the 25-person governing board, said he supports a surcharge and lashed out at the state's Republican legislators who have resisted tax increases intended to offset the budget deficit.
****"Given the ridiculous nature of the budget situation and the limited options the university has, I think it is wise to pursue the idea," he said. "The goal is to make sure the university is accessible to all kinds of students of all kinds of backgrounds."
****The university study of the proposal states that a surcharge might be more acceptable to the public than across-the-board cuts because it would affect fewer people, but it also acknowledges that it would be contentious.
****"The university needs to develop justifications for the proposed income-threshold level. Any income cutoff is arbitrary," the study states.
****The study also considers setting the cutoff at $150,000. It stated that students who qualify for financial aid would be exempt from the fee, regardless of their parents' income.
****Regent Velma Montoya called the surcharge proposal "offensive" and said the parents in the wealthy bracket whom she has spoken with feel "put upon."
****"They already pay more into the system in terms of taxes," she said. "And most people don't consider a $90,000 income to be rich in California."
****Mrs. Montoya said the university should look to make cuts at the administrative level.
****Mr. Ackerman proposed cuts to outreach and diversity efforts, saying, "There are more students trying to get in than can as it is."
****The state will continue to subsidize the bulk of the $16,900 it costs the university to educate each student per year. The university hadn't raised fees in seven years.




****Costs (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030720-115936-6451r.htm)

gbear
July-21st-2003, 07:42 AM
Just curious, how is this different from financial aid?

Would it be any different if they phrased it like this:
"WE have had to raise tuition by $3,000 this year. However, we hope to be able to give financial aid to those families making less than $90,000 which will ofset these increased costs."

Is there a difference? in practice or just in rhetoric?

aREDSKIN
July-21st-2003, 08:47 AM
Well the tuition rate being charge is based solely upon your income level and not you inability to pay. The surcharge contemplated is based on you income level and nothing else. No difference in education provided, no consideration to family situation, just an arbitrary $90,000 cut off. If the CA voters consider this fair than so be it, but they way you propose it makes it more tolerable. However, financial aid can be many things. Grants, loans etc. Some you have to pay back and some you don't.

fansince62
July-21st-2003, 12:41 PM
not everyone receives tuition assistance. this "soak the rich" initiative would impact everyone above the targeted income. it's also a variant of discrimination by reason of group membership.......why not just tax the super rich in Hollywood to fund tuition assistance?...

The Evil Genius
July-21st-2003, 12:51 PM
Three things...

1) We are using the Moonie Times as a source again?

2.) "It stated that students who qualify for financial aid would be exempt from the fee, regardless of their parents' income."

3.) There are other options than the UC system in California (and outside California). No one is holding a gun to anyones head and saying you must be a UC system student. That said...this appears to be discrimination against a population, and shouldn't be accepted. But then, no one would mind here if it was, say, making blacks pay more to say, Bob Jones University (since its a private school). The problem is, the UC system isn't private...so it does have to maintain a good and fair business philosophy.

The Wicked Wop
July-21st-2003, 12:53 PM
Just sounds like lawmakers are trying to make the rich (or so called rich.....90k and above) pay for their poor budget management.

The Evil Genius
July-21st-2003, 12:56 PM
Does anyone here truly understand why California is amongst 20+ other states with a budget deficit?

1.) Increased spending that outpaced revenues.

2.) Screwed by dishonest energy companies that even the Feds have said manipulated prices and caused artificial shortages...and yet the Feds say the contracts must be kept.

3.) Revenues fell with the Tech implosion.

Thats just some of the things that have happened...

Kilmer17
July-21st-2003, 12:57 PM
Yes, let's wait for the NY Times to pick it up. Much more reliable.

As for the issue, I see it as nothing more than a tuition increase. Not an issue IMO. If someone qualifies for aide, good for them.

The Evil Genius
July-21st-2003, 01:00 PM
Kilmer,

Are you saying that the NY Time is equal to the Moonie Times? Or that the Moonie Times is a better source than the NY Times?

Are you sure you want to put your faith in the Moonie Times?

Cskin
July-21st-2003, 01:01 PM
Just another reason to hate the liberals, regardless of what state they are currently trying to ruin.

The Wicked Wop
July-21st-2003, 01:03 PM
I just find it hard to justify someone and additional 3k for tuition because their family makes over 90k a year. Anyway you look at it, it's discrimmination based on income levels, with the student apparently getting nothing else in return except the same education.

Kilmer17
July-21st-2003, 01:17 PM
Look at the opposite way. It means they are raising tuition ac ross the board, and then giving assistance to lower income families. No different than the current method there and everywhere else.

TEG, Im not quick to deny any article out of the NY Times. However, anytime the WashTimes or some other right leaning newssource is cited, many on the left INSTANTLY discredit it. Is one more accurate than the other? I dont know, but I do know that one of the two had to can a few editors over fake newsstories.

The Wicked Wop
July-21st-2003, 01:25 PM
The question Kilmer is why do they need the money, 1) Mismangement, 2) Decrease in scholarships and grants. Now basically what your asking is the wealthier kids who probably don't get any kind of financial aid, pay more to provide financial aid to others, yet receive only the same education. Worst yet these higher income families don't even get any kind of tax benefit out of it because they already are maxed out or don't qualify for the federal education credits. Now i could maybe justify it more if it were a smaller amount and available as a charitable donation for tax perposes so atleast those paying it could recoup some of it on their federal returns......but that might involve a little to much thinking for lawmakers.

Kilmer17
July-21st-2003, 01:29 PM
Of course. But that's the way it is currently as well. This is nothing new.

Even in good economic times, price of college tuition has consistently risen.

Riggo-toni
July-21st-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by The Evil Genius
Does anyone here truly understand why California is amongst 20+ other states with a budget deficit?

1.) Increased spending that outpaced revenues.

2.) Screwed by dishonest energy companies that even the Feds have said manipulated prices and caused artificial shortages...and yet the Feds say the contracts must be kept.

3.) Revenues fell with the Tech implosion.

Thats just some of the things that have happened...

All so true. In addition, I believe almost 90% of CA's budget has been predetermined through previous voter referendums (i.e. n% of revenues collected must go to highway construction, x% must go to secondary education) The governer and legislature are virtually powerless to try and fix the budget crisis without resorting to stuff like this.

The Evil Genius
July-21st-2003, 02:26 PM
The thing is...as bad as people perceive the Ca. Budget problem, the GOP and the DEMS are arguing over only roughly 5% of it.

The DEMS are stating that the now repealed "reduction in car tax" should go to cover the missing $1.8 billion in funding. Some of the GOP is still fighting the repealed reduction and hopes to make the difference up by eliminating some state jobs and an entire comission (the Coastal commission) and by reducing benefits to seniors.

The end of the budget mess is soon...but a whole new one will start back up next Feb/March/April. :doh:

fansince62
July-21st-2003, 03:33 PM
TEG...your slur is aimed at the wrong target! the ones you are targeting should be your fellow brethren. conservatives support vouchers (were they available at the collegiate level) to support enrollment at private institutions.

redman
July-21st-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by The Evil Genius
3.) There are other options than the UC system in California (and outside California). No one is holding a gun to anyones head and saying you must be a UC system student. That said...this appears to be discrimination against a population, and shouldn't be accepted. But then, no one would mind here if it was, say, making blacks pay more to say, Bob Jones University (since its a private school). The problem is, the UC system isn't private...so it does have to maintain a good and fair business philosophy. The problem is that the UC system is funded off of my tax dollars, which are already higher as a member of the so-called "rich", yet they'd screw me with this rule by making me pay more anyway.

Just like my old economics prof said, what "fair" really means is "more for me."

The Evil Genius
July-21st-2003, 04:23 PM
Redman,

Any idea of how much tax dollars you pay each year go to the UC system?

I guess what I am getting at is if it was less than $5 would you still be mad at the misuse? Or does a certain quantifiable threshold have to be met?

jbooma
July-21st-2003, 04:58 PM
This is just wrong. You should not base tuition on someones income level. That in way is a form of discriminating even if they are richer. It is hard to see that the people who make more should pay more. If they want the rich to pay more then just raise taxes, this will not survive someone will sue as soon as it becomes law and then it will be thrown out.

The problem with financial aid or something here that california is trying to pass is even though someone's parents are making a lot of money does not mean that they are paying for their children's education.

I am a prime example. I had to wait till the age of 22 to get financial aid since my parents made some money. The problem was my parents split when I was 18 and I was on my own. But the education system won't consider you on your own to after the age of 21 or so they were basing my financial status on my parents who were long gone. I couldn't get financial aid for a while because of my parents income, even if I was no longer under their household.

Kilmer17
July-21st-2003, 05:09 PM
Sorry j, but that's the way the system is set up. It's WAYYYYY too late to put that Genie back in the bottle.

W&M
July-21st-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by The Evil Genius

3.) There are other options than the UC system in California (and outside California). No one is holding a gun to anyones head and saying you must be a UC system student. That said...this appears to be discrimination against a population, and shouldn't be accepted. But then, no one would mind here if it was, say, making blacks pay more to say, Bob Jones University (since its a private school). The problem is, the UC system isn't private...so it does have to maintain a good and fair business philosophy.

From an antitrust perspective, this would never fly. Because of economic and professional realities, not all education will be treated the same, they will break out into different markets for sure.

A Berkley/UCLA/Davis education will not be seen as a homogenous product as a degree from the Cal State or community college system.

Likewise, State versus Private college education will be determined as separate markets.

The result is that should the state impose a price discrim program, without specially pre-empting the federal antitrust laws and establishing a mechanism to evalauate the competitive impact of this pricing program, this will get shot down under the federal antitrust laws ... and I"m sure equal protection may come into play as well.

fansince62
July-21st-2003, 09:20 PM
W&M = William & Mary?

W&M
July-21st-2003, 11:26 PM
Yup, W&M is William & Mary ... My Alma Mater! ('94 & '99). I really like that little school, too bad very few people have heard of it out West.

I really like it down there, and surprisingly, enjoyed it more then the school where I started out, which was Boston College. BC was fun, but too cold to play Baseball in the spring, so I moved south, and love it. In the end, I went out more at W&M and made closer friends ... of course, I never say an "A" again :-)

Are you an alum too?

fansince62
July-22nd-2003, 09:26 AM
nope...but I live in Chesapeake. Visit Williamsburgh and vicin a lot. Would have no problem whatsoever with my 4 yr old eventually attending W&M one day!!!!

ctc me if you are ever in the area and we'll tally up some beers!......