5 ms·

An extremely poor article. The only examples of this reported problem cited are a university that simply increased its size to accommodate more out-of-state st

by hga 11y ago

An extremely poor article. The only examples of this reported problem cited are a university that simply increased its size to accommodate more out-of-state students, and UCB, the very best state university in the nation, one that's the equal of many of the best private ones in many fields. If that's the best the NYT can do, perhaps we don't have so much of a problem after all....

mc32 11y ago
What amazes me is that out of state students would have to pay out of state while someone in the state without a visa could get in state tuition. I'm not against in state tuition for visa offenders, but at the same time there seems to be an unfairness with regard to out of state students who would have to pay the "full price".
- jacobolus 11y ago
  It’s not a kid’s fault that they live somewhere without a visa. People who move to California as young children – who grow up going to California schools, have parents working in California and paying taxes like every other resident, have all their friends in California and are just as likely to stick around and make their life/career in California as any other resident – should absolutely get to count for in-state tuition rates. Anything less would be cruelly punishing a group who did nothing wrong and get all kinds of other shit for it from society.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Well its not fair someone was born in New Mexico and wants to study at UC Irvine either.
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      The New Mexico resident can surely get in-state tuition rates at NM State in Las Cruces, also a great school. Why should California have a special obligation to students from New Mexico? Note that New Mexico already gets 37% of its state budget from the federal government, and has among the highest per capita number of federal employees (both civilian and military). Californian tax payers are already heavily subsidizing New Mexico as it is.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Visa less can surely get free education in their place of origin too, but that's not a solution. The NM student wants a quality education at a school offering the degree they want.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Visa less can surely get free education in their place of origin too, but that's not a solution. The NM student wants a quality education at a school offering the degree they want. Then, like the visa-less (and with less risk!) they can establish residency in California first. Or pay the price that the seller (California) is willing to offer for people who don't choose to "buy membership" that way.
      - batbomb 11y ago
        > Note that New Mexico already gets 37% of its state budget from the federal government, California gets a lot of Federal aid too at 27%. New Mexico apparently takes 36% (nice rounding). > and has among the highest per capita number of federal employees (both civilian and military). So New Mexico, per capita, has the highest percentage of people working in governmentally mandated jobs, or public service workers, if you will. California should definitely pick up the slack. > Californian tax payers are already heavily subsidizing New Mexico as it is. By that logic, California should definitely allow in-state tuition to everyone in Kansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Virginia, and especially Alaska ...Because they are all subsidizing California as it is.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > By that logic, California should definitely allow in-state tuition to everyone in Kansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Virginia, and especially Alaska > ...Because they are all subsidizing California as it is. Actually, as a net contributor of federal taxes, California is subsidizing all of those states (except fellow contributors Illinois and New Jersey), as well as New Mexico. [0] But no one is "subsidizing" California via federal taxes, since California is a net contributor of federal taxes. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system?
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      They absolutely do pay taxes: especially payroll taxes, but also income taxes are withheld from their salaries just like everyone else (often under fake SSN). Or if they’re being paid in cash under the table, as sometimes happens for both undocumented immigrants and for immigrants with visas or permanent residents, that’s 100% the responsibility of the employer. Indeed, undocumented workers often end up paying more tax than they would if they had authentic papers, because they’re less likely to file for tax rebates at the end of the year. They also pay sales tax, if they’re paying rent are ultimately contributing to property taxes paid by the landlord, etc. etc. If you want to see some data about this w/r/t state and local taxes, here’s a recent summary: http://www.itep.org/immigration/ http://www.itep.org/immigration/
      - stephengillie 11y ago
        I didn't mean undocumented immigrants, but you make a great point that they're overpaying taxes, but are receiving only minimal services. And people look down on them as though they're a burden. Documented workers who earn below a certain level have the entirety of their income tax deductions returned to them by the IRS. This happened during my first few years of working. Workers who earn an exceptionally low amount, and have additional dependents or are paying college tuition, can earn additional tax credits, such as EIC or Hope. In this way, many working households benefit from welfare and have someone working and/or going to school.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system? The famous Romney 47% was based on an analysis of net federal income taxes, which is completely irrelevant to whether they've paid into California's general fund taxes (which include, primarily, California's state income tax and California's sales and use taxes.) And even less relevant to whether they've generally established roots in the State such that it is in the State's interest to serve them as part of its constituency.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What amazes me is that out of state students would have to pay out of state while someone in the state without a visa could get in state tuition. Why? The basis of in-state tuition for residents is that, through the required residency period, you have subjected yourself to the tax and other obligations that come from living in the state and have contributed to the community independent of nationality or citizenship, and that the tuition break is part of the service that the State provides in exchange for that to residents. I'm not sure how permission from the federal government to be in the country is even relevant to that. > I'm not against in state tuition for visa offenders, but at the same time there seems to be an unfairness with regard to out of state students who would have to pay the "full price". Currently-out-of-state students could choose to move to the state first and establish residency. I'm not sure where the supposed unfairness is.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Rich kids can afford the full price. Poor students can't afford to move to get residency to qualify for in state tuition. Also at 17 18yoa you have not paid into the tax system, so that's irrelevant. It's not like we're about to qualify how much parents have or have not contributed into the system.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Rich kids can afford the full price. Poor students can't afford to move to get residency to qualify for in state tuition. Yes, wealth makes you able to afford things you could not afford without that wealth. That's true by definition. I'm not sure how that makes it unfair that the State of California subsidizes tuition for residents (but not nonresidents) regardless, in either case, of visa status. The State of California generally serves, in order of priority, citizens of the State of California, non-citizen residents of the State of California, and then, maybe, sometimes, non-citizen non-residents of the State of California. I'm not seeing any unfairness in the State subsidizing UC education for the first two groups but not the third. > Also at 17 18yoa you have not paid into the tax system Yes, you probably have. You may not have paid income tax, but income tax isn't the only significant State of California general fund tax. You've probably paid a lot of sales tax. (If you are financially independent at that age as a resident, you've probably paid state income tax, too; if you aren't, then you probably aren't paying the tuition yourself in any case, and the people who probably are probably the people that are paying your other expenses, who, if you are a resident, have probably paid plenty in both income and sales tax in the state.)
- huherto 11y ago
  This probably varies per state. But I know that often people that do not have access to instate tuition because they lack the visa requirement. Yet they grew and have lived most of their lives within the state.

by hga 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

What amazes me is that out of state students would have to pay out of state while someone in the state without a visa could get in state tuition. I'm not against in state tuition for visa offenders, but at the same time there seems to be an unfairness with regard to out of state students who would have to pay the "full price".

jacobolus 11y ago
It’s not a kid’s fault that they live somewhere without a visa. People who move to California as young children – who grow up going to California schools, have parents working in California and paying taxes like every other resident, have all their friends in California and are just as likely to stick around and make their life/career in California as any other resident – should absolutely get to count for in-state tuition rates. Anything less would be cruelly punishing a group who did nothing wrong and get all kinds of other shit for it from society.
- mc32 11y ago
  Well its not fair someone was born in New Mexico and wants to study at UC Irvine either.
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    The New Mexico resident can surely get in-state tuition rates at NM State in Las Cruces, also a great school. Why should California have a special obligation to students from New Mexico? Note that New Mexico already gets 37% of its state budget from the federal government, and has among the highest per capita number of federal employees (both civilian and military). Californian tax payers are already heavily subsidizing New Mexico as it is.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Visa less can surely get free education in their place of origin too, but that's not a solution. The NM student wants a quality education at a school offering the degree they want.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Visa less can surely get free education in their place of origin too, but that's not a solution. The NM student wants a quality education at a school offering the degree they want. Then, like the visa-less (and with less risk!) they can establish residency in California first. Or pay the price that the seller (California) is willing to offer for people who don't choose to "buy membership" that way.
    - batbomb 11y ago
      > Note that New Mexico already gets 37% of its state budget from the federal government, California gets a lot of Federal aid too at 27%. New Mexico apparently takes 36% (nice rounding). > and has among the highest per capita number of federal employees (both civilian and military). So New Mexico, per capita, has the highest percentage of people working in governmentally mandated jobs, or public service workers, if you will. California should definitely pick up the slack. > Californian tax payers are already heavily subsidizing New Mexico as it is. By that logic, California should definitely allow in-state tuition to everyone in Kansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Virginia, and especially Alaska ...Because they are all subsidizing California as it is.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > By that logic, California should definitely allow in-state tuition to everyone in Kansas, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, North Dakota, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Virginia, and especially Alaska > ...Because they are all subsidizing California as it is. Actually, as a net contributor of federal taxes, California is subsidizing all of those states (except fellow contributors Illinois and New Jersey), as well as New Mexico. [0] But no one is "subsidizing" California via federal taxes, since California is a net contributor of federal taxes. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...
- stephengillie 11y ago
  What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system?
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    They absolutely do pay taxes: especially payroll taxes, but also income taxes are withheld from their salaries just like everyone else (often under fake SSN). Or if they’re being paid in cash under the table, as sometimes happens for both undocumented immigrants and for immigrants with visas or permanent residents, that’s 100% the responsibility of the employer. Indeed, undocumented workers often end up paying more tax than they would if they had authentic papers, because they’re less likely to file for tax rebates at the end of the year. They also pay sales tax, if they’re paying rent are ultimately contributing to property taxes paid by the landlord, etc. etc. If you want to see some data about this w/r/t state and local taxes, here’s a recent summary: http://www.itep.org/immigration/ http://www.itep.org/immigration/
    - stephengillie 11y ago
      I didn't mean undocumented immigrants, but you make a great point that they're overpaying taxes, but are receiving only minimal services. And people look down on them as though they're a burden. Documented workers who earn below a certain level have the entirety of their income tax deductions returned to them by the IRS. This happened during my first few years of working. Workers who earn an exceptionally low amount, and have additional dependents or are paying college tuition, can earn additional tax credits, such as EIC or Hope. In this way, many working households benefit from welfare and have someone working and/or going to school.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system? The famous Romney 47% was based on an analysis of net federal income taxes, which is completely irrelevant to whether they've paid into California's general fund taxes (which include, primarily, California's state income tax and California's sales and use taxes.) And even less relevant to whether they've generally established roots in the State such that it is in the State's interest to serve them as part of its constituency.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> What amazes me is that out of state students would have to pay out of state while someone in the state without a visa could get in state tuition. Why? The basis of in-state tuition for residents is that, through the required residency period, you have subjected yourself to the tax and other obligations that come from living in the state and have contributed to the community independent of nationality or citizenship, and that the tuition break is part of the service that the State provides in exchange for that to residents. I'm not sure how permission from the federal government to be in the country is even relevant to that. > I'm not against in state tuition for visa offenders, but at the same time there seems to be an unfairness with regard to out of state students who would have to pay the "full price". Currently-out-of-state students could choose to move to the state first and establish residency. I'm not sure where the supposed unfairness is.
- mc32 11y ago
  Rich kids can afford the full price. Poor students can't afford to move to get residency to qualify for in state tuition. Also at 17 18yoa you have not paid into the tax system, so that's irrelevant. It's not like we're about to qualify how much parents have or have not contributed into the system.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Rich kids can afford the full price. Poor students can't afford to move to get residency to qualify for in state tuition. Yes, wealth makes you able to afford things you could not afford without that wealth. That's true by definition. I'm not sure how that makes it unfair that the State of California subsidizes tuition for residents (but not nonresidents) regardless, in either case, of visa status. The State of California generally serves, in order of priority, citizens of the State of California, non-citizen residents of the State of California, and then, maybe, sometimes, non-citizen non-residents of the State of California. I'm not seeing any unfairness in the State subsidizing UC education for the first two groups but not the third. > Also at 17 18yoa you have not paid into the tax system Yes, you probably have. You may not have paid income tax, but income tax isn't the only significant State of California general fund tax. You've probably paid a lot of sales tax. (If you are financially independent at that age as a resident, you've probably paid state income tax, too; if you aren't, then you probably aren't paying the tuition yourself in any case, and the people who probably are probably the people that are paying your other expenses, who, if you are a resident, have probably paid plenty in both income and sales tax in the state.)
huherto 11y ago
This probably varies per state. But I know that often people that do not have access to instate tuition because they lack the visa requirement. Yet they grew and have lived most of their lives within the state.