The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing • Hacker News Board

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#11

Post by stephengillie » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:07 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #4

mc32 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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 t…

What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system?

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#12

Post by jacobolus » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #11

jacobolus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system?

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/

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#13

Post by fredgrott » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

What the Article missed...

It lists one Land Grant college..ie Purdue..

Is everyone ware that Land Grant Colleges are quasi-federal chartered entities via the Morrill Act and that

they have still maintain an education mission defined in the act?

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#14

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #11

jacobolus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system?

> 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.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#15

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #9

jacobolus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subsidiz…

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.

> 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.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#16

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

fredgrott wrote: post #13

What the Article missed... It lists one Land Grant college..ie Purdue.. Is everyone ware that Land Grant Colleges are quasi-federal chartered entities via the Morrill Act and that they have still maintain an education mission defined in the act?

[deleted]

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#17

Post by stephengillie » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #12

stephengillie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if their parents were among the lower 47%, and so did not pay taxes into the system?

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 t…

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.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#18

Post by arenaninja » Wed, May 20, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #7

dragonwriter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

> Also at 17 18yoa you have not paid into the tax system, so that's irrelevant.

I don't think it's irrelevant actually. I don't know if it's the main reason for this policy, but I'd imagine you're far more likely to remain in the state if you have already lived here long enough for in state tuition. Because if you pick up your bags as soon as you're done with your education, you just drained the state some money.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#19

Post by cmurf » Wed, May 20, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

It's almost impossible for out of state students to "get residency" and pay in state tuition rates. This is due to most states setting the age of majority for tuition classification only, to 25. Age of majority for voting and dying in wars is 18. Age of majority for drinking alcohol is 21. But tuition? Nah, you don't get that until you're 25, even if you're a resident of that state. So in effect, you only get the in state tuition for the state either of your parents live in.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#20

Post by mhays » Wed, May 20, 2015, 10:11 PM UTC

To cite my own experience, I pay around $30,000 a year for my instate J.D. program. My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year.

I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. And I am one of the lucky ones benefiting from a lowered in-state tuition.

But I am not worried about me. I am worried about my friends who have accrued crippling debt in their quest to be a high school teacher, or some other valid, yet low paying, profession. I am afraid these people will never pay their debt off.