<p>His argument is that in order to get California residency you have to be contributing to the California economy for several years. I’m just pointing out that people with low incomes contribute significantly less to the economy, but are granted the same educational opportunities as someone who contributes considerably. </p>
<p>I am not at all saying that this is a bad thing or problematic, I’m just saying that the logic of having to contribute to the California economy as being a primary factor, doesn’t really hold up because every Californian doesn’t contribute the same.</p>
<p>@lindyk8
Try deleting the gaps, if not, just go on the ucla reddit and just type in “in state tuition” in the search. Even though it seems like if you follow the guidelines by the book, you’ll get your tuition, but we all know things don’t always work by the book. </p>
<p>I couldn’t get in, but I saw some others. Yeah, I can see ppl are saying it… They said the UCs said the biggest hurdle is the two year financial independence. </p>
<p>I think that is it. They say you cannot get any money from ANYONE so they probably treat you like the IRS going through Al Capone’s tax filings. </p>
<p>@2016Candles Ok, it now seems like you are just making up stuff to justify your position. The statement “Costly to the California economy” in the context in which you are using it does not make any sense. Read an economics book to find out. Besides it is irrelevant to this debate. </p>
<p>I think you are confusing the economy, with state spending. They are two completely different things. Why exactly is it bad if people leave the state? Yeah, they are spending money elsewhere, but California also doesn’t have to spend money on them. We are no better off or worst. It is like me giving you a child, and money to take care of it, but of day I take it away along with the money. Is it costly to you? No! Because you don’t have the child anymore. </p>
<p>My argument has to do with the the tax the state government collects and how they spend it. When out of state student does pay out of state tuition, it is costly to the state because they have not been paying taxes to California. We, as California tax payers, would then be left with an unfair tax bill.</p>
<p>@2016Candles Yes poor people pay less in taxes to the state, but you have to remember that the sales tax here in California is anywhere form 7% to 10 percent, depending of which county you live in. That adds up to a lot of money, especially when you have been living here for 30 plus years like my family has.</p>
<p>I never said it was bad that people leave. Nor did I say it affected state schools. I just made the comparison that people coming into the state for cheaper school is likely less costly than losing degreed workers and their money. And I’m clear on the principles of economics, thanks. </p>
<p>You’re very firm in your belief on this matter, and you’re not really hearing anything I’m saying. </p>
<p>@2016Candles I have an open mind, and I have carefully read everything you have written. It is just that your arguement is not making much sense. However, from reading your post, it does not seem like you are returning the favor. Anyway, I will try to be really clear. I just want people to pay their fair share. That is my bottom line. I don’t want the STATE, not economy, to be screwed over by OOS students. We can control who we let pay instate tuition, but we can’t control who leaves the state. </p>
They are two completely different things. Why exactly is it bad if people leave the state? Yeah, they are spending money elsewhere, but California also doesn’t have to spend money on them. We are no better off or worst. It is like me giving you a child, and money to take care of it, but of day I take it away along with the money. Is it costly to you? No! Because you don’t have the child anymore. </p>