15 ms·

Public university used to be cheap. In the 1960's, tuition & fees at a UC school was less than $2000 (2015 dollars) per year. In the 1950's, it was less than $

Public university used to be cheap. In the 1960's, tuition & fees at a UC school was less than $2000 (2015 dollars) per year. In the 1950's, it was less than $750 per year.[1][2] Today, tuition & fees at a UC will cost you $15,000 per year. In order to completely pay for tuition and fees, the state of California would have to increase revenue $3 billion per year. Or increase tax revenues by just 3%.[1][3] I, as a citizen, feel like our government's priorities have been absolutely abysmal since the 1980's. To me, this level of insanity transcends political ideology. It's just plain dumb not to fix this. > Now sure, I pay a LOT of taxes. But I know at least some of it goes into education and allow other student like I was to afford a good education. Having stayed in US for a while, while salaries seemed higher I don't think the cost of life is cheaper than in western Europe. Cost of living is lower in the US (as a whole) than Western European countries, and median household income adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) is quite a bit higher in the US.[4][5] That doesn't make any of this sensible, though. Sure, I'd take lower taxes if Californian kids had to pay just a couple thousand more to college than French kids. But $14k more? Insanity. Raise my taxes please. 1. http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/ http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-... 2. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=84&year1=1956&year2=2015 http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=84&year1=1956&y... 3. http://www.sco.ca.gov/state_finances_101_state_taxes.html http://www.sco.ca.gov/state_finances_101_state_taxes.html 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#OECD_comparative_price_levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#OECD_co...

purplelobster 12y ago
The thing is, PPP is only for things you have to actually buy. Where I live, salaries and PPP is lower than in the US where I lived before. But it's not that simple. Does PPP take into account that I got my 5 year education for free? Actually I received roughly $400/month to go to university. Which also means I don't need a college fund for my kids. Does it reflect that health care is free and I don't have to even think about it anymore? Does it reflect that I now have an actual pension, with 25% on top of my regular pay is paid into my future pension? Does it reflect that I now have 6 weeks vacation instead of 3? Does it reflect that if I have a child, I (as a father) can stay home with the baby for a year if I'd like? Does it reflect that daycare is heavily subsidised to the point I don't have to care about that either? Does it reflect that I don't have "at will" employment anymore, and can't just be let go in a day? Etc etc etc. My point is, it's very difficult to compare the economic realities in different countries. There are whole categories of expenses that just do not exist in many western European countries. That said, I'm sure if you add everything up, Silicon Valley is the place to be for single, healthy, smart engineers. But that's a pretty narrow set of the population.
- doyoulikeworms 12y ago
  I completely agree. Any time you try to turn complex social systems into a simple number, things are necessarily lost in translation. The numbers represent simply what they represent, and nothing more.
- ownagefool 12y ago
  You'll actually find it's pretty complicated to measure earnings in Europe. In London you could happily be earning $200,000 - $300,000 with IT skills, avoid tax, keep 90% of that, and have the state benefits. Simply stated, because of the high levels of tax and rife avoidance, it's probably quite difficult to quantify earnings in London, for example.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > In London you could happily be earning $200,000 - $300,000 with IT skills, avoid tax, keep 90% of that, and have the state benefits. How? Which particular state benefits are you talking about? (And it seems like you're talking about evasion - which is illegal, rather than avoidance which is a mix of normal tax planning (a contractor registering for VAT and claiming some of that back) and loophole-manipulation).
    - ownagefool 12y ago
      Contract for GOV.UK or finance, high end will see you those rates with 2 weeks holiday + the 8 bank holidays. Look for the word devops for example. Health care is the obvious one. University has kinda jumped the shark though. Trust schemes or defer forever, depending on your attitude to risk. I'm not saying said schemes should be used, just that it's popular and skews what people really earn.
      - eru 12y ago
        How do you avoid the taxes, though? And why would you put up with only 2 weeks holiday anywhere in Europe? I'm not sure that's even legal.
ahomescu1 12y ago
> Sure, I'd take lower taxes if Californian kids had to pay just a couple thousand more to college than French kids. But $14k more? Insanity. Raise my taxes please. Do the numbers really come out in favor of raising taxes? Another commenter gave the 3% required rate for the tax increase. Would a student actually be better off paying 3% extra taxes for the rest of his/her life, as opposed to paying 15k/year for only 4 years (I'm asking from a numbers perspective)?
- doyoulikeworms 12y ago
  The answer to this question depends on how these taxes are raised. Currently, this tax is raised in the form of fees, due quarterly (or per semester) for the four (or more, or less) years of UC education consumed. Paid for by students and/or their families. Payment plans, subsidies, and loans may be available to pay this tax... (I know I'm being a bit colorful, but I hope you catch my drift)
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    Those don't sound like "taxes" in the sense that they're paid by the entire population, they're just direct payments to the school and only paid by students and parents (those who directly benefit from the service of education). What I am trying to say is that, from an individual perspective, it makes more sense to pay the $15k. If you're making $50k/year in income, 3% of that for the rest of your life (assuming you work for about 50 years) comes to about $60k, which is what 4x$15k is anyway. However, if your income is above that, you pay significantly more. The US median income in 2014 was $51939 (got this number from a quick Google search, might not be 100% accurate), so half the population would indeed pay a total sum larger than $60k with a 3% tax.
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      > (assuming you work for about 50 years) I meant 40 years here (and HN won't let me edit the comment anymore).
tsotha 12y ago
>I, as a citizen, feel like our government's priorities have been absolutely abysmal since the 1980's. Which government? What does the federal government have to do with California's subsidy of the UC system?

purplelobster 12y ago

The thing is, PPP is only for things you have to actually buy. Where I live, salaries and PPP is lower than in the US where I lived before. But it's not that simple. Does PPP take into account that I got my 5 year education for free? Actually I received roughly $400/month to go to university. Which also means I don't need a college fund for my kids. Does it reflect that health care is free and I don't have to even think about it anymore? Does it reflect that I now have an actual pension, with 25% on top of my regular pay is paid into my future pension? Does it reflect that I now have 6 weeks vacation instead of 3? Does it reflect that if I have a child, I (as a father) can stay home with the baby for a year if I'd like? Does it reflect that daycare is heavily subsidised to the point I don't have to care about that either? Does it reflect that I don't have "at will" employment anymore, and can't just be let go in a day? Etc etc etc. My point is, it's very difficult to compare the economic realities in different countries. There are whole categories of expenses that just do not exist in many western European countries. That said, I'm sure if you add everything up, Silicon Valley is the place to be for single, healthy, smart engineers. But that's a pretty narrow set of the population.

doyoulikeworms 12y ago
I completely agree. Any time you try to turn complex social systems into a simple number, things are necessarily lost in translation. The numbers represent simply what they represent, and nothing more.
ownagefool 12y ago
You'll actually find it's pretty complicated to measure earnings in Europe. In London you could happily be earning $200,000 - $300,000 with IT skills, avoid tax, keep 90% of that, and have the state benefits. Simply stated, because of the high levels of tax and rife avoidance, it's probably quite difficult to quantify earnings in London, for example.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > In London you could happily be earning $200,000 - $300,000 with IT skills, avoid tax, keep 90% of that, and have the state benefits. How? Which particular state benefits are you talking about? (And it seems like you're talking about evasion - which is illegal, rather than avoidance which is a mix of normal tax planning (a contractor registering for VAT and claiming some of that back) and loophole-manipulation).
  - ownagefool 12y ago
    Contract for GOV.UK or finance, high end will see you those rates with 2 weeks holiday + the 8 bank holidays. Look for the word devops for example. Health care is the obvious one. University has kinda jumped the shark though. Trust schemes or defer forever, depending on your attitude to risk. I'm not saying said schemes should be used, just that it's popular and skews what people really earn.
    - eru 12y ago
      How do you avoid the taxes, though? And why would you put up with only 2 weeks holiday anywhere in Europe? I'm not sure that's even legal.

ahomescu1 12y ago

> Sure, I'd take lower taxes if Californian kids had to pay just a couple thousand more to college than French kids. But $14k more? Insanity. Raise my taxes please. Do the numbers really come out in favor of raising taxes? Another commenter gave the 3% required rate for the tax increase. Would a student actually be better off paying 3% extra taxes for the rest of his/her life, as opposed to paying 15k/year for only 4 years (I'm asking from a numbers perspective)?

doyoulikeworms 12y ago
The answer to this question depends on how these taxes are raised. Currently, this tax is raised in the form of fees, due quarterly (or per semester) for the four (or more, or less) years of UC education consumed. Paid for by students and/or their families. Payment plans, subsidies, and loans may be available to pay this tax... (I know I'm being a bit colorful, but I hope you catch my drift)
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  Those don't sound like "taxes" in the sense that they're paid by the entire population, they're just direct payments to the school and only paid by students and parents (those who directly benefit from the service of education). What I am trying to say is that, from an individual perspective, it makes more sense to pay the $15k. If you're making $50k/year in income, 3% of that for the rest of your life (assuming you work for about 50 years) comes to about $60k, which is what 4x$15k is anyway. However, if your income is above that, you pay significantly more. The US median income in 2014 was $51939 (got this number from a quick Google search, might not be 100% accurate), so half the population would indeed pay a total sum larger than $60k with a 3% tax.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    > (assuming you work for about 50 years) I meant 40 years here (and HN won't let me edit the comment anymore).

tsotha 12y ago

>I, as a citizen, feel like our government's priorities have been absolutely abysmal since the 1980's. Which government? What does the federal government have to do with California's subsidy of the UC system?