7171858
story
Comments: 344 +- News: Pittsburgh To Tax Students on Saturday November 21, @09:14AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiced.gif); width:87px; height:64px;
education
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
societyofrobots writes "Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has proposed taxing college and professional students for the privilege of receiving an education in the city. The proposed tax will charge students in the city at a rate of 1% of their yearly tuition — which, at Carnegie Mellon, would mean roughly a $400 tax (PDF) on most students. As the tax proposal hit local media outlets this week, the mayor repeatedly emphasized the burden that college students have placed on city services, and the need for students to pay their 'fair share.'"
Related Stories
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
dumb idea (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a way to dumb down the city.
Re:dumb idea (Score:5, Funny)
That's a way to dumb down the city.
Too late!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CNN just reported now the State of New York is considering the same stupid idea - tax tuition of students at 5%.
It's Pittsburgh (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news, the mayor left for the weekend, and the average IQ of the city increased.
You know how it is - every vilage has its' idiot, and Pittsburgh wants to be able to say "We're #1" about something.
New slogan: Pittsburgh - it really IS the pits!
Or maybe they heard that the economy is changing, with more part-time, menial, mindless jobs, and they want to make sure their future workforce isn't over-qualified.
Or they want to make sure the supply of dumb voters increases.
Or they heard about "higher" education, and "don't want none of that people getting high on shit on school grounds - if they got money for weed, tax 'em".
Or the real explanation - they're broke, and figure that they can't tax the people who live there, because that means getting tossed out at the next election - so why not tax students who don't live there, can't vote, and are locked into a 4-year program?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dumb idea (Score:5, Informative)
what services do they use a lot of? My local university has their own libraries, police department, and pays for the "free" municipal bus routes (all paid for by tuition and admin fees). A large chunk of my property taxes are paying for 1-12 education. how many college students also bring along their 6-18 yo kid?
My state has two programs that limit the property taxes for people who own their primary residence, so people who buy a house and rent it out to students (or others) pay higher property taxes.
Parent
Re:dumb idea (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I disagree that this is bad policy. University students are (on average) priveleged, pay little rent/property tax, and use a lot of services. Waive the tax for scholarship students (or make the University pay it.) For poor students borrowing hundreds of $K to attend Carnegie Mellon - your bad decisions cannot drive policy.
Most educational institutions are tax supported, and by far and away it can be proven beyond doubt that a university in a town can make or break the town economically. University research, social networks (including fraternities, clubs, and even with graduating classes themselves), spin-off businesses, and even access to world-class talent to help work with municipal issues that come up from time to time.
My point is that those cities who think a university is a financial burden ought to consider what their city would be like without any institutions of higher learning. Discounting trolls who claim the city is simply going to devolve into ignorance (citizens can go elsewhere for college-level education and then return.... assuming of course that the kids going away to another town will return), the economic benefit to a city is so huge for having a university in the town that municipal (not state) funding of the university might even make some sense.
Few university students that I have met are so privileged as is implied here. Yes, there are some students who come from very wealthy families and flaunt their cash, but by far and away most students are struggling at or below almost any reasonable poverty guideline (most would qualify for Food Stamps and other social welfare programs), live in sub-standard high density housing, and tend to be engaged in activities that would not necessarily be a huge burden on a city in the first place (aka mostly using mass-transit and on a per-capita basis have a low carbon/energy footprint). Adding in volunteer work by students on the behalf of the community, and economic benefits in the form of internship, low-wage service jobs performed by students (aka staff in restaurants and other service-related businesses, and a ready pool of educated, intelligent employees willing to work for sub-par wages), it is obvious that most college students are effectively taxed anyway. Again, on a per-capita basis if you factor in off-campus housing, I would dare suggest that taxable income generated by a city in terms of property taxes collected for a similar group of people in the same economic/age group is very likely to be higher from college students than from non-college students. So from a pure fiscal standpoint it makes even less sense to impose an additional tax on students based on this rationale as well.
Ultimately a tax is a sign that the students aren't welcome in the community. This will ultimately be reflected in how the students will treat the community (rather harshly, I would suppose), and it would also be something that competing universities would gladly mention if they are trying to recruit students into their school (our town welcomes the students.... unlike Philadelphia who taxes them and wants them to leave).
Just the attitude alone is cause for concern, and would be room to recommend to a board of regents at any school in a city with this attitude to simply stop all capital improvements for its campus and reject any increase in the student population at that school as well. This should include state schools as well.
Parent
Re:dumb idea (Score:4, Interesting)
but if you have a hospital that has that many people coming to it, then it has highly paid employees and families traveling to your city for medical care and professionals for conferences. If you're not making money with tens of thousands of people coming per day from outside your city to spend money there, then you're doing something wrong.
by this line of thinking why not raise taxes on poor people to get them to move out. Then most of the city will be university... or shops and businesses that support university, problem solved with the pesky citizens.
Living in Michigan, I see this difference very clearly between Ann Arbor and East Lansing. In Ann Arbor, the University and Hospital is in the very core of the city. Things going on at UofM are going on in Ann Arbor..students go everywhere in the city for shopping and work, it's well mixed and well connected. In East Lansing the situation is very different, being a land grant school MSU was put on a big empty square miles "in the country" specifically to develop the idea it was "separate" and the city of East Lansing is a little sliver between expensive Lansing suburbs...MSU is probably bigger than the city in raw area from the start. Now they have 30K students living in the middle of nowhere and your closest malls, restaurants are miles away and all the travel goes thru one little "suburb". It's a very "us versus them" attitude I don't see when I talk to people that live/work in Ann Arbor.
Parent
Student effect on economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean students don't pay taxes like other residents? Do they get exemptions from sales and gas taxes? Do their landlords not pay property taxes that get included in the rents they pay? If they take jobs in the city don't they pay state income taxes that get partially recycled to the city?
Parent
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not defending higher taxes, but I want to give some context, Pittsburgh has a high percentage of it's economy that comes from non-profit entities such as universities and hospitals from which they don't collect the same amount of taxes as they would from a for profit company. This has always been a problem for Pittsburgh, even when the economy wasn't bad. And while the students do pay some local taxes (sales taxes, etc) other people who work in Pittsburgh pay those taxes, plus they also pay income taxes. So, in general, students pay less taxes per person compared to other employed people. A fairness argument is tough to gauge though. Is it fair to tax to students on tuition (money that students need to PAY compared to income that they EARN)? Is it fair to charge more to CMU students compared to Pitt students just because they pay more tuition? Are they going to take into account the level of student aid you get? Do students use up the same level of city services as other people who work in the city? They don't tend to drive much. Campuses have their own police forces. This is something that has been coming for some time. I was once audited by the City of Pittsburgh while at CMU because I received a health insurance benefit from a previous employer and they made me prove that I could legitimately file taxes as a resident of another state. They were pretty reasonable about it and didn't end up charging me anything, but I've heard a lot a similar stories. I think another part of it is that many students (particularly at CMU) are from somewhere else and the city sees them as an opportunity to tax "outsiders".
Parent
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Pittsburgh has managed to revive itself very nicely in the past few years, they really managed to clean up and re-image themselves after their steel industry went kaput. It is no longer really fair to compare it to Detroit, which is a shithole now more than ever.
Parent
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:5, Interesting)
The city is just acting stupidly by threatening to tax the students and tuition fees. It should simply reduce police and fire services to the univ neighbourhoods and ask the univs to hire private security for protection and refuse to maintain things like synchronized traffic lights and traffic by pass and other such things.
They do. Both CMU and Pitt have private police forces. And you don't think that things like Pitt games bring venue to the city? The city seems to think so.
Also it should charge market rates for their sewer connections, water supplies and use of public spaces for utilities. The univs will come back begging to give up their tax exempt status and agree to pay real estate taxes like all other residents and businesses are paying. In fact if their tax exempt status is revoked, almost all the businesses and private property owners will see a big reduction in their tax bills.
I would hope you think we should also charge churches real estate taxes. I feel pretty confident all the churches take up more real estate than the universities. I wonder what the public reaction to that would be?
Blame the greedy CMU that charges 48000$ a year from their students,
Greedy? CMU has a *tiny* endowment compared to their status (only 10% of their operating budget). None of student tuition goes to the endowment, its all used to operate the university. And, of course, many students seem very happy to pay it. I wish that universities didn't have to charge that much, but I think it's unfair to call CMU greedy.
refuses to bear its fair share of the cost of providing civic services passing the burden on the shrinking tax base.
It's not the shrinking tax base that's to blame. Its the city mismanagement of it's pension fund [post-gazette.com]. "That need stems from decades of questionable management of the city's pension fund, which holds around one-third of the $899 million it should to cover future obligations."
Parent
Re:Student effect on economy (Score:4, Informative)
CMU already has a private security force, maintains private roads, pays for garbage collection and pays the salaries for police details when they use public spaces. What makes you think they don't pay market rates for sewer and water? You think they are free? Private property owners near a university have higher than average property values due to the demand from students and staff. They would drop dramatically if the university left. You think that would make the owners happy? You should consider getting a college education.
Parent
Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
After thinking about it, I bet the Mayor doesn't care about the truth. He simply wants more money, and if he can sell the average, not-so-bright Pittsburgh voter on the idea that students are "getting a free ride", then he can start vacuuming wallets and making himself... er, his budget wealthier.
Parent
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny that you mention this in the context of Pittsburgh -- Richard Florida wrote a book called 'The Rise of the Creative Class' about that theory -- that having college students gives way to an educated population and a class of creative professionals, from high tech to high finance, that builds prosperity. But Florida's research started when he noticed that he was surrounded by smart, capable young students at CMU, none of whom would be there a year or two after their graduation. His book (with methodology that's easy to critique) tries to show that it's more than just colleges that you need to retain college graduates. You can dispute Florida's findings -- that you need things like bike paths to keep college grads, but his inspiration, that college students leave Pittsburgh, is generally pretty true.
Finding out how to keep college students would go a long way towards solving Pittsburgh's problems -- and kicking them in the pants when they're poor students probably isn't a good way to do that. As a side note: poor college students can frequently get almost fully funded between grants and loans -- including a fair living stipend. If they can't get such financing for the $400 tax, then that's a real burden for the already less-advantaged college studnets trying to make a future for themselves.
Parent
I'm no master politician but... (Score:5, Funny)
...wouldn't just raising the booze tax accomplish the same thing?
Re:I'm no master politician but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy. Just pander to the people who a) don't drink, or b) pretend that they don't. "Sin taxes" are becoming increasingly popular among the holier-than-thou voting crowd who look at it as a way to get everyone else to pay a tax increase while they get off free because "it's bad for you! You deserve it!"
"First they came for the smokers, and I said nothing because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the McNuggets and suddenly I cared because ZOMG MY FREEDOM!"
Parent
pay their 'fair share.' (Score:5, Insightful)
They already do shithead Mayor. Students pay:
- property tax (included in the school's tuition and the dorm room rental fees)
- sales tax (by buying local products)
- gas tax or road tolls (when they drive around)
This story reminds me of Baltimore City Council, which keeps trying to tax neighboring counties on the theory that suburban folks work in the city, or visit the Raven stadium, but don't pay taxes. (Except that they do - via state income tax and sales tax and providing income to stadium/restaurant/other inner city workers.) Same stupid first-order level of thinking. These politicians need to dig deeper.
Re:pay their 'fair share.' (Score:5, Insightful)
These politicians need to dig deeper.
They are...into your pockets.
Parent
Politicians always come up with a bullshit reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>We are going to tax you because.. "blah blah blah blah". No one believes them because they will then turn around and "waste" money the next time.
+1. Here is your typical Pittsburgh (or Philadelphia) politician in action: Timestamp 1:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4rRl5B7NI [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it time to go back to that "no taxation without representation" idea and a big way? I mean as in really... *no taxation without representation* - if they do not let you vote, they can't tax you.
And forget all the justifications what will be raised as to why you *just have to tax* those who can't vote.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We fought the British off (partly) over the issue of taxation without representation, but that isn't the problem here - as we have elected the people who are currently taxing us. (And in most cases continue to re-elect them.)
Students need to do a economic demonstration (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Get $2 bills and dollar coins and use them for all their purchases for two weeks.
2. Then spend a week or two not spending a dime - ideally until they've saved the $400 tax.
3. Publicize it. Write articles in the student paper and letters to the editor.
4. Sit back and watch the results. Lather, rinse and repeat.
5. Profit?
Seriously, students need to show their economic impact on the local community. Using money not normally used will help make that point.
Re:Students need to do a economic demonstration (Score:4, Insightful)
Within 10 days, at the prodding of local bars, clubs, and package stores that had lots the vast majority of their clientele, the Pittsburgh council dropped the student tax proposal.
If we can pull off a similar economic demonstration, like the parent alludes to, then I suspect we'll have trouble telling this Mayor what a moron he is.
Parent
wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pittsburgh gave massive tax cuts to the "very rich" recently?
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
As a CMU student (sort of), this doesn't surprise me, and I invite Luke Ravenstahl to kiss my poor ass. Considering this guy prioritizes money in the most bogo-riffic ways (e.g. spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on fancy trash cans sporting his name [kdka.com]) it seems clear he is not and has not been fit to run the city.
Pittsburgh's new economy is fueled by the universities*. Everybody knows this. Taxing the students---those people least able to pay---is akin to cannibalism.
Of course, what will happen is students will just borrow a bit more and stack on a little more debt. So maybe Luke's idea is to get students to hedge their futures on his present financial problems.
* And the Steelers
Oh the Burden of Soon to be Educated and Employed (Score:4, Insightful)
And while we're at it, we need to tax other non-contributing members of society who place a burden on social services. I'm all for a tax on K-12 students, a tax on pre-schoolers, a tax on the disabled, senior citizens tax, and a tax on people who have crimes committed against them.
After all, with all the student financing available, they'll just pay it with loans right? So it's like we're actually taxing their future income!
Happning in Providence Too (Score:4, Informative)
Now I'm not one to go shouting about the Government and taxes, but student taxes are very clearly a form of regressive taxation. It just doesn't make sense to be trying to take money from a group of people who don't have all that much of it in the first place. But that seems to be the trend of taxation lately, more and more regressive so rich people can keep all of their "hard earned" money.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but the vast bulk of tuition is from out of the local area == free money to the local economy.
Students get money from gov't loans and grants, mom & pop, and almost none of it from the local area. Even most opn-campus student jobs are funded by outside grants. So at a guess each student brings in something like $30K a year into the local economy - that costs the city almost $0 to generate. 3.7 students (the size of the average family) bring in $117,000 - that's a pretty high income brac
Churches (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, we're still not taxing churches...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are easier ways to tax students! (Score:3, Insightful)
In our university town there are already taxes in place which are aimed at students without directly naming them as the objects of the laws. Restaurant taxes, Alcohol taxes, Property taxes on rental units, Parking law enforcement strategically biased to certain areas, etc. The Mayor in question really isn't too bright if he's being so direct.
Why don't they tax. . . (Score:3, Funny)
terrible towels? A 5-10% excise tax on terrible towels would probably bring in millions.
How about some other ideas? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not a politician tax, somewhere around 1% of their annual income, for the privilege of being a politician?
If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
The whole story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Pittsburgh and I'll attest to the fact that downtown Oakland is pretty much CMU, Pitt, and UPMC, and a few establishments that cater to students. There really isn't a whole lot more besides that down there...bunch of bars on the other side of the river in South Side, though.
I'm actually quite surprised that the universities are so completely tax free. Certainly, though, off-campus students are paying property taxes and stuff, yeah?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fine, but I'd still hope the non-profits play hardball and the city loses money in the long run. Pittsburgh's institutions are not nearly so well endowed as Boston's. If they pass the law, institutions like MIT & Harvard will take an interest in the court case. I'd expect that eventually the courts will decide that taxing the users of the services of non-profits is unconstitutional.
Anyway, Pittsburgh has no reason for existing without those non-profit institutions. I assume the city has just failed t
US doens't want students (Score:3, Insightful)
In Norway for instance education is free. Yes FREE. We have excellent universities. For instance, Oslo University ranks at 101 at topuniversities.com. Not only though is it free to study, but the government pays you around 15000 NOK for every semester you complete (for full time students) (2 semesters a year). And not only that, but they give your a further 30000 NOK in loans (per semester) that are interest free until 1 year after you complete your studies.
The way the US treats it's people still puzzles me. Surely putting a strain on people who already have little money to live for just sounds like greed to me.
Re: (Score:3)
I think his point is that students who tend to have a small amount of money shouldn't be taxed since this is a regressive tax and discourages people from poorer backgrounds from going to university. In the UK we have a fairly similar situation where the government will give you loan and grant money. The difference is that the amount fo money which you get is dependent on your parents income so people with parents earning >£60 000 get £3000 loan but people with parents earning £25 000
Short Sighted (Score:3, Insightful)
When Arizona State called asking for money I told them to tell Michael Crow I hope he's happy with his tuition hikes because he's never getting another dime from me. The way I see it, he already stole about $6000 dollars from me (they violated the state constitution to make those increases). I'm not going to voluntarily give more and my daughter will most likely not attend ASU. We're putting away money so she can go anywhere.
Students get a higher eduction, get better jobs, make more money, and pay more taxes which gets put back into the schools.
If we want to focus on "fair" then homeowners with children who don't go to public school need to be except from public school related taxes.
If the government wants their money "now" they better be prepared to lose money later.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell that to my HOA.
I will. (Score:5, Insightful)
(don't tell me how cutting taxes stimulates the economy and raises money and the laffer curve and supply side and fleeing jobs and all that... CA's economy has been "stimulated" in this manner for a generation, and it's still fucked.)
The problems that California have is the result of spending more that it earns. It's as simple as that. The economy was booming and tax revenues went through the roof because of it. Their tax policy, as far as income was concerned, wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, on April 15th in past years, the California legislature sees that huge pile of cash come in and they spent it thinking that California's boom will last forever. The Legislature, especially the liberal Democrats, have no clue about saving for the future or any clue that times do change and there are downturns in an economy.
Every time someone had some sort of project and regardless of its merits, they put money into it. Look now, when they want to cut spending, regardless of where, some special interest protests saying that they are important and the legislature needs to cut somewhere else.
If they had a responsible fiscal plan instead of spending every penny that came in they wouldn't be in this situation.
Laffer said that reducing taxes stimulates the economy as long as government reduces spending to match inflows. The California legislature was too stupid to realize that and they were too beholden to the special interests that always have their hands out for government money.
Parent
Re:A reality check.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, because the many socialist democracies of Europe are well known for taxing students.
Oh, wait, I got that backwards, they're well known for paying students while they're in school and charging them nothing for tuition.
Parent