<p>It seems as though the only one that thinks the article was good was the original poster…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I am always confused about the whole idea of special in-state rates. When you start to poke at it, it’s very sketchy indeed.</p>
<p>It doesn’t relate to being a long-term taxpayer, because it applies to people who have barely paid any taxes at all, and people who have only lived in a state for a year, and it excludes families who may have lived and paid taxes in a state for generations but had a work transfer six months ago. It doesn’t relate to being a current taxpayer. It excludes people who have lived in a state less than a year. Most college students will pay meaningful taxes in the state where they go to college, whether they are in-state of out-of-state for tuition purposes.</p>
<p>It doesn’t relate to legal residency, because everyone applies a waiting period, and makes it impossible for people to get resident status while they are undergraduates, and that isn’t true at all of legal residency.</p>
<p>It doesn’t relate to long-term commitment, because lots of in-state students leave, and lots of out-of-state students wind up settling in the state where they went to college. and in any event, no one even bothers to ask any of the questions that would be relevant to that.</p>
<p>Maybe it relates to states with high levels of investment in public education trying to keep taxpayers from states with low levels of investment from free-riding. And I would believe that if only a handful of states favored residents, or if the higher prices were targeted to residents of states with low investment, but guess what? That’s not what the system looks like.</p>
<p>It’s not like the system is harm-free, either. I suspect it tends to keep low-income students out of state flagships, first by making the in-state flagships especially attractive to students from more affluent families who get a bargain vs. competitive-market rates, second by reducing the funds available for need-based aid (because there will be less subsidization of low-wealth students by high-wealth students), and by ensuring that out-of-state students are almost uniformly affluent. It also, needless to say, reduces the geographic and cultural diversity of the university community. And it seriously inhibits moves that may otherwise be rational, beneficial things, both for the family and for society as a whole.</p>
<p>So what DOES the in-state differential relate to? What important values are served by this system? Mainly, I think, it’s political demagoguery.</p>
<p>My child is 3 years from college. If he gets admission to a college with substantial difference between in-state and out-of-state, I am willing to move to that state. Would that mean, I will have to pay in-state tuition perhaps in the 2nd year in college, after I establish residency? Thanks.</p>
<p>It depends on the school. Some will charge OOS tuition for the entire four years if they start out that way.</p>
<p>Okay, so I contacted UF (Florida) and I am OOS. On the phone, the admissions office told me that you are going to need two of the three things listed: voting registration, vehicle registration and car license. Can anybody verify if this is true. I mean we own businesses down there and still pay taxes and own properties.</p>
<p>My father claims he can get 2/3 of these things.</p>
<p>JHS, I think the instate /out of state rates issue you mention is interesting. Most kids go to their instate schools (I’ve seen about an 80% rate on that but someone may have a more accurate figure). All but the truly wealthy have to be concerned about cost (and even some of the affluent probably are concerned as well). I do believe most people do want/expect some price advantage from their own state.</p>
<p>SEVMOM notes,“I do wonder what taxguy would think , as an apparent Maryland taxpayer, about families using his scheme to get Maryland resident rates for his instate schools-when their kid is clearly only in Maryland for the purpose of attending college. If everybody did this, it would negate the whole idea of instate rates.”</p>
<p>Response: Wonder no more! If someone finds a loophole to get instate Maryland rates for their out of state kid, I would applaud their research. I find it astounding that many people on this site are willing to be sheared financially and are against my using the legal system to help me out or even to help themselves out. I didn’t write the laws or the rules for instate tuition. I live within the rules and use them to my favor, which is what the author of the referenced article was suggesting.</p>
<p>Funny, many people seem to be complaining about my use of the law to my favor yet don’t seem to be as vocal about the ever increasing merit aid vs need based aid? I am sure many people do all kinds of research for financial aid and scholarships, yet I don’t see anyone complaining. I see all kinds of people trying to get a “leg up” on admissions to top colleges such as coming here for advice, advice on essays, advice on scoring higher on SATs and ACTs without anyone complaining. Heck, in my neighborhood, there are a bunch of students who take over 1 year prep courses for the SATs to substantially raise their scores over what they would have gotten without the prep course. I don’t see anyone objecting to this. Why not take advantage of the laws or other techniques to our benefit? This is what rich companies and people do!</p>
<p>
[1009.21</a> - Determination of resident status for tuition purposes. - 2010 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate](<a href=“2010 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate”>Chapter 1009 Section 21 - 2010 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate)</p>
<p>The way I read the statutes, your information is correct but the documents must show residency for 12 months prior to your initial enrollment. Verify before you commit to anything.</p>
<p>taxguy, yes, you’ve mentioned that several times. You’re rich, and you got that way by finding every loophole in every rule and every law, and circumventing the CLEAR intent of the rule/law. So admirable. :rolleyes: But actually, the rich people that I know would never have done something like this. </p>
<p>Let me ask you a simple question. Why do you think state universities don’t just charge the same tuition to everyone regardless of residence? Why distinguish between in-state and out-of-state? </p>
<p>In other words, I’m interested in your take on the reasoning behind THIS particular rule, which you so successfully circumvented.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not the rich people you know, but certainly most I know wouldn’t go out of their way to pay according to the intent of the law. Warren Buffet can’t be accused of not wanting progressive taxation, but he takes extraordinary measures to avoid paying based on “clear intent”. If a rich person buys tax free munis, I don’t know of any case where this is done to help a town out, and it’s always to circumvent the “clear intent” that people should pay taxes on money they receive.</p>
<p>If you’re running a company, your obligations are clearly to your shareholders. If there are loopholes to keep money in the company, regardless of the intent of the rules/law, your job is to take the loopholes. I don’t see why this should be different for taxguy. If he legally kept money to use it the way he wants, more power to him.</p>
<p>Don’t know if this still applies, but interested parties should find out.</p>
<p>Years ago, my father worked in delaware. We lived in delaware and i was accepted to udel. Within a month of high school graduation, the family moved to pennsylvania. My father proclaimed he would not pay out-of-state tuition for delaware. I was forced to delay college and go to a PA school. </p>
<p>Years later we learned that because my father still WORKED in delaware, i would have been able to go as an in-state student.</p>
<p>My father claimed the reason delaware had this policy was because they had sky-high state income tax which funded the university. So even if this still is true for delaware, don’t expect it to be true fir other states. But worth checking…</p>
<p>From the University of Cincinnati website re: tuition. The instate residency guidelines(for tuition purposes) are to give Ohio kids the “benefit of a state-supported education funded largely by the taxpayers of Ohio.” “The residency guidelines are meant to exclude from resident classification those people who are in the state of Ohio primarily for the purpose of receiving the benefit of a state-supported education.”</p>
<p>Sometimes I find the lengths that some rich people go to save a buck rather astounding. </p>
<p>Taxman is here boasting about how he was able to arrange in-state tuition for his daughter to attend a public university that US News ranks at #139. I don’t place a lot of stock in US News rankings, but I will note that my son was promised a full merit scholarship plus an annual stipend at a similarly ranked out-of-state university… and all he ever had to do to qualify for that was score well on a test. Not mentioned in the article, but many public universities will waive out-of-state tuition as a form of merit aid for out-of-state applicants. </p>
<p>My guess is that you would find that the prestige flagship publics that attract a lot of out-of-staters are going to be a lot more skeptical of the “emancipation” scheme. For example, check the California regs at <a href=“UC Legal - Office of the General Counsel | UCOP”>UC Legal - Office of the General Counsel | UCOP; (starting at p. 17) </p>
<p>There is a $15,000 differential between in-state and out of state tuition for the university where Taxman schemed to avoid out-of-state tuition – by gifting more than that amount to his daughter, and also foregoing the ability to write her off off as a dependent for 5 years on his taxes. I realize that there is probably a net savings to him in the end, since he no longer is on the hook to pay for his daughter’s living expenses. </p>
<p>Now maybe the university his daughter attended was her dream school for some reason or another. Maybe it offers a special program that can be found nowhere else. Or maybe Taxman only came up with this idea after d. was accepted and he realized he was uncomfortable paying the full OOS tuition for a university of that caliber, given that it is likely that his own home state offers equal or better education opportunities. I don’t know. I’m not trying to put down the school or the kid. I’m just saying it’s a rather elaborate scheme for a modest reward.</p>
<p>Maybe he and his daughter plan to gift and be great donors-the approximate $60,000 they saved should be very helpful to the University and the state of Ohio!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My rich people wouldn’t either, but that’s not what the OP did. In fact, quite the opposite – he went out of his way to subvert the intent of the rule. Quite obviously, in-state tuition is intended to benefit the residents of the state – the people who support the school by actually living, working, and paying taxes in the state. The OP’s trick was designed to create the illusion that his D was a resident, when in reality she was not. Quoting sevmom for emphasis:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IMO the tax avoidance example isn’t relevant, because tax loopholes are written into law. The OP’s trick only worked because it hadn’t occurred to the school that someone would go to those lengths, and therefore had not specifically prohibited them. And the OP himself senses that if they had known, they would have prevented him. He says that’s why he never said anything about it here on CC until after she graduated. That should at least answer the sneaky question once and for all. He definitely sneaked.</p>
<p>I guess I never had the time or energy or inclination to go to such lengths. Maybe that’s why I’m financially sound but not rich! Would never have dreamed of trying to get instate tuition from a state we had no prior connection to( other than tuition exchange agreements,merit,etc.). I sure hope these kinds of loopholes don’t exist in my state, Virginia. It is hard enough for qualified Virginia kids to get into our best schools, let alone having out of state families getting an admissions or tuition advantage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree 100 percent.
I always thought in-state tuition was a dumb idea.
We all do live in the same country after all.</p>
<p>GolfFather, It was JHS who said that in-state rates are a very sketchy idea.</p>
<p>There is a long history related to public college education (land grants,etc.). States provide the land, physical plant, original buildings,etc.) Doesn’t seem sketchy to me at all but maybe I’m missing something and that may be a different topic/discussion.</p>
<p>I prefer taxguy’s standard of ‘does it work under the letter of the law?’ over the idea that we should base decisions on framer’s intent. For example, the following interpretation raises further ethical dilemmas in my mind:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What about poorer residents who receive more from the state in social services than they pay in taxes?
What about people who moved to a state for reasons other than college but do not intend to stay long-term?
What about students who are paying for their own education and simply have no idea where they plan to live?</p>
<p>See the questions JHS posed above. Residency is a tricky topic when we all have the right to move about as we see fit.</p>
<p>I’m not necessarily giving an OK to all of these strategies, but the idea of skirting the intent of an ethically questionable rule doesn’t bother me nearly as much as some other parts of this whole process.</p>
<p>I don’t think the rule is ethically questionable. The rules in most states are pretty straightforward- Public U’s are supported by the citizens of that state. Residents therefore get preferential treatment when it comes to paying for their kids to attend those universities. I fail to see what is ethically questionable. The fact that on the margin, there may be some families where their situations are not straightforward (military families, joint custody arrangements, etc.) doesn’t make the rules themselves all that complicated.</p>