<p>As a CA resident, I think public u’s have an image/marketing problem. They portray themselves as “the peoples” colleges, which exist to elevate the lower classes. Fine, we know where their priorities lie. They also claim that they don’t get much in the way of taxpayer dollars, so the high-taxpayers have no right to complain about them prioritizing low-income students out of altruistic concerns, OOS residents because they need their money and illegal immigrants because…???. Ok. So then taxpayers in fact do not support them because they feel their tax dollars are not really needed (or wasted on OOS and illegal immigrants) and that their kids are not valued in the system. Then u’s complain that the taxpayers don’t support them and should support them on principled economic reasons (even though their own alums don’t support them much). Ok. So the high-taxpayers are now expected to vote to pay more money for the state u’s because the u’s don’t get much alum support and don’t admit enough full-pay in-staters, while having to pay OOS or private tuition rates for their own kids, which in turn goes to pay for the tuition for the students on FA at those colleges.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The poster appears to be an MIT student. A little time in the real world, especially with some valuable stock options could change this person’s opinion of redistribution.</p>
<p>That and learning how much it costs to live in the real world.</p>
<p>BAY: as a fellow CA resident…yup…your comment sums up the ‘logic’ of our populace.</p>
<p>
No it means I want my parents to be paying a lot more taxes than they are and that I think the current tax levels are too low.</p>
<p>40% should be minimum – and it should go to education. There should be no need to hide redistribution in earmarked tuition. </p>
<p>I would say this regardless of my (or my parents’) position: poor, independently wealthy, and all in between. </p>
<p>Though I would support the educational taxes coming from States. Feds can invest in the research/post-grads. States should have a special tax for all houses that cost more than 500k (well, this depends on the state, of course… 500k in Iowa, 1.5mn in CA, something reasonable) and should further put an additional progressive tax rate on the general public because they are the ones benefitting from it.</p>
<p>And as far as CA is concerned, I don’t think taxpayers should complain about the whole OOS thing. OOS not only pay more but there’s a good chance they’ll settle in CA if they come from OOS. There’s also a good chance they will be above-average in terms of income if they go to to the UCs therefore contributing to economic growth.</p>
<p>@Atlas,
And what are your parents’ opinion of “paying a lot more taxes than they are”. </p>
<p>It is so easy to advocate raising taxes when it’s OPM.</p>
<p>Uhmm, they agree with me, wholeheartedly. In fact, if it was up to my mom even 40% would be too low!</p>
<p>I think that’s beside the point (I’m sure we’ve all heard too much debate as of late regarding the merits of higher taxes). What I’m saying is you shouldn’t redistribute just among those that are paying tuition, just make it explicit via a tax.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s make it 90%. That way I can stay home and get government benefits while your folks go out and work.</p>
<p>Jeder nach seinen F</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What do they think about this?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Median household income is around $55K. Let’s say $4K in Federal Income Taxes, $4K in payroll taxes, $2.5K in MA income taxes. Now add in your 40% for education taxes for $22,000. So that’s $32.5K in taxes (we’re not including sales and other taxes for simplicity). So they have $22.5K after taxes.</p>
<p>Let’s say that they spend $400/month of $5,000 for food per year. Add in health insurance for $4,000/year. Then rent for $12,000/year (which doesn’t get you much in MA). So they have about $3,000 left. We haven’t included transportation, clothes, shoes, school fees, etc.</p>
<p>Here’s an exercise for you. Quit school, find a job, donate 40% of your income to your university and then tell us how it goes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jeder nach seinen F</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that 40% Federal? State? Local? Combined?</p>
<p>Because for many wage earners, they’re already paying above 40%, when you combine Federal, State, Local, Personal Property, Sales, Property, and payroll (SSI/Medicare) taxes.</p>
<p>One other problem with this approach: only half go to college and about 30% receive a degree. Should we have high taxes where only half or less benefits?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole reason for having public universities at all is that everyone (including those who do not go to college) benefits as well when more people (30% BA/BS rather than 10% BA/BS as it was before the GI Bill and the 1950s-1970s growth in public universities) in the state are educated, generating more economic activity (i.e. the educated can do more productive jobs, resulting in their spending more, which creates more jobs for everyone else).</p>
<p>Of course, if you do not agree with that argument, or do not believe it to be worth the taxation involved, then you should favor privatizing or closing the public universities to eliminate the taxation burden involved.</p>
<p>If you do agree with that argument, but do not like the idea of taxation to directly fund the public universities, you could be in favor of privatizing them, but using taxation to fund financial aid programs so that the poorer people can have a chance to get educated. But that may not be all that different in practice from the current situation (one can think of the public universities as giving an “in-state scholarship” plus additional financial aid for the poorer in-state students).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Is there some natural limit to the percentage that can achieve a university degree and have we hit it? Without dumbing down a degree of course.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It appears that this is what we are moving to with fewer and fewer public dollars going to higher education. At least in my corner of the country.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My feeling is that money would be better spent on K12 than university at this point. In a way that provides results of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There likely is, although the practical limit now (which we are probably at in the US) is probably imposed by the (lack of) quality in K-12 education.</p>
<p>But that is not the point. The non-college-educated people do benefit from having more college educated people around, since the latter have more money to spend, creating more jobs and better pay for the non-college-educated people, so it is not the case that only those who go to college benefit from going to college. Of course, one may or may not agree that this benefit is worth the taxation to subsidize more people going to college (i.e. at the current level of 30% BA/BS attainment rather than the lower level, perhaps as low as 10%, that would otherwise exist).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It appears to be generally true, although more in a reactive sense (reduced tax revenues forcing cuts, often disproportionately to post-secondary education due to other parts of the budget being higher priority) than due to an intention to privatize the public universities.</p>
<p>
Yeah, I think we’re certainly in that bracket here in New York State</p>
<p>
I’m sure if your parents were to send a check to whichever tax collector they favor most, it wouldn’t be turned away. Better yet, give it to your state university system directly. They never say no to $$.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is ucb espousing trickle-down economics? Its a brand new day. ;)</p>
<p>A 40% education tax on top of all other taxes will pretty much kill that theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Strongly agree. </p>
<p>Many big city-school districts have a ~50% high school drop out rate. IMO, society (and the taxpayers) would get much bigger bang for its educational buck if we could keep these kids in school to at least earn a HS diploma.</p>
<p>Money does trickle both down and up.</p>
<p>However, the promoters of “trickle down economics” typically want to enrich and entrench the existing upper classes, not increase the opportunities for more people to join the upper classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College graduates earn more than high school graduates, but I have seen studies finding that a substantial fraction is due to personal qualities in college graduates (higher average intelligence and discipline) that colleges did not create. There may be a large payoff for an individual to graduate from college, but the benefit to society may be smaller if college graduates earn more largely because of signalling.</p>
<p>An NYT story says that an [Academic</a> Dream Team Helped Obamas Effort](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/health/dream-team-of-behavioral-scientists-advised-obama-campaign.html]Academic”>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/health/dream-team-of-behavioral-scientists-advised-obama-campaign.html) . In California the public universities successfully lobbied to raise the top marginal state income tax rate to 13.3%. I could cite many other examples of academia’s leftward tilt. The 48% of the country that votes Republican may not favor the political contribution to the Democrats that funding for higher education effectively entails.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that this is a pretty gross oversimplification.</p>
<p>I personally know many people that own small businesses that don’t
have college degrees. I know an executive at a large multinational
that doesn’t have a college degree (he doesn’t have any college). I
work with a few engineers that don’t have college degrees. Should
these people be given a large subsidy too? How do you know which
college students will graduate? The current statistic is that half
of recent college graduates aren’t employed or work in a job that
doesn’t require a college degree. Does society benefit here too?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that you’re more likely to get more tax support or alumni or
other support if you’re perceived as doing a good job with the funds
that you have been given and if your graduates do a good job in
finding employment.</p>
<p>And leadership can help too:</p>
<p>“No one seemed to think that Meehan would stick around very long when
he was appointed to head this hard-luck campus, where enrollment was
stagnant and the newest academic building was more than three decades
old. Yet this summer marked his fifth anniversary on the job, and the
surprisingly speedy culmination of major building projects, record
fund-raising, faculty hiring, and a surge in the number and
credentials of students — all against the backdrop of an economic
downturn, cuts in state funding, and the reality that, even in the
Internet age, change at many other universities slogs along at
medieval speed.”</p>
<p>[Inside</a> Marty Meehan’s campaign to remake UMass Lowell - - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/2012/08/17/meehan/SySjpBLTYJKK2TIzadt0qL/story.html]Inside”>http://www.boston.com/2012/08/17/meehan/SySjpBLTYJKK2TIzadt0qL/story.html)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d guess that ZooserHusband has better compensation than the typical
college graduate.</p>